Yulman Stadium (Benson Field)

The main discussion board for everything Tulane athletics related.
User avatar
GreenLantern
Swell
Posts: 1629
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:41 pm
Status: Offline

Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:04 pm

Our locker rooms are perfectly adequate:

Image


Ruski
Surge
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:58 pm
Status: Offline

Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:06 pm

GreenLantern wrote:Our locker rooms are perfectly adequate:

Image
Perfect! We just got to wait til football becomes a hipster sport :lol: :lol:
mbawavefan12
Tsunami
Posts: 5193
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:17 pm
Status: Offline

Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:15 pm

Can you imagine the 300+# OL trying to sit and get dressed with those tiny lockers. Come on. I really hope that is a picture of the old locker room.
jonathanjoseph
Green Wave
Posts: 9299
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Status: Offline

Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:13 pm

RobertM320 wrote:I know they're not up to some of the others. Its a stopgap measure. But they aren't going to do locker rooms that they just finished, they're going to do something else. My thought would be the football ops facility, (which could include better locker rooms in it), so we'd have all the meeting rooms and such upgraded to be competitive.

That's going to come before any expansion of Yulman, because we need these upgrades to improve recruiting, which will improve winning, which will increase attendance, which will then fuel the demand for expansion of Yulman. Its a process, and I trust that Dannen will do whatever needs to be done, in the proper order.
But isn't that the problem? 3 years in, we know that many things about Yulman are "stop gap". We always knew about capacity, but now we're using "cell extenders" because there's no wifi etc. Fogelman renovations were definitely stop gap unless someone is suggesting we don't need a bigger arena. And then the recent locker room renovation was stop gap too? So we spent >$100M and have no complete facility solutions?

Hence the need to discuss.

I trust Dannen completely, but he's not a magician and cannot pull another $100M out of his hat.
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 6239
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:16 pm

I've seen that picture years ago, before Yulman was built. That's an old picture, I believe it was from the Old Tulane Stadium, right before it was ripped down.
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
lurker123
Swell
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:01 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:59 am

DfromCT wrote:I've seen that picture years ago, before Yulman was built. That's an old picture, I believe it was from the Old Tulane Stadium, right before it was ripped down.
After it had been abandoned with no maintenance for eight years. Locker rooms were modest in those stadiums. Tulane's was no different.
lurker123
Swell
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:01 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:00 am

mbawavefan12 wrote:Can you imagine the 300+# OL trying to sit and get dressed with those tiny lockers. Come on. I really hope that is a picture of the old locker room.
Just like the planes, buses and cars these larger folk have to use as well.
User avatar
tpstulane
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 17861
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:07 am

One of the worst stadium locker rooms I've see. Pictured here Southern Cal football team.
Image
Image
Stadiums get old, winning never does.
Tulane Class of 1981
lurker123
Swell
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:01 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:32 am

Let's discuss the Senate report, game day experience and why moving to Yulman matters. We'll take it as a given that at Yulman increased ticket sales to date of report were equally offset by increased facilities maintenance/operating costs so no net improvement from Dome. Why move then? Several quick points:

1. Optics including are you "P5-ish" includes relative size of athletics budget. Increasing gross expenditures even if it doesn't improve net matters to improve Tulane's relative status as a P5 candidate. Why? Shouldn't economically but just go talk to the Talking Heads. Size matters. Profitability less since 3/4 of FBS programs run deficits. Let's just say that I'm glad application to Big 12 included Yulman numbers and not Dome ones.

2. From 1939 on, virtually all stadium expansions and maintenance costs were paid by Sugar Bowl bonds and rent and from 1967 to 1975 Saints and Super Bowl rents with a few other outside events. Tulane had no net skin in operating the stadium or investing in it. I think those who used the stadium towards the end knew how bad some of the game day experience could be especially restrooms and somewhat concessions and parking.

3. Tulane then spent almost 40 years in the Dome with a sweetheart rent deal that did not incent the Dome's operator to provide any enhanced services nor Tulane to do much with gameday experience. In fact as we all can testify services were cut every year to the almost minimal level required by the Fire Marshall.

4. So basically for 75 years Tulane had no spur of necessity to maximize revenue from stadiums because even with "legal title" for Tulane Stadium, it had no incentive to optimize its performance. It was a fat cat rent collector with a triple net lease. Tulane certainly made more money when it won but it was not on the street when it lost. That's the key here. IT HAD NO SPUR OF NECESSITY FROM LACKLUSTER STADIUM OPERATIONS. Again that matters in motivating change. There is a reason why Tulane Stadium's name became "Sugar Bowl Stadium" for decades de facto if not de jure.

