Future Of MSF Discussion

[thebin]

So I was checking out the re-done official Athletics site and it seems the MSF future facility (you know the "stadium" part of the stadium) has been officially dropped as opposed to just practically dropped a decade ago. No mention of it on the new facilities page as a future project even though the IAC is there. I remain baffled somehow still that a prestigious university can fail so spectacularly for so long to build a very modest high school sized facility after publicly declaring their intention to do so several times. Does anyone know if there is even still lip service being paid to the idea of replacing what is now by far the biggest eyesore on campus?

[DanMcQ]

Not DOA nor "officially dropped". The MSF is still a priority of Athletics Development that is actively being pursued.

The redesigned website is much more easy to navigate, but isn't intended to serve as a campaign guide, campus planning guide or athletics' facilities project plan site. It's a resource guide to keep up with GU athletes and the program achievements of 29 varsity sports.

I wouldn't read anything into there not being a specific 'MSF campaign' page - and there is a page for the MSF on the website:

www.guhoyas.com/facilities/gu-harbin-field.html

On the other hand, the Thompson IAC is the major building project of the current capital campaign so the difference in content likely relates solely to that:

www.guhoyas.com/athletic-development/Thompson_Center.html

[thebin]

I don't agree that new site is much easier to navigate and if I did I fail to appreciate how that accounts for the fact that the old site at least paid lip service to the stadium as a "future facility" while the new one does not. Was that tiny mention clogging up the old (low volume) website? It is actually very common for university athletic sites to at least reference future projects. As our old one did for many years. Pardon me for noticing an omission on the re-design which is perfectly in line with the university's actions on the stadium or rather complete lack-there-of for more than a decade now.

It seems clear to me that the stadium, perhaps even the football program itself, has been left to rot on the vine for some time. Seems reasonable enough to me that the website re-do presented the opportunity to prune the dead stadium branch.


What evidence is there by the way that the stadium is being "actively" pursued btw? Is there a reason why this is treated like a state secret?

[DanMcQ]

Wow. Better check your living room for listening devices too.

[thebin]

So no evidence at all then. All I was doing was noticing the flagrantly obvious but I wanted to check with others who might care about such things (this board) to see if maybe I missed it somewhere. I don't think this makes me paranoid, just mildly observant of the total inaction from the AD on this project for the last decade.

You know you make a highly passive-aggressive board "moderator" sometimes. I'm not sure you need to pounce to quell the only post on the football board in weeks.

[DanMcQ]

Your mischaracterization of me is unnecessary. Take it to PM if you want to insult me.

Nothing in my posts were an attempt to "quell" discussion.

[DanMcQ]

To answer your 'evidence' question in a non 'passive aggressive' way, I've spoken with the Athletic Development Staff who are actively pursuing a solution to the MSF. I choose to believe them and not over read a minor change in a website to mean "official" abandonment of a project.

Why aren't you railing against the lack of a Yates redo marker on GUHoyas.com, by the way?

[thebin]

Jul 24, 2014 8:13:57 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

Your mischaracterization of me is unnecessary. Take it to PM if you want to insult me.

Is calling someone passive aggressive more of an insult than telling someone "wow" and to check their living room for listening devices? You know that didn't come over a PM.

[thebin]

Jul 24, 2014 8:19:11 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

To answer your 'evidence' question in a non 'passive aggressive' way, I've spoken with the Athletic Development Staff who are actively pursuing a solution to the MSF. I choose to believe them and not over read a minor change in a website to mean "official" abandonment of a project.

Why aren't you railing against the lack of a Yates redo marker on GUHoyas.com, by the way?

This is the football board. I can "rail" about whatever I choose as can you. I don't expect anybody to topic police a board as dead as this one but especially not a board moderator.

I don't ever remember seeing a Yates re-do as a "future facility" in the old page but that's neither here nor there. I wasn't personally told by GU fb coaches 19 years ago that a Yates re-do was being "actively pursued." I was however about the stadium.

Fun Fact time!: "The Colosseum is situated just east of the Roman Forum. Construction began under the emperor Vespasian in 70 AD, and was completed in 80 AD under his successor and heir Titus."

[DanMcQ]

You're quite right about the 'right' to rail, and I'm quite able to correct unsupported conjecture when it appears.

[thebin]

Well there is certainly some unsupported conjecture in this thread. I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves if it is on the "actively pursuing" or "rotting on the vine" side of the future stadium question.

