Bad Arguments

[shaft]

There are a lot of bad arguments going around both for and against the stadium. My fear is that these bad arguments cloud the issue and will hamper the students' ability make an informed decision next month.

AGAINST THE STADIUM

"The team's not winning, they don't deserve a new stadium."

On the field performance should not be the standard for capital projects. Should we have built the stadium back when the team was winning? If the team wins in the new stadium, should be build them a bigger stadium? The issue at hand is that Fouts out dated.

"We should spend this money on something else."

The student vote is over a athletic fees, nothing else. The money can't be used for music practice rooms, or women's health center. There is no zero sum trade-off between the stadium and any other issue or project. The vote is simply athletic fee or no athletic fee.

"The students shouldn't have to pay for this"

State law says athletic fees can't pay for more than 50% of the stadium. It's the school's football program. It's the student's football team. This is why the students get to make the choice if they want this.

"Someone else should pay for this"

Recent calls for Al Gore or T. Boone Pickens to sponsor the stadium are naive. It's "our" stadium, the question being posed to the students is do you want this, if so you have to pay for it. The sponsorship element must have value, why should someone else invest in your project if your not willing to do it yourself."

FOR THE STADIUM

"It was promised"

No one except the Board of Regents was in the position to promise a new stadium (not even RV). So if the BOR took some action to promise the stadium, it should be in an official document and they should have budgeted for it.

"Coach Dodge will leave'

I think on the field performance has more to do this issue, than the stadium.

Edited September 22, 2008 by shaft

[untgirl04]

There are a lot of bad arguments going around both for and against the stadium. My fear is that these bad arguments cloud the issue and will hamper the students' ability make an informed decision next month.

AGAINST THE STADIUM

"The team's not winning, they don't deserve a new stadium."

On the field performance should not be the standard for capital projects. Should we have built the stadium back when the team was winning? If the team wins in the new stadium, should be build them a bigger stadium? The issue at hand is that Fouts out dated.

"We should spend this money on something else."

The student vote is over a athletic fees, nothing else. The money can't be used for music practice rooms, or women's health center. There is no zero sum trade-off between the stadium and any other issue or project. The vote is simply athletic fee or no athletic fee.

"The students shouldn't have to pay for this"

State law says athletic fees can't pay for more than 50% of the stadium. It's the school's football program. It's the student's football team. This is why the students get to make the choice if they want this.

"Someone else should pay for this"

Recent calls for Al Gore or T. Boone Pickens to sponsor the stadium are naive. It's "our" stadium, the question being posed to the students is do you want this, if so you have to pay for it. The sponsorship element must have value, why should someone else invest in your project if your not willing to do it yourself."

FOR THE STADIUM

"It was promised"

No one except the Board of Regents was in the position to promise a new stadium (not even RV). So if the BOR took some action to promise the stadium, it should be in an official document and they should have budgeted for it.

"Coach Dodge will leave'

I think on the field performance has more to do this issue, than the stadium.

Great post. You know, I've never really understood this argument against the stadium: Our team's on-field performance is not very good, so they shouldn't play in a new stadium.

What if that standard were applied to academics? Our (for the sake of argument - pick your least favorite major here) business school is not very good. Overall, we aren't prominently ranked in any of the national polls. The business school already has the COBA building. It's not even that old. Why should we build a new building? We aren't producing any high-profile business graduates, so why should all the art, music, and science majors pay for for something they will never use? Business majors don't contribute anything to my education or degree - they're just a bunch of loud, obnoxious, lazy sorority and fraternity brats whose mommies and daddies pay for their "education" so that they can go work at the family business.

See? The argument just doesn't make sense.

** Disclaimer: The above argument does not reflect my actual feelings towards business majors. I like business majors. In fact, I married one. So please, no hate mail.

[Arkstfan]

Actually the whole thing is very simple.

Is FBS football an important part UNT's identity?

If the answer is no, then there is no need for a new stadium.

If the answer is yes, then a new stadium is essential because:

1. Fouts Field will lose its only competition for worst stadium in the Sun Belt in 2010 when FAU opens its new facility and honestly Lockhart offers better site lines, seating, and as good or better amenities as Fouts.

2. Fouts is not designed to generate revenue that can reduce pressure on student-funding.

Whether the answer is yes or no it is in the best interest of UNT to raze Fouts Field because it projects an image of UNT that is inconsistent with the reality of UNT as well as the aspirations of the university. Across the nation university presidents and chancellors scramble to knock down out-dated, poorly functioning structures that can not be rehabilitated because shabby old buildings don't project a positive university image.

[meangreendork]

AGAINST THE STADIUM

"The team's not winning, they don't deserve a new stadium."

On the field performance should not be the standard for capital projects. Should we have built the stadium back when the team was winning? If the team wins in the new stadium, should be build them a bigger stadium? The issue at hand is that Fouts out dated.

