|
Post by cardfan on Mar 22, 2016 11:49:33 GMT -6
You keep saying some good transfers are coming yet there is zero evidence of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2016 12:20:51 GMT -6
"Whatever the price of gas, we would have needed to spend a lot to convert to new natural gas facility."
It was $20 million for a complete power plant rebuild, or $10 million for a new boiler. The $100 million for the geothermal option was an almost criminal choice and a perfect example of financial mismanagement and agenda based decision making.
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Mar 22, 2016 12:35:35 GMT -6
Honestly, I would rather have a consistant presence in a CIT/CBI and even win some of these than getting a 15 seed in the NCAA and get crushed in the first round. I actually see less of a point of doing that vs going deep into these smaller tournaments.
Wow, Cedar. Milk for the journey home?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 22, 2016 13:51:40 GMT -6
"Whatever the price of gas, we would have needed to spend a lot to convert to new natural gas facility." It was $20 million for a complete power plant rebuild, or $10 million for a new boiler. The $100 million for the geothermal option was an almost criminal choice and a perfect example of financial mismanagement and agenda based decision making. We are both skeptics on this. That's what I described above, except I think we really needed more than a boiler including that fire damage over there. And staying with coal is probably a bad idea, have to go to gas, I'd think as the alternative. Assuming new plant, then probably also would need some extra overhaul for distribution system to replace some of the antiquated steam pipes, provided for future growth, and so on. Maybe some of that is not necessary under this current scheme. The big issue, as you have argued, is whether all that "free lunch" geothermal energy compared to buying the consumable gas, will be worth the extra capital expenditure. That's a gamble. Hard to calculate exactly since we're trying to predict gas prices, but you can buy a lot of gas for $50-100 million dollars extra, discounted into the future by some discount interest rate. It would be an easy capital budgeting problem if we had really good estimates of all the demand and price variables. The other negative here is even though we got a "good rate" on the construction, more here is front loaded, and we had to pay up front for the so much greater capital outlay for geothermal. Hey, if energy rates go way up by some chance, we'll be toasty warm, and cool. Well if the damned thing works... We're stuck with this, and the administration will be glad to explain how it's going to save us money, but first I'd like to see it work well, and then see how they come to the financial answers.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 22, 2016 14:00:16 GMT -6
You keep saying some good transfers are coming yet there is zero evidence of this. The kid has more faith than fact, probably, but he is on a roll this year. To be fair to the kid (OK, I know, why do that?) it is credible that things are in the works and NOT public. It really isn't reasonable that the coaches stand pat and don't use a few scholarships. No reason to assume that. Whitford has made good decisions on most things this year, and his recruiting knowledge and connections are good. I predicted preseason it would be after the semester is over before we had recruiting done, still think so. I doubt this group will be completely happy whatever happens, what fun would that be?
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Mar 22, 2016 14:05:52 GMT -6
If kid is willing to say he knows for a fact we are getting transfers then I would be willing to buy it. Doesn't have to divulge any other information, if there is any. Otherwise it's just the throw it at a wall and see what sticks approach.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 22, 2016 14:06:37 GMT -6
I almost edited to clarify, and I guess I should have. My problem isn't that we have to pay to play, it's that pretty much anyone willing to pay gets to play. There's no selectivity involved. Cedar said he wanted us to be consistent CBI/CIT performers as though that indicates a level of success. All it indicates is a willingness to write the checks. That's the real reason I don't want CBI/CIT to be consistent. If we can't make the NCAA the only other consistent tournament we should aim for the NIT. That's a good point, the goal should be at least NIT. We expect a higher level of success long term. This tournament should be evaluated case by case and if we do participate when we don't get to the NIT/NCAA, it should not be a goal, but a decision that helps the program. This year it does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2016 14:18:02 GMT -6
Realitycheck post is truly awesome!
#settlers
|
|
|
Post by thebsukid on Mar 22, 2016 14:33:11 GMT -6
Patience!!
By the way, for the record, weren't MCCurdy and Kidd transfers??
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Mar 22, 2016 14:38:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by cedarpointer on Mar 22, 2016 15:33:39 GMT -6
I knew that would stir things up. That's what I'm good for. Of course getting to the NCAA is the top goal, but the reality of a 1/68 chance of getting in and having to win 8-10 straight games (including Mac tourney, and all through the ncaa bracket) to win a championship is highly unrealistic for a lot of teams. The NIT and on at least gives a realistic outlook of putting something into a trophy case. I think you have to pay to host in the other tourneys and I think the school covers its own cost to travel in the big dance, so it's going to cost regardless...
Again my point is that I would rather be one of the 40 or so teams still playing any kind of tourney basketball on March 22, than the team (buffalo) that 99.5% of 200million people immediately scratched from their bracket at 10pm selection Sunday.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2016 15:52:25 GMT -6
Heck, let's drop back to NAIA Div. II and play for a championship every year. I pay as much attention to that tournament as I would CIT and CBI. We'd also save $$ on travel and scholarships.
|
|
|
Post by thebsukid on Mar 22, 2016 19:09:13 GMT -6
I can not say positive we are bringing in a transfer or transfers, but what I will say is it is more than just a wild arse guess for sure
|
|
|
Post by universityjim on Mar 22, 2016 19:27:22 GMT -6
Well if that's your personal preference, then fine, but I think you're nuts. There is absolutely no comparison between the excitement of the NCAA tourney and the CIT. Nor is there any comparison to what it means to the strength and health of the program. Do I even need to explain all the reasons why? It seems too obvious to bother.
Not to mention we get paid a nice amount for every NCAA Tournament game we play in, as opposed to paying to participate. This tournament is fun (for some of us at least), but the advantages of going to the NCAA tournament in terms of recruiting, increased donor support, fan pride and involvement out weigh it by so much it isn't really worth having this discussion. We need NCAA Tournaments to move the program forward.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Mar 22, 2016 19:28:01 GMT -6
I can not say positive we are bringing in a transfer or transfers, but what I will say is it is more than just a wild arse guess for sure Well that's about as vague as could be and could be said any year.
|
|