Stumbled across the RFQ for the basketball practice facility. Thought you guys might be interested.


https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu/contractors-consultants/request-qualifications-rfqs

Direct Link to the document. For those of you who don't trust this weird looking link, click on the link above. The document should be at the top.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14OYyL9BEWvawbxsjkZvrlpCtmWMsNy_0/view

OskiBear11Math said:

---

Stumbled across the RFQ for the basketball practice facility. Thought you guys might be interested.


https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu/contractors-consultants/request-qualifications-rfqs

Direct Link to the document. For those of you who don't trust this weird looking link, click on the link above. The document should be at the top.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14OYyL9BEWvawbxsjkZvrlpCtmWMsNy_0/view

---

Alternative: $20 million to build a light construction court on the roof of RSF with panoramic views of SF, the GG Bridge, the Bay, the Campanile and the Hills and $100 million into a fund for NIL payments.

Overspending on faculties is like France building the Maginot Line or the US building a fleet of battleships before WW2: it is preparing to fight the last war, not the future war.

calumnus said:

---

OskiBear11Math said:

---

Stumbled across the RFQ for the basketball practice facility. Thought you guys might be interested.


https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu/contractors-consultants/request-qualifications-rfqs

Direct Link to the document. For those of you who don't trust this weird looking link, click on the link above. The document should be at the top.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14OYyL9BEWvawbxsjkZvrlpCtmWMsNy_0/view

---

Alternative: $20 million to build a light construction court on the roof of RSF with panoramic views of SF, the GG Bridge, the Bay, the Campanile and the Hills and $100 million fund for NIL payments.

---

lol

Great to see the wheels turning on this. Any idea on why such a high price tag? 120 mil given the extent of the proposed facilities seems extraordinarily high even given the difficult cost of development in Berkeley/The Bay.

eastcoastcal said:

---

Any idea on why such a high price tag?

---

https://www.dir.ca.gov/public-works/prevailing-wage.html
https://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/pwappwage/wage/21201400.html?VarWageId=21201400

Nobody who sets foot on site will make less than $30/hr. Many will make much more.

I might not want to step foot in a facility made by $15 per hour employees. Commercial construction is a highly technical field now. I've been watching from above a building going up adjacent to my office, fascinating, but also amazing how much work goes into it. And I can only imagine the technical drawings/design beforehand. Despite that, $120M is a very big price tag.

sandiegobears said:

---

I might not want to step foot in a facility made by $15 per hour employees. Commercial construction is a highly technical field now. I've been watching from above a building going up adjacent to my office, fascinating, but also amazing how much work goes into it. And I can only imagine the technical drawings/design beforehand. Despite that, $120M is a very big price tag.

---

Starbucks baristas make $15. $30/hr is $60,000 per year, a living wage in the Bay Area and appropriate for trained professions.

I'm not criticizing prevailing wage, just explaining one major cost difference between private and public projects in CA. I learned all about it when I worked prevailing wage jobs and looked at my paycheck. I was getting paid pw to demo public schools. Never had a more rewarding job, except for the bs you had to put up with from the company using the threat of reassignment to private projects to haze people.

Agree, that was my point. What these guys are building down below my office in creating this building is not like hammering a few boards together... or making a coffee. My guess is that some actually make more like $40 to $50 per hour. My friend's son is a unionized electrician, highly trained and technical, he makes over $40 per hour and is actually fairly early in his career. Even so, he had to buy a house a solid 45 minutes north of San Diego. Assume the same in the Bay Area.

Now we're straying off topic...glad to see this project might move forward. They can raise the money in a flash if the team can start winning 20 games per year. It was done before and it can happen again, with the right coach and staff.

calumnus said:

---

sandiegobears said:

---

I might not want to step foot in a facility made by $15 per hour employees. Commercial construction is a highly technical field now. I've been watching from above a building going up adjacent to my office, fascinating, but also amazing how much work goes into it. And I can only imagine the technical drawings/design beforehand. Despite that, $120M is a very big price tag.

---

Starbucks baristas make $15. $30/hr is $60,000 per year, a living wage in the Bay Area and appropriate for trained professions.

---

Prevailing wage for a general laborer apprentice (non-skilled grunt in training) just starting out on the job is $33/hr. They have no more construction experience than your barista. After 6 months they qualify for pension and vacation pay and their pay jumps to $50/hr. A trained skilled tradesman like a journeyman carpenter makes $80+/hr.

