The Maryland situation is eerily similar.
Similarities:
-Planned large expenditure on athletics facility that was to be paid for with future revenue streams, including
_Increased revenue from luxury box suites
_Increased revenue from increased ticket sales
_Increased revenue from stadium naming rights
_Increased revenue from donors, including one "anchor" big donor (the guy that founded UnderArmour)
_Increased revenue from stadium being used for "other events" (concerts, etc)
-Both have very large alumni bases in the vicinity, and alumni bases that, in my experience, want to see their alma mater do well on the athletic field, but even so are generally un-engaged with the teams.
-Both have generally underperformed to their athletic potential over time, especially when compared to regional rivals (VaTech, UVA, Pedo State, Georgetown, etc)
Differences that should benefit UMD over CSU (in other words, these are reasons why they should have better financial results from their stadium project than CSU):
-UMD is actually located inside a metro area with about 6 million residents.
-UMD has about 20% more students (so, a lot more alumni over time)
-UMD's stadium is reachable via metro (and free 5 minute bus ride) [metro = light rail for the lambs who are following along - it basically means that 80% of their alumni base doesn't have to drive 1.5 hours on I-25 to get to the game - this is a huge benefit]
-UMD is already a member of a BCS conference, and have seen their conference payout increase dramatically over the last few years
Differences that should give CSU the edge in revenue improvement:
-UMD's current stadium was already on campus, so they didn't get any increased revenue from this factor.
-CSU has a feasibility study from ICON
So, given the advantages that UMD has over CSU, this should have been a slam dunk. When your stadium is shiny and new and state of the art, AND convenient and easy to get to for over 6 million people, there should be no problem meeting those revenue projections. So, what was their experience:
-increased revenue from selling naming rights
-increased revenue from conference payout (it should be noted that this was guaranteed for them, it was not a "if we get a big boy conference invite")
-increased revenue from donors (but not as much as projected)
-barely increased revenue from luxury box tickets, and by not nearly as much as projected
-did not increase revenue from renting stadium for "other uses"
-decreased revenue from ticket sales
-have to cut several sports completely and reduce expenditures on a number of other sports because increased revenue streams were not as big as projected.
Anyone want to tell me why this is not a preview of what's likely to happen up in Ft Fun?
