ADVERTISEMENT

Facilities

C.K. Ocsevol-Evad

Silver Buffalo
Jul 7, 2010
1,064
517
113
@oldeherd , since the mods again did a poor job moderating and stopped a conversation . . .

oldeherd said:
Something is missing in the "logic" in the above argument. If Abilene Christian gets $45 million plus millions more for a new football stadium, That certainly should mean that it will have better football facilities once that money is spent on said stadium. These massive sums spent on football facilities are NOT just a one year snapshot; rather they provide the spending institutions a decided, ongoing edge in facilities once the sums are spent on the stadium projects and the projects are completed. The massive sums spent by the schools mentioned, like Texas A&M, Oklahoma, OK State, etc. on renovating and upgrading, enlarging, etc, their respective stadium facilities are surely not meant to be a one year improvement, but will provide said schools with top level facilities for years, perhaps decades, to come.

Of course, from a budgetary argument, yes a one year significant gift of substantial $$$$ will be just that, a one year deal (unless the donor spreads the gift over several years for tax and other reasons). The large $$$$ gifts MU received from Justice and Cline for the IPF certainly don't mean that MU's athletic budget will be as substantial every year as it was in the year those gifts were received (absent other similar large gifts being received in the succeeding years, which would be nice from the Herd's standpoint).

Seems an argument of apples v. oranges: annual athletic budgets v. the ongoing, multi year benefit of a large athletic capital project coming to fruition. Surely the folks at Abilene Christian expect a multi year improvement in their football facilities from the amount of money received and being expended on same. Certainly not a one year "snapshot" benefit, to be sure!

No. Abilene Christian getting a one time gift of $45 million (and an additional $8 million the same year) does not mean their facilities are better than Marshall's.

Beefcake looked at one year's numbers in reaching his conclusion. If he were to reach the conclusion he tried making after next year's numbers, he would be forced to believe that ACU has better facilities than Marshall in football since they had revenue and expenses nearly twice as much. But that's not the case.

This isn't rocket science here. You can't logically make the conclusion that beefcake did for a few reasons, one of which is that a one year snapshot is extremely misleading.

Let me dumb it down for you.

Next year, ACU will show revenue and expenses around $65 million each. Marshall will be around $30 million. What Beefcake did was look at one year of numbers and make a judgement on that. He claimed that since Marshall didn't have as much of a budget as another school based on one year of numbers, it somehow represented the an accurate picture. After next year, he would have to argue that Marshall is doing an even better job because their budget is half as much as ACU's yet still have better football facilities than ACU.

What he (and you) fail to realize is how a one year snapshot is misleading.

Look at the big picture: who do you think will have the better football facilities assuming the budgets below?

2015:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2016:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2017:
ACU $55 million
MU $30 million

2018:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2019:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2020:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2021:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2022:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2023:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2024:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million


Over that ten year span, ACU had a "budget" of $145 million. Marshall had a budget of $300 million. If all other factors are the same (which they aren't, hence my two other reasons why beefcake's conclusion was illogical), who should have better facilities? Marshall. Yet, if you look at just a snapshot of 2017 (one year), beefcake's attempt at logic states just the opposite.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clarence Woodworth
@oldeherd , since the mods again did a poor job moderating and stopped a conversation . . .



No. Abilene Christian getting a one time gift of $45 million (and an additional $8 million the same year) does not mean their facilities are better than Marshall's.

Beefcake looked at one year's numbers in reaching his conclusion. If he were to reach the conclusion he tried making after next year's numbers, he would be forced to believe that ACU has better facilities than Marshall in football since they had revenue and expenses nearly twice as much. But that's not the case.

This isn't rocket science here. You can't logically make the conclusion that beefcake did for a few reasons, one of which is that a one year snapshot is extremely misleading.

Let me dumb it down for you.

Next year, ACU will show revenue and expenses around $65 million each. Marshall will be around $30 million. What Beefcake did was look at one year of numbers and make a judgement on that. He claimed that since Marshall didn't have as much of a budget as another school based on one year of numbers, it somehow represented the an accurate picture. After next year, he would have to argue that Marshall is doing an even better job because their budget is half as much as ACU's yet still have better football facilities than ACU.

What he (and you) fail to realize is how a one year snapshot is misleading.

Look at the big picture: who do you think will have the better football facilities assuming the budgets below?

2015:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2016:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2017:
ACU $55 million
MU $30 million

2018:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2019:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2020:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2021:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2022:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2023:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million

2024:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million


Over that ten year span, ACU had a "budget" of $145 million. Marshall had a budget of $300 million. If all other factors are the same (which they aren't, hence my two other reason why beefcake's conclusion was illogical), who should have better facilities? Marshall. Yet, if you look at just a snapshot of 2017 (one year), beefcake's attempt at logic states just the opposite.

But CK, once AC builds the new stadium, it is in place for YEARS thereafter. Their 10 million budget doesn't ALL go to facilities; its for salaries, scholarships, etc., not just for facilities. Their new stadium is in place NOT just for a particular budget year, but for many years after it is completed and in use.