Now being in Yulman, Tulane has no one else to pass the buck to on this literally. It must optimize the operations of the stadium including its revenue and net and this includes the game day experience to encourage fans to come back. This in itself is both a critical cultural change after 75 cushy years as well as a practical change and let's just say Tulane is learning as it goes. I have confidence like others here that Dannen will master this. The folks who go to games all agree that it's a 1000% improvement over the Dome despite three years of problematic weather.
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 6239
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:02 am

Great post, Lurker.

Stockholm Syndrome and Dickson disease comments will be posted in criticism; ignore the guy behind the black curtain.
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12265
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:17 am

lurker123 wrote:Let's discuss the Senate report, game day experience and why moving to Yulman matters. We'll take it as a given that at Yulman increased ticket sales to date of report were equally offset by increased facilities maintenance/operating costs so no net improvement from Dome. Why move then? Several quick points:

1. Optics including are you "P5-ish" includes relative size of athletics budget. Increasing gross expenditures even if it doesn't improve net matters to improve Tulane's relative status as a P5 candidate. Why? Shouldn't economically but just go talk to the Talking Heads. Size matters. Profitability less since 3/4 of FBS programs run deficits. Let's just say that I'm glad application to Big 12 included Yulman numbers and not Dome ones.

2. From 1939 on, virtually all stadium expansions and maintenance costs were paid by Sugar Bowl bonds and rent and from 1967 to 1975 Saints and Super Bowl rents with a few other outside events. Tulane had no net skin in operating the stadium or investing in it. I think those who used the stadium towards the end knew how bad some of the game day experience could be especially restrooms and somewhat concessions and parking.

3. Tulane then spent almost 40 years in the Dome with a sweetheart rent deal that did not incent the Dome's operator to provide any enhanced services nor Tulane to do much with gameday experience. In fact as we all can testify services were cut every year to the almost minimal level required by the Fire Marshall.

4. So basically for 75 years Tulane had no spur of necessity to maximize revenue from stadiums because even with "legal title" for Tulane Stadium, it had no incentive to optimize its performance. It was a fat cat rent collector with a triple net lease. Tulane certainly made more money when it won but it was not on the street when it lost. That's the key here. IT HAD NO SPUR OF NECESSITY FROM LACKLUSTER STADIUM OPERATIONS. Again that matters in motivating change. There is a reason why Tulane Stadium's name became "Sugar Bowl Stadium" for decades de facto if not de jure.

Now being in Yulman, Tulane has no one else to pass the buck to on this literally. It must optimize the operations of the stadium including its revenue and net and this includes the game day experience to encourage fans to come back. This in itself is both a critical cultural change after 75 cushy years as well as a practical change and let's just say Tulane is learning as it goes. I have confidence like others here that Dannen will master this. The folks who go to games all agree that it's a 1000% improvement over the Dome despite three years of problematic weather.
The problem w/that theory is that it's too small to generate the necessary revenue even if sold out. It also appears it's tininess hinders recruiting which thus hinders filling it. It's far from a 1000% improvement. Being on campus is not the be all, end all. Finally we know that was the theory advanced by the yoggies that this would force Tulane to do good. The fact is they have been trying to do good all along. They have just been inept for most of the last 67 years.
Yulman is where Tulane athletics went to be buried! Tulane is small time for all time. It's time to put Tulane athletics in it's small space in life.
mbawavefan12
Tsunami
Posts: 5193
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:17 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:58 am

tpstulane wrote:One of the worst stadium locker rooms I've see. Pictured here Southern Cal football team.
Image
Image

Not true:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no-ZVfdHN6c

Maybe that was something temp with the Coliseum renovations, idk.
mbawavefan12
Tsunami
Posts: 5193
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:17 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:00 am

lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:Can you imagine the 300+# OL trying to sit and get dressed with those tiny lockers. Come on. I really hope that is a picture of the old locker room.
Just like the planes, buses and cars these larger folk have to use as well.

Come on Lurker, that's a poor comparison. We control the locker room setup but have no control over how planes and buses are designed.

That's bush league posting, sorry.
lurker123
Swell
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:01 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:10 am

mbawavefan12 wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:Can you imagine the 300+# OL trying to sit and get dressed with those tiny lockers. Come on. I really hope that is a picture of the old locker room.
Just like the planes, buses and cars these larger folk have to use as well.

Come on Lurker, that's a poor comparison. We control the locker room setup but have no control over how planes and buses are designed.

That's bush league posting, sorry.
We just disagree whether it's major league or Class D ball. Quick question: The recent TA&M locker room renovation included embedded TVs in the bathroom and shower mirrors. (I'm not kidding.) Should Tulane have done the same?

Do you think all athletes should have single dorm rooms? These are larger gents and currently at most (all?) colleges in the country the football players double up like regular students. They spend 6x as much time in their dorm rooms as the locker rooms. What's the major league or Class D ball view of that?

