Teeder11 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Oh, I truly believe the IPF money is there. What's holding things up is that UND and the donor(s) have a dilemma on their hands as far as how to give the University the money and ensure that it goes to its intended purpose and not be forced to use it for other academic and infrastructure needs that UND is asking the Legislature to fund. The dilemma, in short, is: how do you ask the state to pony up for important things like a new medical school, etc., when you are getting big donations from donors for recreational needs like athletics? The short-sighted, anti-higher ed lawmakers, especially the ones out west in Tioga, Watford City, Hazen and the like, will have a hard time loosening up their purse strings if there is an appearance that UND is getting millions in donations for "mere athletics." They would say "Why not use the donations for athletics to move other money around (legally) to fund some of these other projects internally instead of asking the state for more money? It's a PR perception thing that will be hard to overcome. I am sure there are other technical matters holding things up, but that's my slightly educated read on things. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 It might be more plausible to expect an announcement in late April/early May -- before graduation-- and after the 2013 legislative session has adjourned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 It might be more plausible to expect an announcement in late April/early May -- before graduation-- and after the 2013 legislative session has adjourned. Literally been hearing that for three years. I believe a favorite is "homecoming announcement". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Faison on the radio today made it sound like we shouldn't be holding our breathe. A caller asked about the IPF. Faison said something like "If you got $21 Million we would be ready to go. The money is not there. We have put out a couple requests to big donors but haven't gotten anything back yet." I posted this a year ago in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I posted this a year ago in this thread. You have to remember, some of these people think that all wealthy alumni are like Ralph and give boatloads of cash and that money is not hard to come buy. People should remember when it comes to UND football, it is not easy like it is for hockey to raise funds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 You have to remember, some of these people think that all wealthy alumni are like Ralph and give boatloads of cash and that money is not hard to come buy. People should remember when it comes to UND football, it is not easy like it is for hockey to raise funds. And you are now an expert on UND football donors. It is amazing the things that you think you know. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 And you are now an expert on UND football donors. It is amazing the things that you think you know. IPF still isn't even started. That says enough about UND football donors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 IPF still isn't even started. That says enough about UND football donors. About as much as ndsu donors for all sports and BSA. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 About as much as ndsu donors for all sports and BSA. I never boasted about NDSU's ability to raise funds. I think it would be extremely difficult for either school to raise the money to build a stadium with a retractable roof without the state paying for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 UND has had some other issues getting in the way of fund raising the past few years, especially for athletics. In spite of that the school is well on the way to completing the Foundation's fundraising goal. UND has several other very wealthy donors that have shown at least some interest in helping with some major projects. I don't know when, or even if, they will make the donations, but they certainly have the ability and potentially some interest. Major fundraising isn't as easy, or as cut and dried as you and your pals at Bville seem to believe. It is a delicate and time-consuming process. Donors give on their own schedule, and for their own reasons. It takes a great deal of patience. Major donations usually take years to ferment. They don't happen overnight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFG Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Has anyone been to TCF stadium in the Twin Cities? I have heard they have heaters there that help. Any REAL feedback on that? I assume the Packers have that also... I dont know if Lambeau has it. TCF has heating coals underneath the field now for cold weather games because of the Vikings. I personally haven't noticed any heaters around the concourse level at TCF when it's cold. I really don't care, though. Outdoor football is 100% better than indoor football, even if it is cold outside. I like UND football, but I can't stand the Alerus Center for a football game. There's something about it that just makes the game boring, and I think the closed roof is a big reason for that. You continue to imply that money is no obstacle. Just look how long it is taking to raise the necessary $ for the IPF. Even with a couple of large donations, where you are going to find this kind of $? Don't mean to argue, but I have a strong feeling donors would be much more willing to donate for a brand new football stadium vs. an IPF. Not to mention the money UND can recieve for naming rights for a new stadium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFG Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 TCF Bank stadium cost $300,000,000 to build a few years ago. The cost would be another $30-40,000,000 if they started now. It seats just over 50,000. Cut the building in half and it would cost more than $150,000,000 without a roof. Add $100,000,000 for a roof. A college football roof isn't going to cost much less than a pro football roof, the roof still has to operate and