You seem to be saying that, for example, if Ohio U has twice the budget for football than MU, then it has to have better football facilities. When MU put its new stadium in place in the early 90s, it was a hell of a lot better facility than Peden Stadium. Are you saying that Peden Stadium and OU's facilities are better than MU's today because their football budget is larger than MU's? Since the early 90s maybe OU has concentrated more on other facilities, track, baseball, etc. They have built a new indoor facility, but so has the Herd. Just using budget differentials doesn't support your argument. If you can break out specific dollar amounts from each school's annual budgets that show that one school spends a lot more than the other on capital projects year after year, then, yes, your argument would be more valid. If OU since the early 90s spend $5 million a year on athletic facilities yearly and MU spends $300,000, then, sure, you could reasonably say that in 2017, the Bobcats should have better facilities. Just the raw budget figures won't support your contention. Have dumbed it down as far as possible for you; maybe I have succeeded in reaching your comprehension level.

Have a nice day! :)
 
But CK, once AC builds the new stadium, it is in place for YEARS thereafter. Their 10 million budget doesn't ALL go to facilities; its for salaries, scholarships, etc., not just for facilities. Their new stadium is in place NOT just for a particular budget year, but for many years after it is completed and in use.

You seem to be saying that, for example, if Ohio U has twice the budget for football than MU, then it has to have better football facilities. When MU put its new stadium in place in the early 90s, it was a hell of a lot better facility than Peden Stadium. Are you saying that Peden Stadium and OU's facilities are better than MU's today because their football budget is larger than MU's? Since the early 90s maybe OU has concentrated more on other facilities, track, baseball, etc. They have built a new indoor facility, but so has the Herd. Just using budget differentials doesn't support your argument. If you can break out specific dollar amounts from each school's annual budgets that show that one school spends a lot more than the other on capital projects year after year, then, yes, your argument would be more valid. If OU since the early 90s spend $5 million a year on athletic facilities yearly and MU spends $300,000, then, sure, you could reasonably say that in 2017, the Bobcats should have better facilities. Just the raw budget figures won't support your contention. Have dumbed it down as far as possible for you; maybe I have succeeded in reaching your comprehension level.

Have a nice day! :)

You are restating exactly what I said to Beefcake about why his conclusion is illogical. You are entirely agreeing with two of the reasons I listed why Beefcake's conclusion was illogical, yet you're somehow trying to defend his stance and argue against mine (even though my stance is EXACTLY the same as what you are arguing).

Some of you try to argue with me just to be antagonistic against me and it makes you appear to lack reading comprehension.

Go back and read the thread which was locked. Look at what I said multiple times to Beefcake. What you just said is exactly the same as some of the reasons his conclusion was illogical.

You can't just look at one year's budget because they fluctuate so much year to year at times. You can't judge football facilities based on overall athletic budget because you have no idea how much of that overall athletic budget is apportioned strictly to football.

The fact that you're agreeing exactly with what I have said, yet leaves you attempting to debate me on this, shows a lot.
 
The mods should just do nothing and allow one poster to ruin board
 
The mods should just do nothing and allow one poster to ruin board

You continue to not notice a basic trend. I don't go after posters until they do it first. The locked thread is one example. This thread is another. For some reason, a handful of you try to turn every discussion into being about me instead of the topic-at-hand. It's bizarre.

Pertaining to "ruin the board," ask the mods how this main board and Pullman Square have done since I returned. "Ruining the board" doesn't usually result in a drastic increase in posts.

Now, since you run along and "like" every post made against me, how about defending some of the illogical arguments you have liked instead of trying to turn each thread to be about me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clarence Woodworth
Pertaining to "ruin the board," ask the mods how this main board and Pullman Square have done since I returned. "Ruining the board" doesn't usually result in a drastic increase in posts.
Surely you jest. All the increased board traffic occurred after I started posting on 2-22-17, including a bunch of new guys like yourself. I should get paid. Mods, can you sent a brother a check?
 
Surely you jest. All the increased board traffic occurred after I started posting on 2-22-17, including a bunch of new guys like yourself. I should get paid. Mods, can you sent a brother a check?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this name was posting on here a month before your return:

https://marshall.forums.rivals.com/threads/michiganherd-rifle-and-others.32140/#post-435112

In fact, this name made its very first appearance in December of 2016 for an emergency post to remind Gary'S weeney that he was violating his terms of probation for his woman beating incident.

Coincidentally, the former poster from Michigan kept sending me emails asking what my name meant. I had to explain to him to read it backwards. I wish that guy would start posting again. He was one of the original four horseman, ya' know?
 
Mods this thread is titled "Facilities." How about reminding three or four posters on this thread to remain on topic. Once again someone has gotten their panties in a wad and now we are reading a bunch of nonsense - including my post.
 
Lol see everyone turning the topic to be about him

Pathetic

Not everyone; just a handful of you morons.

Read the first few posts in this thread. They all stayed on topic. Then, you entered the discussion and added nothing other than making the thread focus on me.

What's easier for you: going through every thread looking to see if I have posted or going to my profile page to see my list of posts?
 
Narcissist

Anything to add to the thread's topic or are you just wanting to talk about me some more? If the latter, I can provide you with my Facebook and/or Instagram to satisfy your obsession. I'd have you ask the Inked_Jamaican for my info, but his searches keep coming up empty.
 
Is this about you?

Lol

Yes, that's the point. It's a common occurrence that one of you derail a thread by turning a topic to be about me. Of course, its natural to then respond/defend yourself against those comments, which further derail the topic.

In other words, stop obsessing and stay on topic.
 
ADVERTISEMENT