(12-16-2010 09:41 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 09:11 AM)saxamoophone Wrote:  -Houston would probably be the front runner for #12, but may need a few years (once again, say 2015) to upgrade their basketball facility to BCS standards

Do we (and are we) need to upgrade. Yes! But that process is in motion. Fundraising in this economy is a challenge.

Maybe this is a silly question, but if Houston needs to upgrade, why not just use the Reliant Stadium and the Toyota Center? Sometimes people are so hellbent on "having their own" digs they overlook the obvious. The Big East already has 2 teams that play in NFL stadiums, and 5 basketball teams that share NBA arenas; so it would not be a problem from the league's perspective. I understand not wanting so many empty seats, but even if you just fill up the lower bowl, and have access to the luxury suites, it will give you much better economic benefits than any new stadium you could hope to build, only without the upfront costs. At Louisville, the women's team also plays in the KFC Yum center, which seats over 22,000, and they only average about 8,000 -10,000 per game. They just drop a black curtain over the entire upper deck, and it makes the arena look a lot more intimate, while still having all of the features of an NBA arena.

If you did this, you could take the money you would have raised and build top of the line training and practice facilities.

(12-16-2010 10:42 AM)saxamoophone Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 10:27 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  Houston has been there before and proved we can compete at the elite level. Act like you have been there before and then maybe people will respect you and your school. The outright begging is pathetic (also see Memphis). While in the end it may work out it is just unflattering.

:domokun:

With all due respect, do you really think your time in the SWC means ANYTHING in 2010? Do you really think we should RESPECT you because you played great back in the 80s? By that theory let's give it up for TULANE! They won the SEC back in the day!!!

How are we BEGGING? This is an EXPANSION BOARD. I posted posts by NON-UCF-FANS and a member of the media with new rumors.

Seriously dude, calm down. Nobody is "hating" on Houston. If you get picked, you'll get a new arena....

I don't think that is accurate...this seems to be a common theme coming from UCF, first it was the focus on the market (of which TCU and Houston has you beat), now its the focus on what you already HAVE (which was just completed). UCF didn't build its on campus stadium and new arena because it was GUARANTEED a spot in an AQ conference. They built them because they NEEDED to build them. They were playing in the Citrus Bowl and an old 5,000 seat arena.

Houston needs new/improved facilities as well and is working on it, it just happens to be 5 years later.

ECU needs a new pressbox, it was built in 1978 and it needs luxury suites and a new academic support building...the point of me listing these things is saying that they are coming, with or without an AQ membership (although it could be sooner with it). If you have needs, you work to address them. Conference affiliation is out of your control, just as it was when UCF built its new stuff.

One thing UCF fans (and the Sensational) need to understand is that your "new" stuff will be older then someone else's "new" stuff once they build it. Houston's new football stadium and ECU's endzone expansion last year are "better" then your 5 year old stadium has. ECU's facilities with its new bball practice facility and such will be overall better then UCF unless you do something more. The continuing focus on you having something better is relative and fluid...its not exactly real and tangible (although it can appear that way).

(12-16-2010 10:50 AM)Lloyd64 Wrote:  I like turtles.

Cool. I have a turtle head to show you.

(12-16-2010 10:50 AM)Lloyd64 Wrote:  I like turtles.

I've always liked Turtle Soup...

(12-16-2010 10:56 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 10:47 AM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 10:42 AM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  It's pretty obvious that these Houston guys are new around here, the ECU fans are much better at these pissing matches.

BTW, can Houston fans please stop pissing all over this thread. If you have anything noteworthy to add to the expansion discussion, then start your own. If not then please step away from your keyboard and leave this one alone... It looks petty...

Thats the quote of the day? Pissing? Thats all you guys do. Half the stuff you UCF fans post on here is not noteworthy. Just pimping yourselves all over the place.

This is the EXACT point I was making!!!!