hold snow. Maybe cut it in half if it is a regular dome and not retractable.. But it is going to be over $200,000,000 if they started now, and probably over $300,000,000 if they start it in 10-12 years. The U of North Texas just built a 32,000+ seat stadium for $78million, so no UND's wouldn't have to be insanely expensive like you're saying. That would be if they want all the bells and whistles with it. A retractable roof isn't $100million, in fact they were looking at getting a $40million retractable roof for the Vikings new stadium at one point. Also, it should be known that the University of Minnesota only paid for 52% of TCF, and the state of Minnesota paid for the other 48%. If UND can get some sort of deal like that they can afford to make a pretty nice stadium (they should be able to get some sort of deal with the amount of money the state of North Dakota will have). The cost of TCF is different than most stadiums as well. It's considered one of the nicest stadiums in college football, despite its small size. It has the largest locker room in college and professional football. The giant video board alone at TCF was over $9million. It was the first football stadium, college or professional, to be LEED certified. There's just a ton of small things like that, that drove the price of TCF much higher than it had to be. Without all the small bells and whistles they could have built a stadium that seats 50,000 people for $150million or less. Using capacity as what you think the cost should be is wrong. Cowboys Stadium only holds 80,000 people but cost $1.3billion. Minnesota EASILY could have built a 80,000 capacity stadium at a VERY small percentage of what that stadium cost. Like I said, it's the bells and whistles and other amenities that drive the price up, not what the capacity of the stadium is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) The U of North Texas just built a 32,000+ seat stadium for $78million, so no UND's wouldn't have to be insanely expensive like you're saying. That would be if they want all the bells and whistles with it. A retractable roof isn't $100million, in fact they were looking at getting a $40million retractable roof for the Vikings new stadium at one point. Also, it should be known that the University of Minnesota only paid for 52% of TCF, and the state of Minnesota paid for the other 48%. If UND can get some sort of deal like that they can afford to make a pretty nice stadium (they should be able to get some sort of deal with the amount of money the state of North Dakota will have). The cost of TCF is different than most stadiums as well. It's considered one of the nicest stadiums in college football, despite its small size. It has the largest locker room in college and professional football. The giant video board alone at TCF was over $9million. It was the first football stadium, college or professional, to be LEED certified. There's just a ton of small things like that, that drove the price of TCF much higher than it had to be. Without all the small bells and whistles they could have built a stadium that seats 50,000 people for $150million or less. Using capacity as what you think the cost should be is wrong. Cowboys Stadium only holds 80,000 people but cost $1.3billion. Minnesota EASILY could have built a 80,000 capacity stadium at a VERY small percentage of what that stadium cost. Like I said, it's the bells and whistles and other amenities that drive the price up, not what the capacity of the stadium is. The $40,000,000 that the Vikings are looking at is to change from a regular roof to a retractable roof. In other words, that's the extra cost to make the roof open. To go from no roof to retractable roof is going to add at least $100,000,000. Besides the roof, the rest of the stadium would have to be made stronger to support the roof. I completely understand that the capacity is not directly related to cost. I just tried to use TCF as an example because it was regional and recent. I could have used the $1,000,000,000 that the Vikings stadium is going to cost, but that is a totally different animal. But it makes it easier to illustrate a point if you can use facilities that people can understand. It is possible that an outdoor stadium could be done for under $100,000,000. It would probably cost more than the North Texas stadium because of increasing construction costs, and because of building in a more northern climate. But the real cost would be having the roof, especially a retractable roof. That is going to push the cost over $200,000,000. It also makes the facility much more usable. You can build anything from a Yugo to a Ferrari, it just depends on how much you are willing to put into it. But you can't deny that putting a retractable roof on a stadium is going to add a huge cost compared to a stadium without a roof. And the discussion in this thread has included having a retractable roof. And by the way, North Dakota has so far refused to pay for any athletic facilities at the large colleges for at least 40 years so no one is going to hold their breath waiting for the state to pay for any part of a stadium. Edited August 1, 2012 by 82SiouxGuy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFG Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The $40,000,000 that the Vikings are looking at is to change from a regular roof to a retractable roof. In other words, that's the extra cost to make the roof open. To go from no roof to retractable roof is going to add at least $100,000,000. Besides the roof, the rest of the stadium would have to be made stronger to support the roof. I completely understand that the capacity is not directly related to cost. I just tried to use TCF as an example because it was regional and recent. I could have used the $1,000,000,000 that the Vikings stadium is going to cost, but that is a totally different animal. But it makes it easier to illustrate a point if you can use facilities that people can understand. It is possible that an outdoor stadium could be done for under $100,000,000. It would probably cost more