Sorry I just don't get the continued self abuse theme that seems to run around here.
mbawavefan12
Tsunami
Posts: 5193
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:17 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:18 am

lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:Can you imagine the 300+# OL trying to sit and get dressed with those tiny lockers. Come on. I really hope that is a picture of the old locker room.
Just like the planes, buses and cars these larger folk have to use as well.

Come on Lurker, that's a poor comparison. We control the locker room setup but have no control over how planes and buses are designed.

That's bush league posting, sorry.
We just disagree whether it's major league or Class D ball. Quick question: The recent TA&M locker room renovation included embedded TVs in the bathroom and shower mirrors. (I'm not kidding.) Should Tulane have done the same?

Do you think all athletes should have single dorm rooms? These are larger gents and currently at most (all?) colleges in the country the football players double up like regular students. They spend 6x as much time in their dorm rooms as the locker rooms. What's the major league or Class D ball view of that?

Sorry I just don't get the continued self abuse theme that seems to run around here.
Oh come on man. It's about putting together a presentation to recruits that is on par with our peers (or better). Then providing an atmosphere for the student athletes to thrive. Also, they do in fact spend a ton of time around the facility. I played nothing D1 baseball in the northeast and we spent an inordinate amount of time around the stadium.

Ya, many live in dorms but many live off campus, that's irrelevant to this discussion. The big time programs actually have athlete dorms that are amazing btw. You or I may not like the situation but its the reality of major billion dollar college sports. THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS!

It's not self abuse it's actually the opposite. We want Tulane to be on par or better and right now our facilities are by far the worst in the AAC.
lurker123
Swell
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:01 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:29 am

winwave wrote:
The problem w/that theory is that it's too small to generate the necessary revenue even if sold out. It also appears it's tininess hinders recruiting which thus hinders filling it. It's far from a 1000% improvement. Being on campus is not the be all, end all. Finally we know that was the theory advanced by the yoggies that this would force Tulane to do good. The fact is they have been trying to do good all along. They have just been inept for most of the last 67 years.
We're all on the same page that Yulman needs to be expanded. But generating "necessary revenue" has not been an issue with it, Devlin or Turchin to date. The only hard football sellout we've had for three years was the GT opening. ("Hard" being where Tulane turned away paying customers.) We've had no hard sellouts in Devlin in years and only for one LSU home game per year in Turchin. When Tulane starts winning then stadium capacities will matter but your point about "necessary revenue" is in theory in the future, my point is in demonstrated practice today. Which do you think keeps Dannen awake at night?

I totally disagree with you that it's only ineptness that has held Tulane down since 1939 (interestingly the year that Rufus Harris became President. No I was not on campus then.) When you have an athletic operation be it Tulane stadium or the Dome that does not require you literally "to pay to play," you start to develop lazy habits. Tulane for 75 years was a fat cat, letting third parties totally manage its stadium and much of its football operations and could sit on its wallet. How do you think Cowen could gut the athletic budget after Katrina and still field a Div 1 program? He had no marginal facility costs for any major sport.

What skin to make the program work did Tulane have paying the Dome $12,000 rent per game while Pitt and Temple pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per game for their NFL stadiums.

Once the one-percenters put up $100 million, they had skin in the game and now demand to see it work. Ineptness or laziness or whatever will no longer be accepted. This is why Yulman and Hertz et al are so transforming not that money could have been better spent with larger locker and weight rooms or an IPF and staying in the Dome.
lurker123
Swell
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:01 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:43 am

mbawavefan12 wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:Can you imagine the 300+# OL trying to sit and get dressed with those tiny lockers. Come on. I really hope that is a picture of the old locker room.
Just like the planes, buses and cars these larger folk have to use as well.

Come on Lurker, that's a poor comparison. We control the locker room setup but have no control over how planes and buses are designed.

That's bush league posting, sorry.
We just disagree whether it's major league or Class D ball. Quick question: The recent TA&M locker room renovation included embedded TVs in the bathroom and shower mirrors. (I'm not kidding.) Should Tulane have done the same?

Do you think all athletes should have single dorm rooms? These are larger gents and currently at most (all?) colleges in the country the football players double up like regular students. They spend 6x as much time in their dorm rooms as the locker rooms. What's the major league or Class D ball view of that?

Sorry I just don't get the continued self abuse theme that seems to run around here.
Oh come on man. It's about putting together a presentation to recruits that is on par with our peers (or better). Then providing an atmosphere for the student athletes to thrive. Also, they do in fact spend a ton of time around the facility. I played nothing D1 baseball in the northeast and we spent an inordinate amount of time around the stadium.

Ya, many live in dorms but many live off campus, that's irrelevant to this discussion. The big time programs actually have athlete dorms that are amazing btw. You or I may not like the situation but its the reality of major billion dollar college sports. THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS!