This is not just a basketball facility, it's meant to house all of the Haas programs, hence the price tag. If we have donors, let's do it.

socaliganbear said:

---

This is not just a basketball facility, it's meant to house all of the Haas programs, hence the price tag. If we have donors, let's do it.

---

Correct, the facility would house a much more effective/larger weight training area(current area is woefully ineffective/far too small,) provide space for other men's and women's teams, and allow for a larger nutruitional food eating area for the student athletes. The price tag is certainly extremely high, but the scope is also larger than just a basketball facility. Berkeley approval process, architectural plans/revisions, permit process etc all before the actual construction process. I am in commercial real estate and the construction costs have skyrocketed over the past 18 months - supply chain issues, busy construction companies, rising wages etc all have impacted the costs. There does appear strong interest from donor's to raise significant monies.

The cost of procrastination???????When the PF was first being discussed seriously, the estimated cost was 20 million. The procrastination cost????100 million dollars. Somebody did not do a very good selling job during the Jurassic period when this was first discussed. Demographics are working against this project. The geezers who care about basketball are either almost dying, dying or dead. Cal needs a big sugar daddy. Sugar substitutes need not apply.

thanks for the find

it also lists a Haas Pavilion Women's Basketball Locker Room Renovation

4thGenCal said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

This is not just a basketball facility, it's meant to house all of the Haas programs, hence the price tag. If we have donors, let's do it.

---

Correct, the facility would house a much more effective/larger weight training area(current area is woefully ineffective/far too small,) provide space for other men's and women's teams, and allow for a larger nutruitional food eating area for the student athletes. The price tag is certainly extremely high, but the scope is also larger than just a basketball facility. Berkeley approval process, architectural plans/revisions, permit process etc all before the actual construction process. I am in commercial real estate and the construction costs have skyrocketed over the past 18 months - supply chain issues, busy construction companies, rising wages etc all have impacted the costs. There does appear strong interest from donor's to raise significant monies.

---

Do you think they can raise that much money in a short amount of time....say a few years?

It may be beneficial for it to benefit multiple sports from a fundraising standpoint. I'm not sure hoops donors are that excited about the program right now.

4thGenCal said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

This is not just a basketball facility, it's meant to house all of the Haas programs, hence the price tag. If we have donors, let's do it.

---

Correct, the facility would house a much more effective/larger weight training area(current area is woefully ineffective/far too small,) provide space for other men's and women's teams, and allow for a larger nutruitional food eating area for the student athletes. The price tag is certainly extremely high, but the scope is also larger than just a basketball facility. Berkeley approval process, architectural plans/revisions, permit process etc all before the actual construction process. I am in commercial real estate and the construction costs have skyrocketed over the past 18 months - supply chain issues, busy construction companies, rising wages etc all have impacted the costs. There does appear strong interest from donor's to raise significant monies.

---

Please tell me that, bringing in all these other teams, the facility would still at least do the one thing we all want it to do: Provide at least one quality basketball court that the men's team could practice on any time and that the players would have access to, 24/7, 365, to work on their game.

Because really, what this is all about, at least to me, is the men's basketball team being able to be competitive in recruiting. To be brutally honest, I don't care very much about the rest.

here's a question for you land barons out there.

We will build this and then vacate RSF, giving 1.5 courts back to the students. I imagine the university will reimburse the AD for the return of these assets back to Rec sports?

helltopay1 said:

---

The cost of procrastination???????When the PF was first being discussed seriously, the estimated cost was 20 million. The procrastination cost????100 million dollars. Somebody did not do a very good selling job during the Jurassic period when this was first discussed. Demographics are working against this project. The geezers who care about basketball are either almost dying, dying or dead. Cal needs a big sugar daddy. Sugar substitutes need not apply.

---

Given how large projects routinely see large cost overruns, I wouldn't be surprised if the practice facility costs $200 million when/if it's ever built.

Big C said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

This is not just a basketball facility, it's meant to house all of the Haas programs, hence the price tag. If we have donors, let's do it.

---

Correct, the facility would house a much more effective/larger weight training area(current area is woefully ineffective/far too small,) provide space for other men's and women's teams, and allow for a larger nutruitional food eating area for the student athletes. The price tag is certainly extremely high, but the scope is also larger than just a basketball facility. Berkeley approval process, architectural plans/revisions, permit process etc all before the actual construction process. I am in commercial real estate and the construction costs have skyrocketed over the past 18 months - supply chain issues, busy construction companies, rising wages etc all have impacted the costs. There does appear strong interest from donor's to raise significant monies.