than the North Texas stadium because of increasing construction costs, and because of building in a more northern climate. But the real cost would be having the roof, especially a retractable roof. That is going to push the cost over $200,000,000. It also makes the facility much more usable. You can build anything from a Yugo to a Ferrari, it just depends on how much you are willing to put into it. But you can't deny that putting a retractable roof on a stadium is going to add a huge cost compared to a stadium without a roof. And the discussion in this thread has included having a retractable roof. And by the way, North Dakota has so far refused to pay for any athletic facilities at the large colleges for at least 40 years so no one is going to hold their breath waiting for the state to pay for any part of a stadium. Aww, didn't see that it was $40million to change from a regular to retractable. So it would probably cost somewhere between $60-$80million if they put it on right away since they wouldn't have to pay to take down the closed roof and it wouldn't be as big as the Vikings roof would have been. The retractable roof would definitely be a very large price, but I really think that if UND can prove they're a contender every year in the next decade there will probably be a large movement to build an on-campus stadium again and, although it costs a lot more, a retractable roof would be the best way to go with our environment. You never know, by that time the technology could have advanced much further, making one by todays standards MUCH cheaper. The last 40 years are far different than what the state of North Dakota is going to experience budget wise for at least the next half century. The state is going to have far more money than it will know what to do with. The last 40 years they were smart with their spending and not giving the universities money for athletics because they didn't want to risk ending up with a large budget deficit. Going forward I would expect things to change with all the oil money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The Vikings aren't getting a retractable roof unless Wilf pays100% of the increased costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The last 40 years are far different than what the state of North Dakota is going to experience budget wise for at least the next half century. The state is going to have far more money than it will know what to do with. The last 40 years they were smart with their spending and not giving the universities money for athletics because they didn't want to risk ending up with a large budget deficit. Going forward I would expect things to change with all the oil money. The problem may not be the amount of money available, it will be the attitudes of the citizens. There is a significant size group that doesn't like the government spending money. And that group keeps electing the government officials. That is going to have to change before they will start spending money on what they would consider "frills". Much of that group also hates higher education. They don't even want to pay for classrooms, they aren't going to buy stadiums any time soon. But I hope that the attitudes change, especially if the state does continue to be very successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The Vikings aren't getting a retractable roof unless Wilf pays100% of the increased costs. That was spelled out in the legislation. The Vikings are very strongly considering the retractable option because it would make the building more appealing. If it comes in around $40,000,000 I think they will do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Outdoor football is 100% better than indoor football, even if it is cold outside. I like UND football, but I can't stand the Alerus Center for a football game. There's something about it that just makes the game boring, and I think the closed roof is a big reason for that. Just out of curiosity, did you ever attend football games at the Alerus in the early part of the decade? It has been a terribly sterile environment the last 5 years or so for various reasons, but from about 2001 to 2007, I felt it was an extremely excitable venue for football. When near capacity with a raucous crowd it can be deafening in there, and I attribute alot of that to the closed roof. Personally, I prefer indoor football in UND's situation.............. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Personally, I prefer indoor football in UND's situation.............. both indoor and outdoor have benefits. I like indoor. More enjoyable to watch the playoffs in a controlled climate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Indoor is definitely more "family friendly". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The only con about an outdoor stadium is bad weather. If its a nice fall day temps in the 60's a light breeze then no problem, but 10 degrees, snow and wind chills at -15 then you wish you had a dome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 Appears SDSU has made a leap forward on their plans for an indoor facility. http://www.argusleader.com/article/20120803/UPDATES/120803003/Sanford-gifts-10M-SDSU-new-campus-facilities?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CHome&gcheck=1&nclick_check=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Appears SDSU has made a leap forward on their plans for an indoor facility. http://www.arguslead...&nclick_check=1 A Great Leap Forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 For some reason I just like this smilie. Maybe it's the action. Maybe it's the color scheme. Maybe it's the combination of both. Your thoughts, Johnboy? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 For some reason I just like this smilie. Maybe it's the action. Maybe it's the color scheme. Maybe it's the combination of both. Your thoughts, Johnboy? I imagine there are quite a few posters on here who wouldn't mind being the green guy and me being the yellow one. Nice find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.