I love this argument. Here's a great counter for that: "If the biology department has poorly performing graduates and outdated equipment, would you think it didn't need an update of materials and facilities?"

[UNTLifer]

"Someone else should pay for this"

Recent calls for Al Gore or T. Boone Pickens to sponsor the stadium are naive. It's "our" stadium, the question being posed to the students is do you want this, if so you have to pay for it. The sponsorship element must have value, why should someone else invest in your project if your not willing to do it yourself."

The post you are referencing was from me. I am not calling for someone else to pay for this, but the athletic department is soliticiting donations and some of these are from corporations. T. Boone Pickens is the champion of alternative energy, mainly wind, and with the proposed stadium planned to be LEED certified and therefore a "green" facility, why not approach Mr. Pickens about either a donation or naming rights to the stadium? Mesa Energy stadium isn't all bad.

I know many alumni, including me, that are willing to donate to the stadium fund, but unfortunately not many of us have the financial ability to make a 7+ figure donation like Mr. Pickens.

The Al Gore comment was made in jest

[Censored by Laurie]

The Al Gore comment was made in jest

Whatever...liberal

[aprice]

The most irritating argument I've heard is "We need to spend the money on other things". Implying there is money currently available to use on other things. I really think some of the people believe there is some large pit of money that UNT has hoarded away somewhere and is pulling out of it in order to build this stadium. I've seen it time and time again on the opposing facebook group.

Edited September 23, 2008 by aprice

[meangreendork]

The most irritating argument I've heard is "We need to spend the money on other things". Implying there is money currently available to use on other things. I really think some of the people believe there is some large pit of money that UNT has hoarded away somewhere and is pulling out of it in order to build this stadium. I've seen it time and time again on the opposing facebook group.

Keep in mind that these folks are generally uninformed. It's one thing to have all the information and say, "no, our university's priorities are not just football alone, but other sports that do not get any use of the facilities." Or, "our future students' already limited pocketbooks should be used to pay for academics only, not a gamble on a football stadium." It's something else to be ignorant of how the system works and say, "I don't like football, so I don't want a stadium."

[Guest Aquila_Viridis]

Not to worry. If we don't build the stadium, we'll be the terror of Division 2. Or will we?

I have to admit I had no idea what this was:

[Guest Aquila_Viridis]

The mystery deepens if you rotate it:

[shaft]

More bad arguments.

Against:

Why should I pay for something I'm not going to use.

Your not paying for the stadium, the fee increase goes into effect for future students once the stadium is built.

Why should we trust the administration on this, Coach Dodge hasn't made the team any better.

1. Fifteen games is too soon to judge a coach's ability to rebuild.

2. The debate is less about improving the team and more about a replacement for Fouts. All your guaranteed with a new stadium, is a better place to watch football.

For:

A new stadium means a new conference.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. There are no conference openings, nor are there any of the horizon.

A new stadium will improve the team.

Again there is no evidence to support this. A new stadium doesn't not automatically improve the on the field product. All one has to do is look to SMU to show there is no correlation between a new stadium and a better record. All your guaranteed with a new stadium, is a better place to watch football.

[shaft]

More bad arguments.

Against:

Why can't the Athletic Department pay for the whole project.

1. This is argument is very similar to "why should the students pay for it" and "why can't someone else pay for it" addressed above.

2. The AD is part of the university which draws a majority of its funding from the students.

3. What other university's have built a stadium this way? Athletic fees are common mechanism to pay for capital projects.

For:

Think about all the concerts, and big events that will use the new stadium.

UNT doesn't not have a successful track record of running non school related events at school venues. When was the last time an outside concert or event game to Fouts or the Super Pit? Events like band and cheerleading competitions, fourth of july concerts, and graduations are common place at every university. The new stadium does not uniquely increase our competitive advantage in hosting these sorts of events.

[untgirl04]

More bad arguments.

For:

Think about all the concerts, and big events that will use the new stadium.

UNT doesn't not have a successful track record of running non school related events at school venues. When was the last time an outside concert or event game to Fouts or the Super Pit? Events like band and cheerleading competitions, fourth of july concerts, and graduations are common place at every university. The new stadium does not uniquely increase our competitive advantage in hosting these sorts of events.

Not sure I agree with you there. Perhaps part of the reason North Texas rarely hosts these events is because of the poor facilities. In addition, with Jerry World opening next year, the cost to host high school playoff games is going to increase exponentially. With a new stadium. North Texas could be in a position (also because a new stadium would actually be 'TV friendly') to host some of those games. It's an argument based on a lot of speculation, but I still think it's worth bringing up.