This is all I see from UH in this thread:

(12-16-2010 11:05 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 09:41 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 09:11 AM)saxamoophone Wrote:  -Houston would probably be the front runner for #12, but may need a few years (once again, say 2015) to upgrade their basketball facility to BCS standards

Do we (and are we) need to upgrade. Yes! But that process is in motion. Fundraising in this economy is a challenge.

Maybe this is a silly question, but if Houston needs to upgrade, why not just use the Reliant Stadium and the Toyota Center? Sometimes people are so hellbent on "having their own" digs they overlook the obvious. The Big East already has 2 teams that play in NFL stadiums, and 5 basketball teams that share NBA arenas; so it would not be a problem from the league's perspective. I understand not wanting so many empty seats, but even if you just fill up the lower bowl, and have access to the luxury suites, it will give you much better economic benefits than any new stadium you could hope to buil, only without the upfront costs. Then you could take the money you woudl have raised and build top of the line training and practice facilities.

We have contracts with both arenas in case we need them. The problem with our history is we played in the dome and before that Rice Stadium. We are getting away from the Commuter school reputation. We are building a lot of dorms on campus and developing a traditional college campus atmosphere. When we played in the dome all those years hurt our college day game atomsphere, they wouldn't allow tailgating and you couldn't stroll around on campus. Plus the cost of renting those facilities long term is a negative. We could have built a 60,000 + seat stadium with the rent money we used on the dome.

(12-16-2010 11:08 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 10:42 AM)saxamoophone Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 10:27 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  Houston has been there before and proved we can compete at the elite level. Act like you have been there before and then maybe people will respect you and your school. The outright begging is pathetic (also see Memphis). While in the end it may work out it is just unflattering.

:domokun:

With all due respect, do you really think your time in the SWC means ANYTHING in 2010? Do you really think we should RESPECT you because you played great back in the 80s? By that theory let's give it up for TULANE! They won the SEC back in the day!!!

How are we BEGGING? This is an EXPANSION BOARD. I posted posts by NON-UCF-FANS and a member of the media with new rumors.

Seriously dude, calm down. Nobody is "hating" on Houston. If you get picked, you'll get a new arena....

I don't think that is accurate...this seems to be a common theme coming from UCF, first it was the focus on the market (of which TCU and Houston has you beat), now its the focus on what you already HAVE (which was just completed). UCF didn't build its on campus stadium and new arena because it was GUARANTEED a spot in an AQ conference. They built them because they NEEDED to build them. They were playing in the Citrus Bowl and an old 5,000 seat arena.

Houston needs new/improved facilities as well and is working on it, it just happens to be 5 years later.

ECU needs a new pressbox, it was built in 1978 and it needs luxury suites and a new academic support building...the point of me listing these things is saying that they are coming, with or without an AQ membership (although it could be sooner with it). If you have needs, you work to address them. Conference affiliation is out of your control, just as it was when UCF built its new stuff.

One thing UCF fans (and the Sensational) need to understand is that your "new" stuff will be older then someone else's "new" stuff once they build it. Houston's new football stadium and ECU's endzone expansion last year are "better" then your 5 year old stadium has. ECU's facilities with its new bball practice facility and such will be overall better then UCF unless you do something more. The continuing focus on you having something better is relative and fluid...its not exactly real and tangible (although it can appear that way).

Agree with your general thoughts but disagree that just because its new makes it better. We'll see how your arena turns out, but it isn't better than ours just because it will be new. Also, your endzone expansion fell apart the first time anyone used it. I do not think that is better, although overall your stadium is lightyears better than ours.

(12-16-2010 11:05 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 09:41 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 09:11 AM)saxamoophone Wrote:  -Houston would probably be the front runner for #12, but may need a few years (once again, say 2015) to upgrade their basketball facility to BCS standards

Do we (and are we) need to upgrade. Yes! But that process is in motion. Fundraising in this economy is a challenge.

