Let the OCS MEGA-THREAD begin!

[Dhambuc]

I suppose the NOON games are considered Hot and some might need shade, but the 330 or later games are no excuse ( for most of the BULLS fans who sit on the West Side of the stadium)  Sun sets behind the stadium by the 2nd qt.

 

 

Heat, and Sun don't seem to be a problem for the Bucs either who use the same stadium and play a MAJORITY of their games at 1pm.

 

 

We could have a dome stadium with cliamate controlled seats and  some of our fan base would complain,      USF fans being  Typical USF fans

Edited December 22, 2014 by Dhambuc

[SANJAY]

[Knight_Light]

 

 

 

 

 

They've been very open about the search process. What if they find that they don't want to do it?

People will continue and continue to ask about it even after it is "settled".

Bull Daly will have to be put on suicide watch.

 

It would be the death of USF football if they never get an OCS. I just dont see how it could survive without one with the cost of playing in RJS. We just cant draw enough fans to keep on paying rent for RJS. And you can bet that the new contract with Glazers wont be good for USF. So I am pretty sure that Harlan will see this and know that USF will need an OCS just to survive and keep up.

 

 

RayJay = around $1 million per year

OCS = around $1 million per month

 

Everyone who has ever bought a home knows it's always cheaper to rent.

 

Look, there are dozens of reasons why an OCS would be better than RayJay, but cost will never be one of them.

Long term always makes sense to buy rather then rent, once you're certain what you want.

 

 

BETTER ?   Hell yes.

 

CHEAPER?  Hell no.

 

 

Why do you know major programs are pouring hundreds of millions of $$$ into renovated and/or new on-campus stadiums? (Heck, or even minor or smaller programs at Div I and Div I-AA that have built new facilities too?)

Because they know they will REAP the benefits (i.e. $$$)  of the new facilities for decades (up to a Century or more) to come.

 

In the SHORT RUN, yes, renting might be less...but the revenues (and more importantly, DONATIONS) that pour into new on-campus facilities for decades and decades to come will far outweigh any initial costs associated with building a new on-campus stadium. (let alone all of the other major benefits of having your own facility, on your own campus).

 

Every study shows that alumni that VISIT/Comeback to their campus donate more $$$$ vs those that don't come back to campus...and the #1 activity/event to bring alumni back to campus for most schools is an ON-CAMPUS FOOTBALL GAME.

 

Get alumni back to campus for decades...and centuries...the $$$$ will soon follow from them (much more so than those that never come back)

[Sellular1]

They've been very open about the search process. What if they find that they don't want to do it?

People will continue and continue to ask about it even after it is "settled".

Bull Daly will have to be put on suicide watch.

 

It would be the death of USF football if they never get an OCS. I just dont see how it could survive without one with the cost of playing in RJS. We just cant draw enough fans to keep on paying rent for RJS. And you can bet that the new contract with Glazers wont be good for USF. So I am pretty sure that Harlan will see this and know that USF will need an OCS just to survive and keep up.

 

 

RayJay = around $1 million per year

OCS = around $1 million per month

 

Everyone who has ever bought a home knows it's always cheaper to rent.

 

Look, there are dozens of reasons why an OCS would be better than RayJay, but cost will never be one of them.

Long term always makes sense to buy rather then rent, once you're certain what you want.

 

BETTER ?   Hell yes.

 

CHEAPER?  Hell no.

 

Why do you know major programs are pouring hundreds of millions of $$$ into renovated and/or new on-campus stadiums? (Heck, or even minor or smaller programs at Div I and Div I-AA that have built new facilities too?)

Because they know they will REAP the benefits (i.e. $$$)  of the new facilities for decades (up to a Century or more) to come.

 

In the SHORT RUN, yes, renting might be less...but the revenues (and more importantly, DONATIONS) that pour into new on-campus facilities for decades and decades to come will far outweigh any initial costs associated with building a new on-campus stadium. (let alone all of the other major benefits of having your own facility, on your own campus).

 

Every study shows that alumni that VISIT/Comeback to their campus donate more $$$$ vs those that don't come back to campus...and the #1 activity/event to bring alumni back to campus for most schools is an ON-CAMPUS FOOTBALL GAME.

 

Get alumni back to campus for decades...and centuries...the $$$$ will soon follow from them (much more so than those that never come back)

I agree with you, but even I know better than to claim "every study" shows the same thing.

[slick1ru2]

All other things being equal, it's always going to be cheaper to buy than rent, if you intend to use something for its entire life cycle

 

Why?

 

Simple, when renting you have to pay a profit to the owner. When owning, that money can be used for other purposes.

Cal needs your expert advice. http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/Cal-scrambling-to-cover-stadium-bill-4604221.php

 

Cali is a messed up state. They dont know how to budget. They are terrible at finance. No wonder that state has been in debt so bad.

Read the expert in stadium financing at the end. Michigan and Texas can't raise the money for new stadiums. Building a stadium now is dumb. There is only one approved in all of FBS at this time. Only about 10% of the FBS stadiums have been built since 1990, the vast majority were built when it was much cheaper and people actually went to games.

 

Notice I never said anything about overpaying for a white elephant! LOL

 

But I did think of one way it MIGHT be cheaper to rent than own - even when using it for the full life cycle.

 

If you rent from a property management company that has expertise and economies of scale in maintenance and upkeep, it is POSSIBLE that the cost of upkeep + profits for them might actually be less than the cost of upkeep alone for you.

 

Otherwise I can't think of anything that would make renting cheaper than owning - all else equal (i.e. white elephants!) - for the entire life of the property

You can sell a house or office building. There is no market for a used OCS so again, it's apples and oranges.

[CousinRicky]

You can rent white elephants?

 

Not sure if they have white ones but check with these people http://havetrunkwilltravel.com/

[charsibb]

They even play soccer!

 

[slick1ru2]

CNN had a blurb questioning if there will still be football in 20 years or will it be litigated out of existence due to the head injury issue. The NFL said it expects roughly a quarter of their players to be effected with brain injury issues. That is a huge number. Football may be going the way of lawn darts. And before someone says too much money involved, I suggest you watch the movie Erin Brochovich. The bigger the money involved, the more the litigating attorneys make.

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/mkdn-luckasevic-concussion-nfl/

So, I'm not sure what good an OCS would be without football.

Edited January 2, 2015 by slick1ru2

[CPR]

We get it, you don't want an OCS.

[slick1ru2]

We get it, you don't want an OCS.

 

I don't want it bankrupting the athletics department.