[shaft]

Not sure I agree with you there. Perhaps part of the reason North Texas rarely hosts these events is because of the poor facilities. In addition, with Jerry World opening next year, the cost to host high school playoff games is going to increase exponentially. With a new stadium. North Texas could be in a position (also because a new stadium would actually be 'TV friendly') to host some of those games. It's an argument based on a lot of speculation, but I still think it's worth bringing up.

The fact that there will be more venues undermines the argument that the new stadium will attract more events. The existence of a new stadium does not guarantee a new event recruitment and management staff. The new stadium will get events like band competitions and high school football playoffs, but I think it is reaching to think the stadium will get events at Pizza Hut Park in Frisco. Alcohol and insurance policies are a huge factor in attracting "outside" events like concerts.

[Green Dozer]

Not sure I agree with you there. Perhaps part of the reason North Texas rarely hosts these events is because of the poor facilities. In addition, with Jerry World opening next year, the cost to host high school playoff games is going to increase exponentially. With a new stadium. North Texas could be in a position (also because a new stadium would actually be 'TV friendly') to host some of those games. It's an argument based on a lot of speculation, but I still think it's worth bringing up.

UNT Girl, better be careful with this fact. The fee Texas Stadium charges high schools for the playoffs is very minimal, I have heard rumors as little as $500 for the games, but TX Stadium keeps the concessions, most of the gate receipts, and parking. Since management will be the same at Jerry World, I would imagine this will not change. Houston high schools played their playoff games in the Astrodome, now they are played at Reliant even with U of H and Rice both having stadiums.

[Green Dozer]

More bad arguments.

Against:

Why can't the Athletic Department pay for the whole project.

1. This is argument is very similar to "why should the students pay for it" and "why can't someone else pay for it" addressed above.

2. The AD is part of the university which draws a majority of its funding from the students.

3. What other university's have built a stadium this way? Athletic fees are common mechanism to pay for capital projects.

For:

Think about all the concerts, and big events that will use the new stadium.

UNT doesn't not have a successful track record of running non school related events at school venues. When was the last time an outside concert or event game to Fouts or the Super Pit? Events like band and cheerleading competitions, fourth of july concerts, and graduations are common place at every university. The new stadium does not uniquely increase our competitive advantage in hosting these sorts of events.

The fee Texas Stadium charges high schools for the playoffs is very minimal, I have heard rumors as little as $500 for the games, but TX Stadium keeps the concessions, most of the gate receipts, and parking. Since management will be the same at Jerry World, I would imagine this will not change. Houston high schools played their playoff games in the Astrodome, now they are played at Reliant even with U of H and Rice both having stadiums. Most of the new larger high school stadiums in the area do not host high school playoffs, so I don't think that it will happen for us. Ford at SMU has not hosted any high school playoff games, but has hosted the Tom Landry Classic over the past few years, so something like that would be great for us. Collins has hosted a couple of playoff games (Celina played one there), and has also has had band competitions there.

[UNTflyer]

Maybe not high school playoff games, but perhaps we can schedule big rivalries or one of those interstate games like SLC and Miami did at SMU's stadium.

[Green Dozer]

Maybe not high school playoff games, but perhaps we can schedule big rivalries or one of those interstate games like SLC and Miami did at SMU's stadium.

You just have all the great ideas! See my post.

[shaft]

If you try to sell the stadium based on bad arguments its going to fail.

The students can see through fluff arguments like this stadium is going to be more than a football stadium. The students don't care about hosting high school football playoffs, band competitions, and cheerleading. Those types of events are not unique to a new stadium.

The student senate will not (and should not) over turn the popular vote. Your going to have to use good arguments to convince the student body to vote for the stadium.

[JesseMartin]

The fact is that, of the small percentage (usually 3-7%, rarely over 10%) of students voting in school elections at the University level, most are quite well-informed (or sometimes misinformed) about the issues and candidates, much more so than voters in national or even state elections. However, most of the voters fall into one of the following voter trends:

1) Most of their friends are voting a certain way and talk about the issue a lot.

2) They're mad about something.

3) They're actually concerned about the state of their or their school's well-being and are voting based on the information they have been able to garner.

The vast majority of students fitting profile #s 1 and 3 tend to be "pro", while only a small percentage of those fitting profile #2 are the same. The only likely way the stadium vote will fail is if the students fitting profile #2 are approximately 80% of all "new" (not previously committed) voters. Again, with the large Greek and Athlete blocs, as well as about 50% of Res. Hall students trending towards "pro", "anti" organizers will need about 2,200 "new", "anti" voters if this vote follows previous UNT and national student voting trends.

[shaft]

The fact is that, of the small percentage (usually 3-7%, rarely over 10%) of students voting in school elections at the University level, most are quite well-informed (or sometimes misinformed) about the issues and candidates, much more so than voters in national or even state elections. However, most of the voters fall into one of the following voter trends:

1) Most of their friends are voting a certain way and talk about the issue a lot.