---

Please tell me that, bringing in all these other teams, the facility would still at least do the one thing we all want it to do: Provide at least one quality basketball court that the men's team could practice on any time and that the players would have access to, 24/7, 365, to work on their game.

Because really, what this is all about, at least to me, is the men's basketball team being able to be competitive in recruiting. To be brutally honest, I don't care very much about the rest.

---

RSF is open 247 with private lockers and showers and my understanding is at least 1 court is currently reserved for the bball team. The teams have weight rooms. They have the RSF. There is also the SAHPC. This is largely to compete with other schools in opulence, which was the recruiting weapon pre-NIL. Cal would join the last party late, when everyone had moved on to the next party, and spend multiples more than everyone else to do so.

I really think an impressive court could be built for the teams on the roof of the RSF for a fraction of the cost of a new building.

The coming war is being fought with NIL.

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

This is not just a basketball facility, it's meant to house all of the Haas programs, hence the price tag. If we have donors, let's do it.

---

Correct, the facility would house a much more effective/larger weight training area(current area is woefully ineffective/far too small,) provide space for other men's and women's teams, and allow for a larger nutruitional food eating area for the student athletes. The price tag is certainly extremely high, but the scope is also larger than just a basketball facility. Berkeley approval process, architectural plans/revisions, permit process etc all before the actual construction process. I am in commercial real estate and the construction costs have skyrocketed over the past 18 months - supply chain issues, busy construction companies, rising wages etc all have impacted the costs. There does appear strong interest from donor's to raise significant monies.

---

Please tell me that, bringing in all these other teams, the facility would still at least do the one thing we all want it to do: Provide at least one quality basketball court that the men's team could practice on any time and that the players would have access to, 24/7, 365, to work on their game.

Because really, what this is all about, at least to me, is the men's basketball team being able to be competitive in recruiting. To be brutally honest, I don't care very much about the rest.

---

RSF is open 247 with private lockers and showers and my understanding is at least 1 court is currently reserved for the bball team. The teams have weight rooms. They have the RSF. There is also the SAHPC. This is largely to compete with other schools in opulence, which was the recruiting weapon pre-NIL. Cal would join the last party late, when everyone had moved on to the next party, and spend multiples more than everyone else to do so.

I really think an impressive court could be built for the teams on the roof of the RSF for a fraction of the cost of a new building.

The coming war is being fought with NIL.

---

I am with you on this.

I'm not sure what the situation is for the men's basketball team in RSF, but I remember Cuonzo Martin being pxssed about not having access to a practice court on a couple of occasions.

I like the roof idea, but the quasi engineer in me must ask if that building is designed to have a structure built on top of it. Would it pass all of the construction and safety (think seismic) requirements that exist today? (I'm guessing it would be problematic.) If anyone is civil engineers or construction guys could weigh in, that would be useful.

philbert said:

---

I like the roof idea, but the quasi engineer in me must ask if that building is designed to have a structure built on top of it. Would it pass all of the construction and safety (think seismic) requirements that exist today? (I'm guessing it would be problematic.) If anyone is civil engineers or construction guys could weigh in, that would be useful.

---

My idea is very light construction. A metal roof over two courts, clear walls for the views with a roof garden.

philbert said:

---

I like the roof idea, but the quasi engineer in me must ask if that building is designed to have a structure built on top of it. Would it pass all of the construction and safety (think seismic) requirements that exist today? (I'm guessing it would be problematic.) If anyone is civil engineers or construction guys could weigh in, that would be useful.

---

When was the RSF built? If it was post 1989 (Loma Prieta earthquake), the odds are better that it could support some kind of additional rooftop construction. Standards were significantly upgraded after the quake which resulted in so much upgrading and replacement of buildings on the campus.

HearstMining said:

---

philbert said:

---

I like the roof idea, but the quasi engineer in me must ask if that building is designed to have a structure built on top of it. Would it pass all of the construction and safety (think seismic) requirements that exist today? (I'm guessing it would be problematic.) If anyone is civil engineers or construction guys could weigh in, that would be useful.

---

When was the RSF built? If it was post 1989 (Loma Prieta earthquake), the odds are better that it could support some kind of additional rooftop construction. Standards were significantly upgraded after the quake which resulted in so much upgrading and replacement of buildings on the campus.