Maybe this is a silly question, but if Houston needs to upgrade, why not just use the Reliant Stadium and the Toyota Center? Sometimes people are so hellbent on "having their own" digs they overlook the obvious. The Big East already has 2 teams that play in NFL stadiums, and 5 basketball teams that share NBA arenas; so it would not be a problem from the league's perspective. I understand not wanting so many empty seats, but even if you just fill up the lower bowl, and have access to the luxury suites, it will give you much better economic benefits than any new stadium you could hope to buil, only without the upfront costs. Then you could take the money you woudl have raised and build top of the line training and practice facilities.

The challenge some (not all teams) that play games in NFL/NBA/NHL facilities is that in some (not all) cases...teams can't come close to filling up those huge venues for a majority of their games...which kills the incentive for season tix buying (and booster fundraising) from their fan base...because they know they can always by single game tix come game day.

Also, studies have shown that those alumni that return TO CAMPUS on average, donate more $$$$ than those to do not return to campus as often.

Match that info with this:

The #1 activity/event to brings back alumni to old campuses is on-campus college football...as those fans get to see all of the improvements to their former school...stay a lot more connected to their former school...and generally open up their wallets a lot more to their former school.

You can't beat the atmosphere that an on-campus college football game can bring to campus...an event that brings alumni back for 10-12 plus hours (days if you count those in RV's).

Heck..just read some comments from Pitt fans who were upset that their hoop game vs Tennessee was not at their beautiful on-campus arena...but instead was played at the new NHL venue for the Penguins...the atmosphere wasn't the same.

Obviously, some teams either don't have room on their campus for new facilities or don't have the $$$$ so they do end up playing at pro venues...but its generally never the same as if they had their own home(s) on their own campus...that they could always call HOME.

If there's a report and it's what a fan wants to hear...it's credible. If not...there's "0" credibility to the reports.

So basically...everyone will back reporters...as long as they report what they want to hear.

(12-16-2010 10:53 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 10:46 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 10:32 AM)saxamoophone Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 10:13 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  Two other pieces of small info to add is that Houston is fundraising for a new football stadium and the renovations to the bball facility.

Additionally, ECU recently listed on its facility improvement plan the design of a new (6 story-type) football building/luxury suites/pressbox facility on the South Side of the stadium with a completion date of 2015.

And those fundraisings will take time. Now it's possible the Big East could allow Houston in *on the promise* that they complete the renovations (CUSA allowed UCF in back when our old arena was pretty much a 5,000 seat high school gym). I don't think their facilities are a deal breaker by any means.

Quote:So, we now sit and wait on Nova.......and read crap from the "Sensational"

While the "Sensational" has A LOT of crap, I don't remember her ever being the one to write it. If anything, sometimes her sports editors would CHANGE her article headings to make them flashly, but this isn't the case here.

Once again, she didn't say UCF was a lock, just that the Big East would probably move to #10 with nova being #11 if they say YES.

Well I can agree with that....but apparently she went a step further and implied that UCF could be added BEFORE the Nova decision. IMO, that was a move to sell more papers and has no merit. Maybe her editors added that part, but there are holes in that part of the story. The June 30th deadline for addition for 2012 being the primary one.

No merit? (Remember, her comments came from just an online chat...not even an official blog or article).

Did you not read what the Big East Commish just said last week?

The Big East Commish basically laid out his plain PUBLICLY on how they will NOT wait for Nova to make a decision in April.

From the below interview with the Big East Commish last week:

"We've told the people from Villanova that we hope they make the decision to move forward but we're certainly not going to wait for it to make that decision," Marinatto said. "It's been a long time since they initially had that discussion. I think they have to do what's best for them. In the Big East, you have to do what's right for the conference overall. If those two intersect from a timing standpoint that's great. If they don't that's OK, too, because we're moving forward.

"You hope they come to a decision sooner rather than later.