It's not self abuse it's actually the opposite. We want Tulane to be on par or better and right now our facilities are by far the worst in the AAC.
Interestingly you didn't address the TA&M point about opulence. Facilities must be functional and allow you to achieve what you need. Clearly Tulane weight rooms, media rooms and some football ops did not meet that criteria. Those are being fixed. (BTW Fritz has been emphatic that Saints IPF works for him so let's accept his word that issue is solved.)

I'll accept that recruiting and "wow" factor matters to some. That's why LSU puts the jersey on recruits and has them walk into Tiger Stadium. I get it. Interestingly though it made no difference in basketball recruiting since we built the Hertz center for practice (where as you say the college athlete spends all his time) which is still world class by any measure. But I get it. We all like "nice stuff" but to what degree does it need to be opulent?

Do you think as concerns locker rooms and size and amenities that Fritz may want an "edge" on his players and that he is ok with his "modest" locker room renovation? The best high school team for decades in the U.S. has been De La Salle in northern California. Have you seen its facilities? They compare with some Louisiana public schools in modesty. So there are things other than luxury that matter here too for continued success.
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12265
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:52 am

lurker123 wrote:
winwave wrote:
The problem w/that theory is that it's too small to generate the necessary revenue even if sold out. It also appears it's tininess hinders recruiting which thus hinders filling it. It's far from a 1000% improvement. Being on campus is not the be all, end all. Finally we know that was the theory advanced by the yoggies that this would force Tulane to do good. The fact is they have been trying to do good all along. They have just been inept for most of the last 67 years.
We're all on the same page that Yulman needs to be expanded. But generating "necessary revenue" has not been an issue with it, Devlin or Turchin to date. The only hard football sellout we've had for three years was the GT opening. ("Hard" being where Tulane turned away paying customers.) We've had no hard sellouts in Devlin in years and only for one LSU home game per year in Turchin. When Tulane starts winning then stadium capacities will matter but your point about "necessary revenue" is in theory in the future, my point is in demonstrated practice today. Which do you think keeps Dannen awake at night?

I totally disagree with you that it's only ineptness that has held Tulane down since 1939 (interestingly the year that Rufus Harris became President. No I was not on campus then.) When you have an athletic operation be it Tulane stadium or the Dome that does not require you literally "to pay to play," you start to develop lazy habits. Tulane for 75 years was a fat cat, letting third parties totally manage its stadium and much of its football operations and could sit on its wallet. How do you think Cowen could gut the athletic budget after Katrina and still field a Div 1 program? He had no marginal facility costs for any major sport.

What skin to make the program work did Tulane have paying the Dome $12,000 rent per game while Pitt and Temple pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per game for their NFL stadiums.

Once the one-percenters put up $100 million, they had skin in the game and now demand to see it work. Ineptness or laziness or whatever will no longer be accepted. This is why Yulman and Hertz et al are so transforming not that money could have been better spent with larger locker and weight rooms or an IPF and staying in the Dome.
They had incentive all along. The program was losing money and has always been under pressure to not have to need so much money from the administration. I know it was the yoggie theory advanced but it's just wrong.
We had investors all along and they wanted return on their investment.
Yulman is where Tulane athletics went to be buried! Tulane is small time for all time. It's time to put Tulane athletics in it's small space in life.
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12265
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:55 am

lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:Can you imagine the 300+# OL trying to sit and get dressed with those tiny lockers. Come on. I really hope that is a picture of the old locker room.
Just like the planes, buses and cars these larger folk have to use as well.

Come on Lurker, that's a poor comparison. We control the locker room setup but have no control over how planes and buses are designed.

That's bush league posting, sorry.
We just disagree whether it's major league or Class D ball. Quick question: The recent TA&M locker room renovation included embedded TVs in the bathroom and shower mirrors. (I'm not kidding.) Should Tulane have done the same?

Do you think all athletes should have single dorm rooms? These are larger gents and currently at most (all?) colleges in the country the football players double up like regular students. They spend 6x as much time in their dorm rooms as the locker rooms. What's the major league or Class D ball view of that?

Sorry I just don't get the continued self abuse theme that seems to run around here.
Oh come on man. It's about putting together a presentation to recruits that is on par with our peers (or better). Then providing an atmosphere for the student athletes to thrive. Also, they do in fact spend a ton of time around the facility. I played nothing D1 baseball in the northeast and we spent an inordinate amount of time around the stadium.

Ya, many live in dorms but many live off campus, that's irrelevant to this discussion. The big time programs actually have athlete dorms that are amazing btw. You or I may not like the situation but its the reality of major billion dollar college sports. THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS!

It's not self abuse it's actually the opposite. We want Tulane to be on par or better and right now our facilities are by far the worst in the AAC.
Interestingly you didn't address the TA&M point about opulence. Facilities must be functional and allow you to achieve what you need. Clearly Tulane weight rooms, media rooms and some football ops did not meet that criteria. Those are being fixed. (BTW Fritz has been emphatic that Saints IPF works for him so let's accept his word that issue is solved.)

