Gies Memorial Stadium
- Status
MDchicago
- Lake Norman NC
Given the way the college fb landscape is currently constructed, would hope to have mega-donors who value funding the NIL budget year after year, which is more directly and highly correlated with on-field success. If money is not unlimited and and I had to choose, I would value a funding machine that delivers a top 15 quality roster and coaching staff every year over watching a mediocre team in a stadium with an improved SEZ experience. Do that for a decade and the capital projects will be much easier to execute.
agree
winning cures all ills .
attract & retain great players & coaches and the 10-2 results will follow
do that for 3-5 years and the donor money for capital improvements will happen organically.
The new video board was all over the Icahn news already this morning, great PR.
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
Technically, there are rules and this breaks those rules.
MDchicago
- Lake Norman NC
There is a rule against donors deciding to fund athletics programs and NIL opportunities? Please send your analysis to Mark Cuban.
Last edited:
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
Yes, there is actually. I highly recommend watching this interview with Josh Whitman from a few days ago:
MDchicago
- Lake Norman NC
I watched the entire thing and was in agreement with it all. Missed the part where donors can no longer fund athletic department donations and NIL opportunities for athletes with legitimate NIL value, which unless you are creating as strawman is entirely consistent with my post.
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
Donors can fund athletic departments, yes.
But donors cannot fund NIL programs.
If a donor has a company that would benefit from the NIL of the players on a team, of course, he could be a part of that arrangement. But Larry Gies as an individual is not allowed to donate $100m to an NIL fund.
As Josh Whitman discusses in that interview, more than half of all NIL dollars get disapproved by the clearinghouse and the average size of NIL deal that gets approved is only a few thousand dollars each.
Maybe Josh is choosing to follow the letter of the law too closely, though, because as discussed in that interview, not every program is.
Honestly, I am against any cap or clearinghouse. It creates a system that can be bypassed and requires people with bias to be in charge of making decisions that can benefit one team over another.
I'm not sure how the NCAA is getting away with this because technically they are restricting a player's ability to make money on their NIL. A system with (NCAA-managed) checks and balances will eventually put us back in the same power structure we've been in and isn't beneficial to us.
Keep it wide open, the market will manage itself.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
I'm not even against this line of thinking in theory, but I just don't know enough about the dollars involved and yet I am hopeful that it really isn't an either/or thing. TOTALLY making up numbers here, but let's imagine our current NIL is $5 million and "elite" programs like Alabama are at $20 million, meaning we need $15 million in NIL annually to close the gap. Let's also say a "proper" SEZ renovation (e.g., the 2016 rendering) costs $150 million, but a "short-term fix" of the SEZ (e.g., adding seats to fill in the gap in front of the Horseshoe and adding a cool looking balcony on either side of the video board) costs $25 million.
Lastly, imagine that we have $100 million with which to work. Fine, the $150 million SEZ renovation is off the table! However, I don't think it is SUCH a no-brainer to just automatically devote all $100 million to NIL in the form of $20 million per year over the next 5 years so we can be $5 million above the Alabamas of the world. We might still lose some recruits to them simply due to (A) program prestige difference and (B) Alabama digging back into the war chest and re-upping their offers to still beat us. In this hypothetical scenario, I think it would be worth it to throw $25 million toward the SEZ to make a REALLY big improvement in our stadium's architecture and gameday atmosphere, and then devote the other $75 million toward NIL, adding an extra $15 million toward NIL over 5 years to at least get us "up to par" instead of $20 million. Put in a simpler format with less explanation.
Illinois Funds Available: $100 million
Option A: Devote all $100 million to NIL
--- Extra $20 million in NIL over 5 years. Illinois now $5 million more annual NIL than many elite programs.
--- The SEZ stays exactly the same and is not addressed.
Option B: Devote $75 million to NIL and $25 million to SEZ renovation
--- Extra $15 million in NIL over 5 years. Illinois now has roughly the same NIL as many elite programs.
--- The SEZ gets a scaled back but still substantial facelift for a cost of $25 million rather than the much more transformative $150 million renovation plan (the latter of which is tabled for future years)
Give me Option B every time. I think there might be diminishing returns in devoting that extra $5 million toward NIL in this example, as we are never competing with a school like Texas with its astronomical oil money and we would already be to the point where we are at least able to match most offers of the "big boy" programs. And while I do feel like I am taking crazy pills sometimes in having to express this opinion so many times, the SEZ is more than some wish list item to me ... it's an actual, extremely noticeable eyesore on an otherwise magnificent stadium. And fixing it would pay more dividends over the long term than satisfying my wants, haha.
MDchicago
- Lake Norman NC
For the record, no one I'm aware of suggested that Larry Gies could donate $100 million dollars to a NIL fund in 2026. I'm highly confident that Josh does not have a problem with successful business owners with marketing needs facilitating NIL transactions with any or many Illini athletes. Even long-time donors to Illini athletics ("associated persons" under the rules) can do so as long as the requirements, including business purpose and FMV, are met. Your example of Larry Gies, with over 50 different portfolio companies with different marketing needs, is probably better-positioned than most to enter into valid arrangements under the new rules.