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foot...1515.story

Thats a good counterpoint...but if I remember correctly the Big East Commish (maybe in a different statement) also said this same thing with more context, implying that if "someone" were available, they would move...and the board heated up with Kansas rumors and such trying to connect the dots. I think he is covering all bases, but I still contend that there is no reason that the BE would add UCF, Houston or ECU before the Nova decision...because as Jim Delany says, they are not a HR (homerun). TCU was the BE's HR (hence the announcement by itself) and now they are awaiting the Nova decision to figure out how to piece together the rest of the puzzle.

If they were going to add UCF before the Nova decision for 2012 why didn't they do it with the TCU addition (and UCF in the Top 25 and CCG)??

Why isn't the Sensational reporting that side of the issue? I think the answer is that it doesnt fit their agenda.

(12-16-2010 11:05 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 09:41 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 09:11 AM)saxamoophone Wrote:  -Houston would probably be the front runner for #12, but may need a few years (once again, say 2015) to upgrade their basketball facility to BCS standards

Do we (and are we) need to upgrade. Yes! But that process is in motion. Fundraising in this economy is a challenge.

Maybe this is a silly question, but if Houston needs to upgrade, why not just use the Reliant Stadium and the Toyota Center? Sometimes people are so hellbent on "having their own" digs they overlook the obvious. The Big East already has 2 teams that play in NFL stadiums, and 5 basketball teams that share NBA arenas; so it would not be a problem from the league's perspective. I understand not wanting so many empty seats, but even if you just fill up the lower bowl, and have access to the luxury suites, it will give you much better economic benefits than any new stadium you could hope to buil, only without the upfront costs. Then you could take the money you woudl have raised and build top of the line training and practice facilities.

Cost. An on campus stadium and arena will bring money to the university as opposed to being a cost. As a state university we are required to have a balanced budget. Playing in those arenas in the short term is a no brainer if it means access to the BCS.

We have played in a pro stadium (Astrodome) in the past and while in the short term is was boom to recruiting over the long term it became a ball and chain bringing us down.

On campus games have a greater impact on student attendance. We are in the process (not fundraising but actual construction) of revamping the campus and especially increasing our on campus student commitment. The bread and butter of college football are the students period. As a university in a major metropolitan area we need to use all of our advantages to rebuild our fan base.

A fan base that is building fast and furious but that suffered through decades of lackluster leadership. Basically people collecting a paycheck and not being proactive. Moving games back on campus while may have been financial at first was the right move to remembrance the school and our fans.

To come full circle and answer your question it is all about money and fan support. Hope that answered your question.

Thinking that Houston will automatically jump UCF just because of their history is ridiculous. Houston is a trendy name but lets not get ahead of ourselves, here.

(12-16-2010 11:12 AM)billetingman1 Wrote:  Plus the cost of renting those facilities long term is a negative. We could have built a 60,000 + seat stadium with the rent money we used on the dome.

It cost THe univeristy of Minnesota $230 million to build their 50,000 seat stadium. I would imagine it would cost some $300 million to build one today in Houston, if not more.
I also look at this as someone who has worked in stadium finance. The numbers never add up for building football stadiums: they just don't They cost the most to build, and they are only used 15-20 times a year. They are money losers in every fashion, unless they are domes (who have much more usability). So I never understand teams wanting to build separate stadiums when sharing is an option [Gophers/ Vikings (new stadium), 49ers/Raiders, OSU/Blue Jackets, etc]. I can understand it somewhat for a basketball arena, because usually those are easier to scale down for practical uses, and can be used year 'round to make up the debt service. I even understand baseball stadiums because it is not practical for two baseball teams to share a stadium, and the cost of building a stadium truely useful for baseball and football, would cost mor ethan building separate stadiums. But when you are Cincinnati, Houston, etc and you say you need a new stadium, I just don;t understand the logic of spending hundreds of millions when a stadium that is only used for 10 football gamea year is already available.

(12-16-2010 11:14 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  You can't beat the atmosphere that an on-campus college football game can bring to campus...an event that brings alumni back for 10-12 plus hours (days if you count those in RV's).