I'll accept that recruiting and "wow" factor matters to some. That's why LSU puts the jersey on recruits and has them walk into Tiger Stadium. I get it. Interestingly though it made no difference in basketball recruiting since we built the Hertz center for practice (where as you say the college athlete spends all his time) which is still world class by any measure. But I get it. We all like "nice stuff" but to what degree does it need to be opulent?

Do you think as concerns locker rooms and size and amenities that Fritz may want an "edge" on his players and that he is ok with his "modest" locker room renovation? The best high school team for decades in the U.S. has been De La Salle in northern California. Have you seen its facilities? They compare with some Louisiana public schools in modesty. So there are things other than luxury that matter here too for continued success.
As to the IPF the truth is Fritz originally said he didn't want one at all. Then had to use the Saints and really liked it. He now knows we need one and it needs to be on campus. He's new to this level and what it takes to recruit. He's still learning.
Yulman is where Tulane athletics went to be buried! Tulane is small time for all time. It's time to put Tulane athletics in it's small space in life.
mbawavefan12
Tsunami
Posts: 5193
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:17 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:03 am

lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:Can you imagine the 300+# OL trying to sit and get dressed with those tiny lockers. Come on. I really hope that is a picture of the old locker room.
Just like the planes, buses and cars these larger folk have to use as well.

Come on Lurker, that's a poor comparison. We control the locker room setup but have no control over how planes and buses are designed.

That's bush league posting, sorry.
We just disagree whether it's major league or Class D ball. Quick question: The recent TA&M locker room renovation included embedded TVs in the bathroom and shower mirrors. (I'm not kidding.) Should Tulane have done the same?

Do you think all athletes should have single dorm rooms? These are larger gents and currently at most (all?) colleges in the country the football players double up like regular students. They spend 6x as much time in their dorm rooms as the locker rooms. What's the major league or Class D ball view of that?

Sorry I just don't get the continued self abuse theme that seems to run around here.
Oh come on man. It's about putting together a presentation to recruits that is on par with our peers (or better). Then providing an atmosphere for the student athletes to thrive. Also, they do in fact spend a ton of time around the facility. I played nothing D1 baseball in the northeast and we spent an inordinate amount of time around the stadium.

Ya, many live in dorms but many live off campus, that's irrelevant to this discussion. The big time programs actually have athlete dorms that are amazing btw. You or I may not like the situation but its the reality of major billion dollar college sports. THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS!

It's not self abuse it's actually the opposite. We want Tulane to be on par or better and right now our facilities are by far the worst in the AAC.
Interestingly you didn't address the TA&M point about opulence. Facilities must be functional and allow you to achieve what you need. Clearly Tulane weight rooms, media rooms and some football ops did not meet that criteria. Those are being fixed. (BTW Fritz has been emphatic that Saints IPF works for him so let's accept his word that issue is solved.)

I'll accept that recruiting and "wow" factor matters to some. That's why LSU puts the jersey on recruits and has them walk into Tiger Stadium. I get it. Interestingly though it made no difference in basketball recruiting since we built the Hertz center for practice (where as you say the college athlete spends all his time) which is still world class by any measure. But I get it. We all like "nice stuff" but to what degree does it need to be opulent?

Do you think as concerns locker rooms and size and amenities that Fritz may want an "edge" on his players and that he is ok with his "modest" locker room renovation? The best high school team for decades in the U.S. has been De La Salle in northern California. Have you seen its facilities? They compare with some Louisiana public schools in modesty. So there are things other than luxury that matter here too for continued success.
Hertz with tiny Devlin was fine for CUSA, the combo is straight up below average for the AAC, don't let RD or the yoggies fool you. Hertz is nice and all but everyone has those pretty pieces now, it just caught us up. Devlin seats 3200, the next closest AAC is ECU at 8,000, more than 100% larger. It's embarrassing.

HS comps are sort of absurd, come on now, sorry.

Again, these kids have so much more information and the school recruiting budgets and approaches are ruthless. Again, THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS anymore.

Winning sounds great to build things up but we are back to the chicken or the egg. How do you compete against school that cut no corners? This (IMO) is why TD keeps pushing academics as he knows we are lacking in other areas. It's our only hope but I just don't think it is as important as it once was as we have seen catholic league students choose to sit on the bench and get an LSU education as opposed to starting at Tulane and getting a top 40 education. It stinks but it is the reality. We are also screwed by the fact that unlike Stanford etc. we are in the deep south where education at the HS level is much lower, maybe we should start pushing harder to recruit nationally and sell warm weather and solid academics, idk.
mbawavefan12
Tsunami
Posts: 5193
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:17 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:04 am

winwave wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:Can you imagine the 300+# OL trying to sit and get dressed with those tiny lockers. Come on. I really hope that is a picture of the old locker room.
Just like the planes, buses and cars these larger folk have to use as well.

