|
Post by qbeaver on Feb 20, 2021 7:02:31 GMT -8
The writer is a guy who used to write for the Salem paper. He is looking for clicks. Don't like his work for this paper either.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 20, 2021 11:35:30 GMT -8
The good thing is, the Board of Trustees will simply ignore the smattering of backlash and approve the project in May.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Feb 20, 2021 12:58:18 GMT -8
IMO pushback is good and healthy. We should expect and listen to different opinions. Even if they are wrong. 😂
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Feb 20, 2021 13:12:58 GMT -8
Let's take a look at one passage in more detail:
My sense is that OSU added the welcome center and medical facilities and meeting space to try to head off the criticism of its football stadium expansion. Cynical, yes. Realistic, also yes, although we are assured by new President F. King Alexander that this is not “a bifurcated or dichotomous enterprise.”
Pause.
The implication here is that OSU tacked on the non-football portions to the project to make it more palatable to those crying about spending money on sports in the middle of a pandemic. That is either lazy journalism or a lie.
It is well known that OSU had year-round non-football facilities as a part of the plan from the beginning. This was clear in the October 2019 and January 2020 RFPs for the project. Both predated the pandemic and both are still publicly available documents. This was widely reported in the media at the time.
|
|
|
Post by qbeaver on Feb 20, 2021 13:37:02 GMT -8
Let's take a look at one passage in more detail:
My sense is that OSU added the welcome center and medical facilities and meeting space to try to head off the criticism of its football stadium expansion. Cynical, yes. Realistic, also yes, although we are assured by new President F. King Alexander that this is not “a bifurcated or dichotomous enterprise.”
Pause.
The implication here is that OSU tacked on the non-football portions to the project to make it more palatable to those crying about spending money on sports in the middle of a pandemic. That is either lazy journalism or a lie.
It is well known that OSU had year-round non-football facilities as a part of the plan from the beginning. This was clear in the October 2019 and January 2020 RFPs for the project. Both predated the pandemic and both are still publicly available documents. This was widely reported in the media at the time.
I've been following this project from the get go too. I know prof you have great intel on this project. It was never about just a football project. It was going to have to be a collaboration between athletics and the university. I never read this guy before he worked for the GT. Poor reporting imo. Atleast get the facts right before you pen your opinion to the article.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 20, 2021 15:36:09 GMT -8
There appear to be many on the north side of the railroad tracks at OSU who love being associated academically with their Pac-12 peer institutions, and believe they should be supported facility-wise and monetarily as UW/Stanford/Cal et all peers, but don't think athletics - the reason the Pac-12 even exists - should enjoy the same benefits. They forget that the PCC/Pac-8/Pac-10/Pac-12 was formed as an ATHLETIC conference.
Many of those same people also forget the west side of Reser Stadium has not enjoyed any significant upgrade, other than the 1991 addition of the press box, in nearly 70 years. If you sat in the west side lower bowl of Parker Stadium on opening day in 1954, you would instantly recognize it today because it has not changed a bit, other than new material for the benches. There are not many buildings anywhere at OSU that have not been overhauled since 1954.
I know this does not include you, prof.
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Feb 21, 2021 12:15:45 GMT -8
Let's take a look at one passage in more detail:
My sense is that OSU added the welcome center and medical facilities and meeting space to try to head off the criticism of its football stadium expansion. Cynical, yes. Realistic, also yes, although we are assured by new President F. King Alexander that this is not “a bifurcated or dichotomous enterprise.”
Pause.
The implication here is that OSU tacked on the non-football portions to the project to make it more palatable to those crying about spending money on sports in the middle of a pandemic. That is either lazy journalism or a lie.
It is well known that OSU had year-round non-football facilities as a part of the plan from the beginning. This was clear in the October 2019 and January 2020 RFPs for the project. Both predated the pandemic and both are still publicly available documents. This was widely reported in the media at the time.
