05-22-2026, 02:43 PM
(05-22-2026, 01:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote:82lsju dateline='[url=tel:1779478608' Wrote: 1779478608[/url]']
In one of the early questions I mentioned that they might want to improve the on-field product before spending a lot of money on "premium experiences"......
Yes, +1 to this. And, of course, money that is spent on stadium renovations cannot be plowed into, for example, NIL or House settlement money.
That being said, the product on the field winds up being a zero sum game. If we win more games, by definition that means that everyone else loses more games, and while we are investing money into trying to make that happen, they are investing money in preventing that from happen. The net result is that no matter how much or how little teams in college football spend in aggregate on the product on the field, the global average record will always be .500, so you are just fighting for share.
Money invested in facilities does not impact other teams directly, so I can see the appeal. It is much easier to model the return on investment on a one time capital expense than on employees than on student athletes, a recurring expense.
BC
I would also guess that any renovations will rely on donor support to pay for them, of course that support (if it happens) might take away from other places the donors might fund
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"