---

True, but it was likely built to be only so tall with a calculated amount of live and dead loads on top ( with the required safety factor of course). Exceeding that would have meant more costs and I doubt they were planning for an additional floor one day. Then there is the Environmental Impact Report that would need to be reworked as taller buildings cast more shade and block views.

Adding another floor would not be insurmountable, but renovation is always more risky and costly than new construction. It also appears from the posts above that inclusions for other departments/programs were necessary to procure funding.

Civil Bear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

I'm not criticizing prevailing wage, just explaining one major cost difference between private and public projects in CA. I learned all about it when I worked prevailing wage jobs and looked at my paycheck. I was getting paid pw to demo public schools. Never had a more rewarding job, except for the bs you had to put up with from the company using the threat of reassignment to private projects to haze people.

---

On top of the high wage rates, labor costs include a 12% labor burden and a 33% mark-up on direct labor for profit and overhead. But the high cost of labor is just the tip of the iceberg. Add to the costs are ADA, safety, and environmental compliances that only grow, along with other special interests incentives like giving bid discounts to local, minority, and women-owned businesses. Whether one believes these costs are appropriate, we shouldn't be surprised at the lofty price tags found in the public sector.

---

My neighbor works in the construction industry and he just told me about a line item on a contract his company dealt with:

Homeless tax - $67,000

Probably a tiny fraction of the total but still. Building in CA is no joke.

Big C said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

This is not just a basketball facility, it's meant to house all of the Haas programs, hence the price tag. If we have donors, let's do it.

---

Correct, the facility would house a much more effective/larger weight training area(current area is woefully ineffective/far too small,) provide space for other men's and women's teams, and allow for a larger nutruitional food eating area for the student athletes. The price tag is certainly extremely high, but the scope is also larger than just a basketball facility. Berkeley approval process, architectural plans/revisions, permit process etc all before the actual construction process. I am in commercial real estate and the construction costs have skyrocketed over the past 18 months - supply chain issues, busy construction companies, rising wages etc all have impacted the costs. There does appear strong interest from donor's to raise significant monies.

---

Please tell me that, bringing in all these other teams, the facility would still at least do the one thing we all want it to do: Provide at least one quality basketball court that the men's team could practice on any time and that the players would have access to, 24/7, 365, to work on their game.

Because really, what this is all about, at least to me, is the men's basketball team being able to be competitive in recruiting. To be brutally honest, I don't care very much about the rest.

---

100% agree - but in order to get this facility built, politically (and needed) the other needs have to be shown being addressed (better weight training facilities for both teams, gymnastics support, sufficient athlete eating areas and other sport usage. It will allow the access you mentioned above. The projected facility is needed, will be a tremendous recruiting boon and aid multiple areas. My question is whether this project will be completed within the internal goal of 3 1/2 - 4 years.

HearstMining said:

---

philbert said:

---

I like the roof idea, but the quasi engineer in me must ask if that building is designed to have a structure built on top of it. Would it pass all of the construction and safety (think seismic) requirements that exist today? (I'm guessing it would be problematic.) If anyone is civil engineers or construction guys could weigh in, that would be useful.

---

When was the RSF built? If it was post 1989 (Loma Prieta earthquake), the odds are better that it could support some kind of additional rooftop construction. Standards were significantly upgraded after the quake which resulted in so much upgrading and replacement of buildings on the campus.

---

1984 per this link

https://dac.berkeley.edu/recreational-sports-facility-rsf

calumnus said:

---

OskiBear11Math said:

---

Stumbled across the RFQ for the basketball practice facility. Thought you guys might be interested.


https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu/contractors-consultants/request-qualifications-rfqs

Direct Link to the document. For those of you who don't trust this weird looking link, click on the link above. The document should be at the top.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14OYyL9BEWvawbxsjkZvrlpCtmWMsNy_0/view

---

Alternative: $20 million to build a light construction court on the roof of RSF with panoramic views of SF, the GG Bridge, the Bay, the Campanile and the Hills and $100 million into a fund for NIL payments.

Overspending on faculties is like France building the Maginot Line or the US building a fleet of battleships before WW2: it is preparing to fight the last war, not the future war.

---

Are you an architect, engineer, work in construction? What makes you so sure this can actually be done, and that it would cost somewhere in that ballpark?