[DanMcQ]

Not "topic policing" as you accuse (nothing has been edited, censored, deleted, or the like), but engaging in a discussion, which you clearly value as long as there isn't anything that doesn't fit your paradigm. What gives you the authority to determine that you are interested in the topic and I am not?

[2210]

Jul 23, 2014 21:05:54 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

Wow. Better check your living room for listening devices too.

Your sarcasm in response to Bin is totally uncalled for. His frustration about the MSF is shared by many others.

[DanMcQ]

Perhaps. Although I share the same frustration with lack of progress on the MSF, his initial post mushroomed what could easily have been an editing oversight for the new website (a project not under the sole direction of Athletics Development as far as I know) into a thread title implying that the University has "officially" abandoned the project. He asked if anyone knew if there was "even still lip service being paid to the idea of replacing" the MSF. I went to the source and it's still a priority they are actively working on. I posted that information but he chose to still regard the website change as evidence of an "opportunity to prune the dead stadium branch." Hence my sarcasm.

[hoyatables]

Also, thebin knows as well as any of us that Georgetown in general, and the Athletic Department in particular, is not the most "public" place.

By the way, I can corroborate that the MSF is still being actively worked on.

[RusskyHoya]

Jul 23, 2014 15:56:01 GMT -5 thebin said:

What evidence is there by the way that the stadium is being "actively" pursued btw? Is there a reason why this is treated like a state secret?

I don't really have too much in the way of inside info on this one, but I can posit two completely plausible reasons:

1. Discretion is considered paramount when you're courting a small number of big donors, as opposed to casting a wide net. It has been clear for awhile now that the fundraising strategy for the MSF has been to focus on a small number of money people, rather than through a public campaign. See, e.g., when one donor passed away and the earmarked money from his estate immediately went to funding the lights.

Lack of discretion can lead to - among other things - unwanted attention from other prospective suitors, both from Georgetown and from other philanthropic operators.

2. Although advancement/fundraising is not wholly a zero-sum game, it is often perceived this way. There is no question what the top AD priority is: the IAC. Having two major, public fundraising efforts at the same time for major athletic facilities projects would (in addition to any potential for dilution of donations) create a perception that Georgetown is overly focused on athletics, to the exclusion of many other needs. The AD and the University have wisely chosen to go with the IAC as the preeminent public project, while leaving the MSF to be fundraised out of the spotlight.

Now, if things had gone according to plan, the fundraising for the MSF could've been complete long before For Generations to Come was even launched, but...yea...

[thebin]

Thanks for the insight Russky. Its frustrating that the MSF is always a third order priority for the university and has been for nearly two decades. Even if you dislike football and want to see the program cut, the current aging temporary bleachers at the heart of campus are unworthy of GU. And its more than a little embarrassing that after publicly launching a phased construction of it with great fanfare there has been such a huge period of inaction and silence. It is one thing to silently gather funds, but then after you launch the first phase with fanfare to go dead quiet for many years is just bush.

[thebin]

Blech. DFW's brutal but accurate summary of the university's suspicious silence on the front page confirms doubts that the facility was accidentally left off future facilities page on new site. Burying a ceremonial groundbreaking photo so they can slink away from a public commitment to build a high school stadium? That's all class Healy. What can Sgarlata do with that kind of support?

dFW-Not even Tenney stadium is a possibility at this point? If we're not even talking about that level then for crying out loud put up the damn new high school bleachers now. What happened to the $12mm raised? Tell me they didn't spend that on a field with a fence???

[RusskyHoya]

Sept 14, 2014 7:56:43 GMT -5 thebin said:

Blech. DFW's brutal but accurate summary of the university's suspicious silence on the front page confirms doubts that the facility was accidentally left off future facilities page on new site. Burying a ceremonial groundbreaking photo so they can slink away from a public commitment to build a high school stadium? That's all class Healy. What can Sgarlata do with that kind of support?

dFW-Not even Tenney stadium is a possibility at this point? If we're not even talking about that level then for crying out loud put up the damn new high school bleachers now. What happened to the $12mm raised? Tell me they didn't spend that on a field with a fence???

With as many hosting/content management upgrades as GUHoyas.com has been through, "burying" is probably not the right word. More likely something along the lines of "inadvertently discarding, along with lots of other stuff."

Anyway, I'm certain that that's a deep, dark, twisted tale to be told about the history of the as-yet uncompleted MSF, full of treachery and intrigue and broken promises. I'm equally certain that no one is interested enough to write it, or read it (our friend DFW being perhaps the exception that proves the rule).