Come on Lurker, that's a poor comparison. We control the locker room setup but have no control over how planes and buses are designed.

That's bush league posting, sorry.
We just disagree whether it's major league or Class D ball. Quick question: The recent TA&M locker room renovation included embedded TVs in the bathroom and shower mirrors. (I'm not kidding.) Should Tulane have done the same?

Do you think all athletes should have single dorm rooms? These are larger gents and currently at most (all?) colleges in the country the football players double up like regular students. They spend 6x as much time in their dorm rooms as the locker rooms. What's the major league or Class D ball view of that?

Sorry I just don't get the continued self abuse theme that seems to run around here.
Oh come on man. It's about putting together a presentation to recruits that is on par with our peers (or better). Then providing an atmosphere for the student athletes to thrive. Also, they do in fact spend a ton of time around the facility. I played nothing D1 baseball in the northeast and we spent an inordinate amount of time around the stadium.

Ya, many live in dorms but many live off campus, that's irrelevant to this discussion. The big time programs actually have athlete dorms that are amazing btw. You or I may not like the situation but its the reality of major billion dollar college sports. THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS!

It's not self abuse it's actually the opposite. We want Tulane to be on par or better and right now our facilities are by far the worst in the AAC.
Interestingly you didn't address the TA&M point about opulence. Facilities must be functional and allow you to achieve what you need. Clearly Tulane weight rooms, media rooms and some football ops did not meet that criteria. Those are being fixed. (BTW Fritz has been emphatic that Saints IPF works for him so let's accept his word that issue is solved.)

I'll accept that recruiting and "wow" factor matters to some. That's why LSU puts the jersey on recruits and has them walk into Tiger Stadium. I get it. Interestingly though it made no difference in basketball recruiting since we built the Hertz center for practice (where as you say the college athlete spends all his time) which is still world class by any measure. But I get it. We all like "nice stuff" but to what degree does it need to be opulent?

Do you think as concerns locker rooms and size and amenities that Fritz may want an "edge" on his players and that he is ok with his "modest" locker room renovation? The best high school team for decades in the U.S. has been De La Salle in northern California. Have you seen its facilities? They compare with some Louisiana public schools in modesty. So there are things other than luxury that matter here too for continued success.
As to the IPF the truth is Fritz originally said he didn't want one at all. Then had to use the Saints and really liked it. He now knows we need one and it needs to be on campus. He's new to this level and what it takes to recruit. He's still learning.
The Saint IPF is fine for now, we have other issues to address first, IMO.
mbawavefan12
Tsunami
Posts: 5193
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:17 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:05 am

winwave wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
winwave wrote:
The problem w/that theory is that it's too small to generate the necessary revenue even if sold out. It also appears it's tininess hinders recruiting which thus hinders filling it. It's far from a 1000% improvement. Being on campus is not the be all, end all. Finally we know that was the theory advanced by the yoggies that this would force Tulane to do good. The fact is they have been trying to do good all along. They have just been inept for most of the last 67 years.
We're all on the same page that Yulman needs to be expanded. But generating "necessary revenue" has not been an issue with it, Devlin or Turchin to date. The only hard football sellout we've had for three years was the GT opening. ("Hard" being where Tulane turned away paying customers.) We've had no hard sellouts in Devlin in years and only for one LSU home game per year in Turchin. When Tulane starts winning then stadium capacities will matter but your point about "necessary revenue" is in theory in the future, my point is in demonstrated practice today. Which do you think keeps Dannen awake at night?

I totally disagree with you that it's only ineptness that has held Tulane down since 1939 (interestingly the year that Rufus Harris became President. No I was not on campus then.) When you have an athletic operation be it Tulane stadium or the Dome that does not require you literally "to pay to play," you start to develop lazy habits. Tulane for 75 years was a fat cat, letting third parties totally manage its stadium and much of its football operations and could sit on its wallet. How do you think Cowen could gut the athletic budget after Katrina and still field a Div 1 program? He had no marginal facility costs for any major sport.

What skin to make the program work did Tulane have paying the Dome $12,000 rent per game while Pitt and Temple pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per game for their NFL stadiums.