2) They're mad about something.

3) They're actually concerned about the state of their or their school's well-being and are voting based on the information they have been able to garner.

The vast majority of students fitting profile #s 1 and 3 tend to be "pro", while only a small percentage of those fitting profile #2 are the same. The only likely way the stadium vote will fail is if the students fitting profile #2 are approximately 80% of all "new" (not previously committed) voters. Again, with the large Greek and Athlete blocs, as well as about 50% of Res. Hall students trending towards "pro", "anti" organizers will need about 2,200 "new", "anti" voters if this vote follows previous UNT and national student voting trends.

Aren't 80% of stats made up (especially on this board.)

Bad arguments won't get this thing built. Bad arguments will only fuel the opposition. Its a lot easier to tee off on something when all you have to do is expose their bad/straw person arguments.

[untgirl04]

UNT Girl, better be careful with this fact. The fee Texas Stadium charges high schools for the playoffs is very minimal, I have heard rumors as little as $500 for the games, but TX Stadium keeps the concessions, most of the gate receipts, and parking. Since management will be the same at Jerry World, I would imagine this will not change. Houston high schools played their playoff games in the Astrodome, now they are played at Reliant even with U of H and Rice both having stadiums.

I'm thinking more in context for the prices paid by fans attending these games. As you pointed out, Texas Stadium keeps concessions and parking. Do you not think these things will rise when the new stadium is opened? The coordinators of these playoff games have to consider not only how much it will cost them to obtain the facilities, but how much the fans are willing to pay to watch the games. Right now, you can go watch an entire day of high school football for a pretty reasonable price, sans any food. However, as the concession and parking prices rise, at what threshold will fans say 'This is just too much money.'

I'm curious: By how much did the Houston Texas raise their ticket prices when they moved into Reliant Stadium?

Edited September 27, 2008 by untgirl04

[untgirl04]

The fact that there will be more venues undermines the argument that the new stadium will attract more events. The existence of a new stadium does not guarantee a new event recruitment and management staff. The new stadium will get events like band competitions and high school football playoffs, but I think it is reaching to think the stadium will get events at Pizza Hut Park in Frisco. Alcohol and insurance policies are a huge factor in attracting "outside" events like concerts.

Put into that context, I see where you're going, and it makes sense. I wasn't thinking as far-reaching as Pizza Hut Park-type events. But area marching band competitions and high school playoff games I think are certainly a possibility. Even with just smaller-time events, it's more than Fouts is bringing in right now.

[Green Dozer]

I'm thinking more in context for the prices paid by fans attending these games. As you pointed out, Texas Stadium keeps concessions and parking. Do you not think these things will rise when the new stadium is opened? The coordinators of these playoff games have to consider not only how much it will cost them to obtain the facilities, but how much the fans are willing to pay to watch the games. Right now, you can go watch an entire day of high school football for a pretty reasonable price, sans any food. However, as the concession and parking prices rise, at what threshold will fans say 'This is just too much money.'

I'm curious: By how much did the Houston Texas raise their ticket prices when they moved into Reliant Stadium?

Don't know how much prices were raised. But I do not think it makes any difference, the high school athletic directors, coaches, boosters, and parents will go to Cowboy Stadium. The concession prices still have to meet what the market will pay. It also gives the fan the opportunity to see a game at Cowboy Stadium that they might not be able to afford, certainly in the seats they would sit in, or have the opportunity to go anyway. There is also not anyway for them demand that the game be moved, its the playoffs after all. We need to have a Saturday or 2 of high school games during the season, invite some regional rivalries to play or something. Collins here in Denton has not hosted but just a couple of high school games.

[shaft]

More Bad Arguments going around.

Against:

Why does it have to be $10, can't we vote again in the spring for smaller increase.

1. You only get to vote for what is proposed (a $7 increase to begin after the stadium is built), there is no guarantee there will be another vote in the spring.

2. There is no way for the student government to know your "no" vote as a vote to try again in the spring.

3. None of the financial projections have been done at a lower level, it is likely that decreasing the student fee would drag the project out and increase the overall cost of the project.

For:

This is vote about having football at UNT.

1. No its not. It is a vote about replacing Fouts.

2. You may not be happy with the student vote if they were given a chance to get rid of football.

Everyone who votes in these elections is for the stadium.

1. I do not believe there is any accurate, non-biased polling going on campus to support this statement.

2. There are lots of new students, and student groups (official and unofficial). Groups like AWOL, feminist majority league, Denton green party, and a does other anti-war groups like to rally around an issue as an attempt to bring more attention to their cause. These are the type of groups that will latch on to bad arguments, and make a big display of tearing them down. (It easier to play offense and expose the flaws in someone else's logic, that defend your core idea.)