The democratian blows it again: Big Plans at UW

.
As someone who served, all-too-briefly, as a tackling dummy walk-on in 1977 at Husky Stadium (My abortive effort as a walk-on in Spring Practice cut off by a weapons instructor reassignment to Saudi Arabia... my return to complete the AROTC program in '81 precluding further involvement... that and a desire to avoid getting flattened like a steam roller was building a road. ) I have an affinity for Husky Stadium: some small amount of my blood left on a vastly different rug in the shadow of the Lake Washington end and bodily fluids left on the hundred and hundreds of stadium steps from running those bad boys... so, I understand, probably better then the kool-aid drinker who wrote this editorial, what's going on there.

In part, I have a level of agreement with what was written... but it begins and ends here:

To its credit, after a misguided-but-brief effort to entice the Legislature to pay for the renovation, Washington is funding the project through private donations and expected increased stadium revenue.

DISagreement starts here:

That need for increased revenue is what necessitates the relocation of the students.

Utter nonsense, of course.

The UW is perfectly capable of not doing this, yet another in a series of renovations, at all. In that regard, this amounts to a colossal waste of money.

What we're talking about here is dumping an unnecessary quarter of a billion dollars into a facility that will be used for football around 6 times per year.

Spending $250 million dollars on anything that will be used for 6 days a year is, well, moronic.

Particularly in the face of this little tidbit:

During the renovation, UW will play its 2012 home football season, and the November 26, 2011, Apple Cup game against Washington State at Qwest Field.

So, the obvious question becomes this:

If the Dawgs can play a season and a third at Qwest... then why can't they play EVERY home game there, permanently?

HHhhmmmmm?

Qwest Field, paid for, for the most part, by public dollars (let's never forget that Qwest is a PUBLIC facility) that have already been spent.

The Seahawks use it 10 or so times a year. So why is it that it's so damned important that we have a third unnecessary stadium (The Kingdome could STILL be serving us for a lot less money then the billion taxpayers spent on Qwest and Safeco) to blow dollars in?

The renovation is not something Huskyville NEEDS to have... it is, instead, something Huskyville WANTS to have.

And we're not, I believe, in a WANTS to have economy.

Yeah, it's a shame that we don't have the Nike equivalent up here... although I am reminded of a day during the stadium fight in Olympia when Paul Allen made enough money... on one day... to build 3 Qwest Fields and put an NFL team in each.

But why we don't is irrelevant. THAT we don't is the thing, and we never will.

Oregon isn't doing as well as they are because of facilities. After all, facilities don't make up for all the disadvantages Oregon has to overcome.

First, Oregon is in, well, Oregon. And who wants to play football for, or live in a train wreck like that? No matter what kind of castle Phil builds them, it's still in, well, Oregon. (Folks... there's a reason why NBA championships, for example, don't live there... and facilities ain't it. When a LeBron James hits the free agent market... Blazer-land ain't on the list))

Second, they've had a football team that has needed a probation officer more then a head coach. Is that what we want?

Do we want to hearken back to the Neuheisel Era (which took place, I might add, in a day when Husky facilities still lagged behind Nike's Palace.) and get players without regard to academics, character and integrity? (Thugs like Blount and Masoli come to mind)

There are only so many Don James types to go around. And when we get one... he wins. When we don't, we don't. And right now, it's fairly clear that while we may have one in the Sark, Oregon definitely has one now.

So get past the idea that we need to renovate Husky stadium. We don't.

Because in all of this, we can never lose sight of why we have college football in the first place.

It is first for the students; second for the student athletes, third for the community and fourth for the jock sniffers, aka the big shot Alum. And that duty to the students comes long before the "cold, hard business" nonsense the rag babbles about.

Football finances the rest of the athletic program there. I get that.

But what the rag is advocating is a move from a college athletic program to a huge, semi-pro level program, where the actual justification of college football... the students and the student athletes... are completely forgotten in a cloud of cash.

As it is now, Student season tickets average around $125... which seems like a reasonable cost. When this pig has completed it's non-student-focused lipsticking transplant, that cost goes up to as much as $900.

Is this where I point out that season ticket prices for the National Champion Eastern Washington University Eagles range from $25 per season... PER SEASON... for kids, to $90... PER SEASON.

Section	Bench (A/F)	Bench (B/E)	Premium (C/D)	Visitors (Q/M/P/N)	Visitors (02/01)	Endzone (HIJK)
Season Seats	$70	$80	$90	$70	$70	$60
Fac/Staff	$60	$70
Alumni Season	$60	$70
Family Pack (2 Adults, 3 Children)	$130
Kids Season	$25

And these guys are the National Champions.

So, oddly, what we have here is yet another effort by the democratian to shill for an agenda that is unsupportable, unjustifiable and which will hurt those it's alleged to serve the most.

You know... like the steaming pile that is the I-5 Bridge replacement and loot rail?

And there is no excuse... or need... for that.

Jacking the students, which is what's going to happen here, is never justified.

Student ticket prices are going to hit the stratosphere, pricing many of them out of games altogether.

And while that has no impact on the morons writing these editorials, well... they've proven themselves unconcerned when others are the ones required to spend money.
.