Once the one-percenters put up $100 million, they had skin in the game and now demand to see it work. Ineptness or laziness or whatever will no longer be accepted. This is why Yulman and Hertz et al are so transforming not that money could have been better spent with larger locker and weight rooms or an IPF and staying in the Dome.
They had incentive all along. The program was losing money and has always been under pressure to not have to need so much money from the administration. I know it was the yoggie theory advanced but it's just wrong.
We had investors all along and they wanted return on their investment.
All AAC schools are losing money.
jonathanjoseph
Green Wave
Posts: 9299
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:40 am

lurker123 wrote:Let's discuss the Senate report, game day experience and why moving to Yulman matters. We'll take it as a given that at Yulman increased ticket sales to date of report were equally offset by increased facilities maintenance/operating costs so no net improvement from Dome. Why move then? Several quick points:

1. Optics including are you "P5-ish" includes relative size of athletics budget. Increasing gross expenditures even if it doesn't improve net matters to improve Tulane's relative status as a P5 candidate. Why? Shouldn't economically but just go talk to the Talking Heads. Size matters. Profitability less since 3/4 of FBS programs run deficits. Let's just say that I'm glad application to Big 12 included Yulman numbers and not Dome ones.

2. From 1939 on, virtually all stadium expansions and maintenance costs were paid by Sugar Bowl bonds and rent and from 1967 to 1975 Saints and Super Bowl rents with a few other outside events. Tulane had no net skin in operating the stadium or investing in it. I think those who used the stadium towards the end knew how bad some of the game day experience could be especially restrooms and somewhat concessions and parking.

3. Tulane then spent almost 40 years in the Dome with a sweetheart rent deal that did not incent the Dome's operator to provide any enhanced services nor Tulane to do much with gameday experience. In fact as we all can testify services were cut every year to the almost minimal level required by the Fire Marshall.

4. So basically for 75 years Tulane had no spur of necessity to maximize revenue from stadiums because even with "legal title" for Tulane Stadium, it had no incentive to optimize its performance. It was a fat cat rent collector with a triple net lease. Tulane certainly made more money when it won but it was not on the street when it lost. That's the key here. IT HAD NO SPUR OF NECESSITY FROM LACKLUSTER STADIUM OPERATIONS. Again that matters in motivating change. There is a reason why Tulane Stadium's name became "Sugar Bowl Stadium" for decades de facto if not de jure.

Now being in Yulman, Tulane has no one else to pass the buck to on this literally. It must optimize the operations of the stadium including its revenue and net and this includes the game day experience to encourage fans to come back. This in itself is both a critical cultural change after 75 cushy years as well as a practical change and let's just say Tulane is learning as it goes. I have confidence like others here that Dannen will master this. The folks who go to games all agree that it's a 1000% improvement over the Dome despite three years of problematic weather.
Lurker, thanks for actually bringing legitimate discussion to an important topic. That being said....

1) That would be true except even after the Yulman expenses are added, we have a lower-Sunbelt expense level. And because of the size and profitability issues, it hurts our ability to make money (which was uncapped at the Dome). Yulman finances hurt our application, not help it.

3) Irrelevant since the Dome got a $300M renovation post-Katrina, plus Champions Square and the (failing) efforts to develop the entire neighborhood.

4) So what? Either Tulane has wanted to improve the athletic program financials or it hasn't. The simple fact is now we have a worse financial situation, we just spent $80M to create that problem and it will cost another $100M to fix that problem we just paid to create.
jonathanjoseph
Green Wave
Posts: 9299
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:43 am

winwave wrote:
lurker123 wrote:Let's discuss the Senate report, game day experience and why moving to Yulman matters. We'll take it as a given that at Yulman increased ticket sales to date of report were equally offset by increased facilities maintenance/operating costs so no net improvement from Dome. Why move then? Several quick points:

1. Optics including are you "P5-ish" includes relative size of athletics budget. Increasing gross expenditures even if it doesn't improve net matters to improve Tulane's relative status as a P5 candidate. Why? Shouldn't economically but just go talk to the Talking Heads. Size matters. Profitability less since 3/4 of FBS programs run deficits. Let's just say that I'm glad application to Big 12 included Yulman numbers and not Dome ones.

2. From 1939 on, virtually all stadium expansions and maintenance costs were paid by Sugar Bowl bonds and rent and from 1967 to 1975 Saints and Super Bowl rents with a few other outside events. Tulane had no net skin in operating the stadium or investing in it. I think those who used the stadium towards the end knew how bad some of the game day experience could be especially restrooms and somewhat concessions and parking.

3. Tulane then spent almost 40 years in the Dome with a sweetheart rent deal that did not incent the Dome's operator to provide any enhanced services nor Tulane to do much with gameday experience. In fact as we all can testify services were cut every year to the almost minimal level required by the Fire Marshall.

4. So basically for 75 years Tulane had no spur of necessity to maximize revenue from stadiums because even with "legal title" for Tulane Stadium, it had no incentive to optimize its performance. It was a fat cat rent collector with a triple net lease. Tulane certainly made more money when it won but it was not on the street when it lost. That's the key here. IT HAD NO SPUR OF NECESSITY FROM LACKLUSTER STADIUM OPERATIONS. Again that matters in motivating change. There is a reason why Tulane Stadium's name became "Sugar Bowl Stadium" for decades de facto if not de jure.