Even without any particular inside information, though, I think we can sketch the contours of the story. I don't think it's one that, in its full telling, necessarily leaves Healy coming off so regrettably poorly. What it does speak to, I think, is the inflection point confronting American universities today - one with which Georgetown found itself reckoning perhaps a bit earlier than its fellow D-I institutions (I mean the contemporary challenge, though obviously there have been others in the past that led to no less momentous decisions, like the one made by the Rev. John E. Brooks, S.J. that DFW likes to highlight).

I think it's clear that the promises, assurances, implications, intimations, what-have-you that were made with regard to the MSF in the first half of the last decade took place under the assumption that the MSF would be a high-priority project that would have the support and at least perfunctory involvement of the University leadership. It's entirely possible that, at the time that fateful groundbreaking and the infamous opening game against Brown (still got the hat!) took place, that was the operating assumption among the leadership as well.

Clearly, the calculus changed. I'm not one to begrudge JJD, et. al. for recognizing that neither their, nor the University's, reputations and legacies would be judged by whether or not they managed to upgrade the football team's stadium from first or second worst in I-AA to merely 20th or 30th worst. George Daly came on board as Dean of the MSB and basically swore that he would get a landmark business school building constructed or die trying (see, e.g., this HT thread announcing his appointment, where fundraising is identified as his top priority). He succeeded, with the Hariri Building becoming the first campus building financed entirely through private donations. That single-minded focus, though - which won over the leadership - came at the expense of the MSF, among other projects. What bandwidth was left was allocated to the plans for the new science building, which rose in priority as it became increasingly clear that Reiss's self-evident obsolescence was scaring off more and more students with even a passing interest in the sciences.

Then, even before the Hariri Building opened, the economy crashed, affecting Georgetown's top donors (including football donors) quite severely. All campus projects ground to a halt. Athletics (along with most of the rest of the University) was forced to switch from an expansionary footing to a defensive one, focused on safeguarding existing levels of financial support to programs.

The double whammies of the 2010 Campus Plan saga and conference re-alignment soon followed. The former brought with it expensive requirements for new on-campus housing (the Northeast Triangle, Ryan/Mulledy renovations, and temporary partial hotel conversion), additional on-campus programming (Healy Family Student Center), and GUTS bus re-routing (McDonough parking lot bus turnaround). The latter meant that construction of the IAC had to happen sooner, rather than later, and the AD would have to make it the overwhelming priority of its efforts.

All of this was happening against the background of For Generations to Come, and I get the sense that there was always only ever going to be one major athletics project within the scope of that campaign. Throughout it all, faculty lines still need expanding and endowing, programs need funding and innovating, research needs sustaining, student and faculty demands need addressing, and so on and so forth.

So that's roughly how we ended up where we are now.

Having said that, and without passing judgment on who promised what to whom, obviously it is poor form to allow one's mouth to write interdepartmental invoices that one's cost center cannot cash. To the extent that football players, boosters, and others were told/promised things that haven't come to pass, that's a bad thing and no doubt explains a significant chunk of the cynicism, apathy, lack of trust, etc. toward the University vis-a-vis the football program. In lieu of concrete plans for moving forward, some institutional self-reflection and contrition, at least, is probably called for.

The good news, to me, is that the MSF remains on the 'drawing board' in some form. It already exists and occupies space - in the middle of campus, no less - and therefore cannot simply be ignored until it goes away entirely. It will be addressed and brought to some sort of resolution, if for no other reason than because the center of campus cannot be made whole (that is to say, made respectable) without it.

The bad news is that, for the football program, completion of the MSF will do little to stem the tide of competitive imbalance in the Patriot League. Not when it's 60 scholarships vs. 0.

[Problem of Dog]

I know that it's a chicken/egg problem here, but I think football's miserable failures under Coach Kelly did it no favors in pushing forward the progress of the MSF. You can blame it on the facilities all you want, but I wouldn't say many recruits were lost simply because we didn't have a nicer stadium, unless you imagine that said stadium would have a new weightroom, new meeting rooms, new locker rooms, et al. And that's a lot more than anyone realistically expected from the MSF. So I think a lot of DFW's frustration is misguided.

Furthermore, a great stadium would still have us where we are now: falling way behind the rest of the league in terms of talent because we will not splurge for the scholarships that the rest of the league is pursuing. If you think the stadium's completion would have represented such a sea change in the attitudes of the administration that they also would have been on board with a significant number of scholarships, then you're living a pipe dream.