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

OskiBear11Math said:

---

Stumbled across the RFQ for the basketball practice facility. Thought you guys might be interested.


https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu/contractors-consultants/request-qualifications-rfqs

Direct Link to the document. For those of you who don't trust this weird looking link, click on the link above. The document should be at the top.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14OYyL9BEWvawbxsjkZvrlpCtmWMsNy_0/view

---

Alternative: $20 million to build a light construction court on the roof of RSF with panoramic views of SF, the GG Bridge, the Bay, the Campanile and the Hills and $100 million into a fund for NIL payments.

Overspending on faculties is like France building the Maginot Line or the US building a fleet of battleships before WW2: it is preparing to fight the last war, not the future war.

---

Are you an architect, engineer, work in construction? What makes you so sure this can actually be done, and that it would cost somewhere in that ballpark?

---

I am not, and obviously the project would have to employ experts, but the type of light construction rooftop basketball court I am talking about has been built all over the world. They are even available pre-fab from China.

https://images.app.goo.gl/B7qqd6Q5M1bTXLtV9

By all means....Let's buy another product from China...

helltopay1 said:

---

By all means....Let's buy another product from China...

---

Lol, yes, better for it to be custom. The winds can be strong at elevation just opposite the Golden Gate. The idea is for a light construction metal roof with clear walls allowing for panoramic views that cannot be equaled anywhere else at any cost. Something that would "wow" recruits at a fraction of the cost and could be build quickly and easily.. A place the team would want to hang out playing and practicing when not studying.

But hey, if some donors want to put up $220 million ($200 million with overruns) so we can have a new practice facility 5+ years from now, more power to them and they will have my gratitude. However, the risk is that in aiming for the $200 million plan we waste time trying to raise the funds and end up with nothing.

Moreover, I really believe the battle for recruits will quickly be over NIL payments. A $100 million fund should generate $3-5 million a year. $5 million could pay 10 players $500,000 each every season. If you are a player do you want a " a really nice $120 million free standing dedicated practice facility" or a $20 million dedicated court added to RSF and a $500,000 cash payment each year?

4thGenCal said:

---

Big C said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

This is not just a basketball facility, it's meant to house all of the Haas programs, hence the price tag. If we have donors, let's do it.

---

Correct, the facility would house a much more effective/larger weight training area(current area is woefully ineffective/far too small,) provide space for other men's and women's teams, and allow for a larger nutruitional food eating area for the student athletes. The price tag is certainly extremely high, but the scope is also larger than just a basketball facility. Berkeley approval process, architectural plans/revisions, permit process etc all before the actual construction process. I am in commercial real estate and the construction costs have skyrocketed over the past 18 months - supply chain issues, busy construction companies, rising wages etc all have impacted the costs. There does appear strong interest from donor's to raise significant monies.

---

Please tell me that, bringing in all these other teams, the facility would still at least do the one thing we all want it to do: Provide at least one quality basketball court that the men's team could practice on any time and that the players would have access to, 24/7, 365, to work on their game.

Because really, what this is all about, at least to me, is the men's basketball team being able to be competitive in recruiting. To be brutally honest, I don't care very much about the rest.

---

100% agree - but in order to get this facility built, politically (and needed) the other needs have to be shown being addressed (better weight training facilities for both teams, gymnastics support, sufficient athlete eating areas and other sport usage. It will allow the access you mentioned above. The projected facility is needed, will be a tremendous recruiting boon and aid multiple areas. My question is whether this project will be completed within the internal goal of 3 1/2 - 4 years.

---

isn't this the same thing we did with the SAHPC and associated Memorial remodel? Take years and years (and see costs skyrocket). Keep adding stuff that's not core to the project. Have some belief that the new building will bring in great recruits (massive failure on the football side).

I think the broader point of "where can we get the best bang for our buck" should be considered. If we can really put together that kind of money for basketball (or even if only half of it could be brought in for basketball) there's probably other areas we should spend it on. Let's hire a good coach. Let's NIL/buy better players for that coach. Better coach + better players = winning; winning = more attendance + more donations + more tv exposure; all of that stuff = more revenue which can help pay for things like a practice facility (plus starts a virtuous cycle of recruiting and winning). Or we can have the most expensive collegiate gymnastics cafeteria in the world.

boredom said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

Big C said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

This is not just a basketball facility, it's meant to house all of the Haas programs, hence the price tag. If we have donors, let's do it.