Thanks for the post. I don't see anything wrong with your quoted portion of the article. I think the non-football stuff was added on for at least some political reasons. But I think it was added on during the planning phases of the project. It's not a new idea. In any big project you have to build a consensus. I'm familiar with large heavy civil engineering projects and there are always a few things that don't pertain exactly to the stated need. A small example is the brass swallows embedded in the sidewalks around 8th and Washington in Hillsboro. A southern California example is designing and constructing rail / road crossings with room for a proposed 4th track (that will never be built) to get UPRR to sign off.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 21, 2021 13:48:29 GMT -8
It's also about marketing. I think it's the perfect place for a welcome center. Most 17-year-old prospective students would think it's pretty cool to be in the football stadium for the welcoming pitch/displays/videos, etc., than in some other building.
Think prospective Alabama students wouldn't love meeting at Bryant-Denny? Or Michigan students in the Big House? Plus, as anyone who has ever visited campus when school is in session knows, having available/convenient parking is no small thing. Plenty of it at Reser.
As you said, it's partly political to involve more campus entities, like a Christmas-tree bill in government. But I also think it's smart.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 22, 2021 12:34:11 GMT -8
There appear to be many on the north side of the railroad tracks at OSU who love being associated academically with their Pac-12 peer institutions, and believe they should be supported facility-wise and monetarily as UW/Stanford/Cal et all peers, but don't think athletics - the reason the Pac-12 even exists - should enjoy the same benefits. They forget that the PCC/Pac-8/Pac-10/Pac-12 was formed as an ATHLETIC conference. Many of those same people also forget the west side of Reser Stadium has not enjoyed any significant upgrade, other than the 1991 addition of the press box, in nearly 70 years. If you sat in the west side lower bowl of Parker Stadium on opening day in 1954, you would instantly recognize it today because it has not changed a bit, other than new material for the benches. There are not many buildings anywhere at OSU that have not been overhauled since 1954. I know this does not include you, prof. To be fair, the PCC was formed to be an athletic conference with an extreme focus on academics. The AAWU/Pac-8 was basically the opposite. The football programs decided that the PCC with its focus on academics should be dissolved and reformed to focus more on athletics. The Pac-10 and Pac-12 are continuations of the Pac-8 with a big focus on athletics. The article is a debate that was decided in the 1960s. It is always refreshing to hear a completely outdated, backward and uninformed opinion coming from the Oregon State faculty. It almost makes me feel like I am back in a Liberal Arts classroom in Corvallis once again. The rest of what you said is spot on.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 22, 2021 18:11:22 GMT -8
Canzano's had three columns dealing with the feedback from the stadium project. Unfortunately they are all paywalled. For once I'd be interested in reading. He did come out against the clueless English profs.
|
|
|
Post by steinlager on Feb 22, 2021 21:43:26 GMT -8
Canzano's had three columns dealing with the feedback from the stadium project. Unfortunately they are all paywalled. For once I'd be interested in reading. He did come out against the clueless English profs. Open article on your phone then quickly turn airplane mode on. Someone on this board passed the trick on.
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Mar 9, 2021 11:47:41 GMT -8
Looks like another big donation toward the stadium remodel...
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Mar 9, 2021 13:35:17 GMT -8
Cue the critics saying it should have gone to the homeless, the English department, or to some other non-athletic entity.
Here's a hint to those criticizing the $50 million donation, the $10 million donation, or any other donation to this project:
1. Be successful enough to have $50 million to donate.
2. Donate that $50 million to the entity of your choice.
3. Sit back, put your feet up, and then enjoy the criticism from others for donating your money to the cause of your choice.
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Mar 9, 2021 14:46:39 GMT -8
There isn't a cause out there that isn't "problematic". Most charities objectively do more harm than good. Food aid to the third world? It just bankrupts the native farmers. Cancer research? You are mostly just subsidizing for-profit companies, drawing resources away from less publicized diseases. It's really, really hard to find any charity that clearly is a net positive - and almost all of those are small affairs that would be ruined if you handed them a million-dollar check.
I've become a lot more aware of this now that I'm of that age where you start "estate planning". The more I look into the real effects of charity dollars, the more sensible giving to the stadium fund seems. At least no one ends up worse off in the deal.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Mar 9, 2021 14:59:35 GMT -8
Looks like another big donation toward the stadium remodel... My bet is SJ Could be Cooks also.
|
|