[NU Sports] Sports Facilities

Tue Oct 20 15:33:34 CDT 2009

I'd like to specifically respond to a couple points:

-- The importance of gameday atmosphere to recruits:

Facilities are important to recruits, and NU has training facilities on par
with the average FBS/I-A institution, which makes that a wash.  Yes, gameday
atmosphere is nice, but recruits want playing time and the ability to be
noticed.  NU offers both of those things: look how many star recruits come
in and play right away (like 4-star OL Patrick Ward, who has played this
year as a true freshman - how many times do you see a true freshman OL on
the field?) AND they get to play on national TV for at least 10 games a
year.  Who cares how many people are in the stands when plenty (including
scouts) can just watch on TV and/or see the replay online, and if it's
really good watch it on SportsCenter.  If they went to other schools they
could be riding the bench or stuck on PPV or no TV.

-- "Would you please supply an example, collegiate or professional, where
new facilities built in recent years for major sports have NOT led to an
immediate increase in attendance?"

Stanford.  Most consider them a "peer" institution (academic-focused private
school in a BCS conference, and are also in a major metropolitan area), so I
would consider them a pretty good comparison.  Plus, they rehauled their
stadium between the '05 and '06 seasons (few major colleges have moved into
new stadiums recently).  Yes, technically it's the same stadium name, but it
was completely overhauled and looks nothing like the old one (two tier
seating with a brand new structure versus the old giant bowl).  Note that
the capacity was reduced from 85,500 to 50,000 as part of the renovation (a
reduction in capacity is something that many have put out there for NU).

*Pre-Renovation*
2000-2005, Stanford averaged 42,108/game in attendance (for comparison sake,
their winning percentage was 0.433 in that span).

*Post-Renovation*
2006-2009 (through 7 total games), Stanford averaged 38,168/game in
attendance (winning % of 0.326).

That's a DROP in attendance of 9.4%  Attendance actually dropped every year
from the final pre-renovation year (2005) through last year.  It's up a
little bit this year (vs. previous year), but only through 3 home games, and
is still below the 2005 level (by about 6,000).

[I admit that their winning percentage is down a bit (0.11 percentage points
or so), but there was always that upset over USC that could have sparked
interest, but didn't.]

I think that example perfectly meets your criteria.

-- Feasibility/Affordability

Pro sports teams and even large state colleges have done a good job of
forcing cities/counties/states into funding their projects.  I agree that
most of the time it doesn't make financial sense, except for the owner of
the team who gets more revenue (luxury seating, PSLs, etc.).

NU, meanwhile, just isn't in a position to say we want a new stadium then
hold everyone hostage until NU gets one.  I agree that NU has many financial
resources as evidenced by the recent successful fund-raising drives, but if
these NU supporters won't even come to football games, I sincerely doubt
they'll fork over money to build a brand new stadium.  Plus, academic
buildings benefited from corporate sponsors (most of whom would be hard
pressed to sponsor a stadium) and naming rights (which have already been
sold off once recently despite NU pledging to name the field after its
original planner forever).

-- Additional Lakefill

Sorry, it ain't going to happen.  Like I mentioned in my previous message,
NU's attempts to fill in a PART of the lagoon were met with student
protests, Evanston issues, and an Illinois EPA freezing of the process which
eventually ground the project to a halt.  Do I want NU to be able to
expand?  Yes.  But, I'm a realist and know that it's not going to happen,
and definitely not for a stadium.

-- Recruiting

I agree that Fitz has been and will continue to up NU's recruiting status.
But, I don't believe NU will ever become a "football factory" because there
just aren't enough high caliber recruits who meet NU's academic standards to
go around.  NU will have to continue to develop players, something that
they've done very well over the last decade and a half.  Again, I would love
to see NU reload the way OSU always seems to do, but I'm a realist and know
it's not going to happen like that every year.  But, hopefully Fitz can
bring the floor up so that a bad year for NU is still a bowl year - I think
that's entirely possible.

-- Do New Stadiums Help Recruiting?

Like I mentioned above, at major college football schools it's hard to tell
since there aren't many new ones around.  Minnesota's is too new to really
evaluate, and the upgrade in recruiting there could be linked to their new
head coach (although the results on the field aren't too much different than
his predecessor).  I won't go into "mid-major" stadiums since there really
isn't a fair comparison with NU in terms of conference and metropolitan
area.

I'd say winning, coaches' personal relationships with the recruit,
conference caliber, exposure (including TV), and track record of putting
guys into the NFL all likely come before how nice the stadium is -
especially since the players spend relatively little time in the stadium
itself, instead using the training facilities the vast majority of the time.

In conclusion, I, too, would love to have a brand new on-campus stadium to
show off (and hopefully fill up), but the realistic side of me says it's
just not going to happen anytime soon, and it also wouldn't magically fix
NU's problems (attendance, winning).

Jonathan

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Dennis W. Brandt <tbng at comcast.net> wrote:

> < While I would imagine gameday atmosphere is important to recruits, I
> would argue it seems to be of minimal importance to most of them.
>
> Did you really say that?  Hard to believe.  Don't build it and they will
> come anyway.  Except, of course, they're not.
>
> <And I can certainly say that building brand new facilities on campus (or
> wherever since there is no room on campus) would NOT suddenly increase
> attendance on its own.
>
> Would you please supply an example, collegiate or professional, where new
> facilities built in recent years for major sports have NOT led to an
> immediate increase in attendance?
>
> <[A new stadium is] not feasible, not affordable, and doesn't make any
> sense.
>
> If building a new stadium "doesn't make any sense," then there are a lot of
> senseless people in this country traveling to a lot of senseless, new
> stadiums.  Even here in York, Pennsylvania, the downtown community built a
> new baseball stadium to house an independent league team for which there was
> no existing following, and it's working.  You mean Northwestern, uniquely
> among the nations' universities, is incapable of raising funds for a new
> stadium when they not long ago exceeded a billion-dollar fundraising goal?
>  As to feasibility, roughly half the Northwestern campus is built on what
> was lake when I went there.  Screw the greenies and take some more of the
> lake.  Believe me, the west side of Sheboygan will not suddenly find itself
> transformed lake-front property.  If there is a will in the university
> administration to do this, it will get done.
>
> <It may also attract a recruit or two.
>
> That could lead to a championship right there, and you just contradicted
> yourself.
>
> <NU can't just bring in class after class of "5-star" guys.
>
> This is just one of the topics on which you pose challenges as if they were
> insurmountable obstacles.  Someone is always around to say it can't be done.
>  Ever been done?  Nope.  A great challenge?  Yep.  But there is no reason,
> for example, we can't cut heavily into Notre Dame's vaunted but
> poorly-coached recruiting classes given that the glory of South Bend is not
> what it once was.  I believe Fitz WILL recruit better talent, but it will
> take time, and he can't do it alone.
>
>  <[Fitz] has this year's team in the hunt for a third consecutive year of
> bowl eligibility for the first time ever at NU.
>
> "In the hunt" is no longer acceptable.  In 1995 it was.  Even in 2000 it
> was.  No more.  It's time to enter every season knowing we will bag a buck.
>  The only remaining question should be how many points are on the antlers.
>
> <And using a recruiting argument to support a stadium just doesn't work.
>
> Why?  Because Jonathan says it won't?
>
> P.S.  We need a new, on-campus basketball arena, too.
>
> _______________________________________________
> nwu-sports site list
> nwu-sports at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>