---

Correct, the facility would house a much more effective/larger weight training area(current area is woefully ineffective/far too small,) provide space for other men's and women's teams, and allow for a larger nutruitional food eating area for the student athletes. The price tag is certainly extremely high, but the scope is also larger than just a basketball facility. Berkeley approval process, architectural plans/revisions, permit process etc all before the actual construction process. I am in commercial real estate and the construction costs have skyrocketed over the past 18 months - supply chain issues, busy construction companies, rising wages etc all have impacted the costs. There does appear strong interest from donor's to raise significant monies.

---

Please tell me that, bringing in all these other teams, the facility would still at least do the one thing we all want it to do: Provide at least one quality basketball court that the men's team could practice on any time and that the players would have access to, 24/7, 365, to work on their game.

Because really, what this is all about, at least to me, is the men's basketball team being able to be competitive in recruiting. To be brutally honest, I don't care very much about the rest.

---

100% agree - but in order to get this facility built, politically (and needed) the other needs have to be shown being addressed (better weight training facilities for both teams, gymnastics support, sufficient athlete eating areas and other sport usage. It will allow the access you mentioned above. The projected facility is needed, will be a tremendous recruiting boon and aid multiple areas. My question is whether this project will be completed within the internal goal of 3 1/2 - 4 years.

---

isn't this the same thing we did with the SAHPC and associated Memorial remodel? Take years and years (and see costs skyrocket). Keep adding stuff that's not core to the project. Have some belief that the new building will bring in great recruits (massive failure on the football side).

I think the broader point of "where can we get the best bang for our buck" should be considered. If we can really put together that kind of money for basketball (or even if only half of it could be brought in for basketball) there's probably other areas we should spend it on. Let's hire a good coach. Let's NIL/buy better players for that coach. Better coach + better players = winning; winning = more attendance + more donations + more tv exposure; all of that stuff = more revenue which can help pay for things like a practice facility (plus starts a virtuous cycle of recruiting and winning). Or we can have the most expensive collegiate gymnastics cafeteria in the world.

---

Yes, thanks, that is my broader point. If you have $120 million to invest, it makes more sense to invest in a top coach and NIL money for top players.

calumnus said:

---

boredom said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

Big C said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

This is not just a basketball facility, it's meant to house all of the Haas programs, hence the price tag. If we have donors, let's do it.

---

Correct, the facility would house a much more effective/larger weight training area(current area is woefully ineffective/far too small,) provide space for other men's and women's teams, and allow for a larger nutruitional food eating area for the student athletes. The price tag is certainly extremely high, but the scope is also larger than just a basketball facility. Berkeley approval process, architectural plans/revisions, permit process etc all before the actual construction process. I am in commercial real estate and the construction costs have skyrocketed over the past 18 months - supply chain issues, busy construction companies, rising wages etc all have impacted the costs. There does appear strong interest from donor's to raise significant monies.

---

Please tell me that, bringing in all these other teams, the facility would still at least do the one thing we all want it to do: Provide at least one quality basketball court that the men's team could practice on any time and that the players would have access to, 24/7, 365, to work on their game.

Because really, what this is all about, at least to me, is the men's basketball team being able to be competitive in recruiting. To be brutally honest, I don't care very much about the rest.

---

100% agree - but in order to get this facility built, politically (and needed) the other needs have to be shown being addressed (better weight training facilities for both teams, gymnastics support, sufficient athlete eating areas and other sport usage. It will allow the access you mentioned above. The projected facility is needed, will be a tremendous recruiting boon and aid multiple areas. My question is whether this project will be completed within the internal goal of 3 1/2 - 4 years.

---

isn't this the same thing we did with the SAHPC and associated Memorial remodel? Take years and years (and see costs skyrocket). Keep adding stuff that's not core to the project. Have some belief that the new building will bring in great recruits (massive failure on the football side).

I think the broader point of "where can we get the best bang for our buck" should be considered. If we can really put together that kind of money for basketball (or even if only half of it could be brought in for basketball) there's probably other areas we should spend it on. Let's hire a good coach. Let's NIL/buy better players for that coach. Better coach + better players = winning; winning = more attendance + more donations + more tv exposure; all of that stuff = more revenue which can help pay for things like a practice facility (plus starts a virtuous cycle of recruiting and winning). Or we can have the most expensive collegiate gymnastics cafeteria in the world.

---

Yes, thanks, that is my broader point. If you have $120 million to invest, it makes more sense to invest in a top coach and NIL money for top players.

---

The problem with 'just sign a good coach' is the same as 'just invest in good stocks' (to make money). I think we have a bad 'investor' making our coaching decisions. And even good investors struggle. We should save everyone's money until we are ready to hire a good coach (and AD).