Now being in Yulman, Tulane has no one else to pass the buck to on this literally. It must optimize the operations of the stadium including its revenue and net and this includes the game day experience to encourage fans to come back. This in itself is both a critical cultural change after 75 cushy years as well as a practical change and let's just say Tulane is learning as it goes. I have confidence like others here that Dannen will master this. The folks who go to games all agree that it's a 1000% improvement over the Dome despite three years of problematic weather.
The problem w/that theory is that it's too small to generate the necessary revenue even if sold out. It also appears it's tininess hinders recruiting which thus hinders filling it. It's far from a 1000% improvement. Being on campus is not the be all, end all. Finally we know that was the theory advanced by the yoggies that this would force Tulane to do good. The fact is they have been trying to do good all along. They have just been inept for most of the last 67 years.
Yes all good points. And another example for how mass censorship is able to make a lie into reality. The censorship forum has confused Tulane fans just as Fox News has created a world where people are going to vote for Donald Trump. It works.
jonathanjoseph
Green Wave
Posts: 9299
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:46 am

mbawavefan12 wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:
lurker123 wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:Can you imagine the 300+# OL trying to sit and get dressed with those tiny lockers. Come on. I really hope that is a picture of the old locker room.
Just like the planes, buses and cars these larger folk have to use as well.

Come on Lurker, that's a poor comparison. We control the locker room setup but have no control over how planes and buses are designed.

That's bush league posting, sorry.
We just disagree whether it's major league or Class D ball. Quick question: The recent TA&M locker room renovation included embedded TVs in the bathroom and shower mirrors. (I'm not kidding.) Should Tulane have done the same?

Do you think all athletes should have single dorm rooms? These are larger gents and currently at most (all?) colleges in the country the football players double up like regular students. They spend 6x as much time in their dorm rooms as the locker rooms. What's the major league or Class D ball view of that?

Sorry I just don't get the continued self abuse theme that seems to run around here.
Oh come on man. It's about putting together a presentation to recruits that is on par with our peers (or better). Then providing an atmosphere for the student athletes to thrive. Also, they do in fact spend a ton of time around the facility. I played nothing D1 baseball in the northeast and we spent an inordinate amount of time around the stadium.

Ya, many live in dorms but many live off campus, that's irrelevant to this discussion. The big time programs actually have athlete dorms that are amazing btw. You or I may not like the situation but its the reality of major billion dollar college sports. THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS!

It's not self abuse it's actually the opposite. We want Tulane to be on par or better and right now our facilities are by far the worst in the AAC.
Interestingly you didn't address the TA&M point about opulence. Facilities must be functional and allow you to achieve what you need. Clearly Tulane weight rooms, media rooms and some football ops did not meet that criteria. Those are being fixed. (BTW Fritz has been emphatic that Saints IPF works for him so let's accept his word that issue is solved.)

I'll accept that recruiting and "wow" factor matters to some. That's why LSU puts the jersey on recruits and has them walk into Tiger Stadium. I get it. Interestingly though it made no difference in basketball recruiting since we built the Hertz center for practice (where as you say the college athlete spends all his time) which is still world class by any measure. But I get it. We all like "nice stuff" but to what degree does it need to be opulent?

Do you think as concerns locker rooms and size and amenities that Fritz may want an "edge" on his players and that he is ok with his "modest" locker room renovation? The best high school team for decades in the U.S. has been De La Salle in northern California. Have you seen its facilities? They compare with some Louisiana public schools in modesty. So there are things other than luxury that matter here too for continued success.
Hertz with tiny Devlin was fine for CUSA, the combo is straight up below average for the AAC, don't let RD or the yoggies fool you. Hertz is nice and all but everyone has those pretty pieces now, it just caught us up. Devlin seats 3200, the next closest AAC is ECU at 8,000, more than 100% larger. It's embarrassing.

HS comps are sort of absurd, come on now, sorry.

Again, these kids have so much more information and the school recruiting budgets and approaches are ruthless. Again, THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS anymore.

Winning sounds great to build things up but we are back to the chicken or the egg. How do you compete against school that cut no corners? This (IMO) is why TD keeps pushing academics as he knows we are lacking in other areas. It's our only hope but I just don't think it is as important as it once was as we have seen catholic league students choose to sit on the bench and get an LSU education as opposed to starting at Tulane and getting a top 40 education. It stinks but it is the reality. We are also screwed by the fact that unlike Stanford etc. we are in the deep south where education at the HS level is much lower, maybe we should start pushing harder to recruit nationally and sell warm weather and solid academics, idk.
Good post.

But Stanford recruits nationally, so it's really a function of the sales pitch. We don't have the recruiting budget or facilities to recruit nationally.

The bottom line is we cannot continue to delude ourselves into thinking that Yulman or any of our other facilities or budget "should be" good enough. As a matter of fact, they are not.
Post Reply