Facts on CSC review: ESPN reports from this week state that so far (as of Jan. 1) CSC has cleared 17,321 NIL deals worth $127.21 million (ave. $7,344) and has rejected 524 deals (~3% of deals reviewed) worth $14.94 million (~10.5% of total deal value reviewed).
Josh's point was that it remains to be seen how schools that promise a specified amount of rev share money along with an expectation of $X in unspecified NIL opportunities will be able to deliver on that expectation, and he's right, especially for those with multi-million dollar expectations. It will be a challenge for sure, but ultimately depends on the number of underlying deals and the size and terms of each underlying deal, which can vary widely depending on the company involved, the market opportunity, the scope and duration of the deal, and the athlete's perceived NIL value. The CSC framework does allow reference to transactions with non-college-athletes such as professional athletes, influencers, or celebrities whose endorsement deals can provide relevant benchmarks for NIL value if comparability can be established. Remains to be seen how it will play out, but will be very much facts and circumstances case-by-case...
Last edited:
The NCAA IS allowed to restrict “pay for play” compensation. So true NIL is perfectly legal. Any payments for “pay for play” or anything similar is not allowed.
This is the first that I have heard about this summer activity. How many years has this been going on?
It is a great idea.
Maybe something to add to this, if not already: Do they offer one or two nights during the summer for a camp out on the football field after the movie?
It is done here in Virginia on the baseball outfield of the minor league team of the Nationals for the Boy Scouts. Obviously some logistics need to be worked out (bathrooms, some level of security, no campfires allowed, etc), but an idea just the same.
Last edited:
MDchicago
- Lake Norman NC
My original post, responding to a post saying it may take 3 more $100 million donations to fully renovate the stadium, was a plea for balance and not to forget that NIL is still a key driver of competitive success in the current environment. That said, I would hope for a funding machine that delivers a top 15 quality roster and coaching staff every year, not one that tries to outspend Alabama or Texas. Pretty in line with Bret's commentary of don't need the most but need to be in the ballpark to take realistic shots at success in our conference and nationally. Expect there would be room for stadium capex consistent with that, and a growing amount with continued success.
10 years at the earliest for SEZ dynamite. Time to get the Hello Kitty pillow out tonight and cry.Fighter Man, you'll be with me in spirit.
I thought you were kidding, but at least 10 years - let’s embrace the horseshoe!
But it sounds like they may do something cool in front of the south horseshoe for the fan experience, and are looking at some other cool stuff around the stadium. Some kind of beer garden or premium area there could fill the space and add something very cool.
i heard specifically, that the horseshoe half circle "shape" is staying and they will
work from that footprint in whatever they decide to do. adding additional levels
of seating and cost within that footprint. i don't exactly know how they do that
without going up or the field going down. maybe my interpretation isn't exactly
correct. from a historic context this makes perfect sense.
work from that footprint in whatever they decide to do. adding additional levels
of seating and cost within that footprint. i don't exactly know how they do that
without going up or the field going down. maybe my interpretation isn't exactly
correct. from a historic context this makes perfect sense.
Yes, but what? Beatty had him tee’d up and he shanked it. Neither of them asked the next question when it was right there on the table! Whitman even opened the door for them and they didn’t step in!
The 27:30 mark, the area in front of the horseshoe “is some really interesting real estate that could be used for a number of different purposes”
Question: Oh that’s interesting, Josh. For example, what kinds of things do you have in mind? Are you considering some seating that goes down to the back of the end zone? Perhaps a family area? Tell us more?
Come on guys!
Last edited:
All I heard was discussion of amenity space to charge more for 'stratified' fan experiences--no new seating. I think that means the space under the horseshoe gets partially enclosed for a club of some sort with glass to see the field. Maybe that is some seating, but mostly, in my opinion, a kind of upscale beer garden. He also mentioned the endzone patios that are between the towers and the NEZ. I think they develop another club experience there.
The 'biggest video board' thing is also to enhance the in stadium experience. By the way it is getting kind of cringy how they are promoting it. I see future ridicule about it from opposing fan bases.
I kind of get the no new seating thing, given our ticket prices are some of the lowest, if not the lowest in the Big Ten.
So, I think the 30,000 foot view is to make the entire stadium experience better, louder, fuller with incremental changes. Then sell out consistently to be able to raise ticket prices. Then when/if the demand is high enough start scraping and building more capacity. If he said 10 years, that probably means 15 to 20.
Last edited:
And I’m fine with any or all of that.
I’m just saying they had The Man at the table and he brings up the area that is probably most in need of attention (the thirty yard gap between the field and the first row) and we get nothing other than we could use that area for some “interesting purposes”! What interesting purposes??? Big swing and a miss there!
Last edited:
- Status