Many schools have off campus facilities, and are not hampered by this. Louisville's football and basketball facilities are off campus, and we have some of the best tailgating around for both sports (yes we "tailgate" for basketball too). It can be made to work. Sounds like a crutch to me.

The key word that I recognized in everything that you quoted Iliana on was "think". She said "think" quite a few times. She stated what she "thinks" which is absolutely irrelevant to BE expansion. Think infers that you are stating an opinion. It is not fact.

I "think" some Big 12 teams want out and the BE is willing to wait and add those schools over a UCF, ECU or Houston. The BE might not we waiting on Nova, but they certainly would love to have a Kansas, Iowa St., Kansas St., etc...

(12-16-2010 11:11 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  This is all I see from UH in this thread:

No whining here...I'm pretty comfortable with Houston's situation and chances, personally. But we can agree to disagree. After all, this is a forum for speculation, right? I'm certainly not here to argue or run down any other schools.

(12-16-2010 11:13 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 11:08 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 10:42 AM)saxamoophone Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 10:27 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  Houston has been there before and proved we can compete at the elite level. Act like you have been there before and then maybe people will respect you and your school. The outright begging is pathetic (also see Memphis). While in the end it may work out it is just unflattering.

:domokun:

With all due respect, do you really think your time in the SWC means ANYTHING in 2010? Do you really think we should RESPECT you because you played great back in the 80s? By that theory let's give it up for TULANE! They won the SEC back in the day!!!

How are we BEGGING? This is an EXPANSION BOARD. I posted posts by NON-UCF-FANS and a member of the media with new rumors.

Seriously dude, calm down. Nobody is "hating" on Houston. If you get picked, you'll get a new arena....

I don't think that is accurate...this seems to be a common theme coming from UCF, first it was the focus on the market (of which TCU and Houston has you beat), now its the focus on what you already HAVE (which was just completed). UCF didn't build its on campus stadium and new arena because it was GUARANTEED a spot in an AQ conference. They built them because they NEEDED to build them. They were playing in the Citrus Bowl and an old 5,000 seat arena.

Houston needs new/improved facilities as well and is working on it, it just happens to be 5 years later.

ECU needs a new pressbox, it was built in 1978 and it needs luxury suites and a new academic support building...the point of me listing these things is saying that they are coming, with or without an AQ membership (although it could be sooner with it). If you have needs, you work to address them. Conference affiliation is out of your control, just as it was when UCF built its new stuff.

One thing UCF fans (and the Sensational) need to understand is that your "new" stuff will be older then someone else's "new" stuff once they build it. Houston's new football stadium and ECU's endzone expansion last year are "better" then your 5 year old stadium has. ECU's facilities with its new bball practice facility and such will be overall better then UCF unless you do something more. The continuing focus on you having something better is relative and fluid...its not exactly real and tangible (although it can appear that way).

Agree with your general thoughts but disagree that just because its new makes it better. We'll see how your arena turns out, but it isn't better than ours just because it will be new. Also, your endzone expansion fell apart the first time anyone used it. I do not think that is better, although overall your stadium is lightyears better than ours.

Good dig on the bleachers...but I think this was more of a warranty issue...the first game the scoreboard wasnt working properly, but by the end of the year, they had the software figured out. But the endzone addition (while having a 84 wide HD scoreboard) is made out of brick and reinforced concrete, so it is better. Check out Houston's new stadium and the luxury areas, they are better (I love the gap to see downtown).

http://www.chron.com/sports/photogallery...rades.html

And no, I dont think our coliseum will be better, I said the overall facilities...the practice facility will be new, locker rooms new, and the rest of the complexes new...see recent photos (November, 2010) of what is going on (softball complete, soccer and track and storage UC)

http://www.ecupirates.com/facilities/fac...-2010.html

(12-16-2010 11:30 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  It cost THe univeristy of Minnesota $230 million to build their 50,000 seat stadium. I would imagine it would cost some $300 million to build one today in Houston, if not more.
I also look at this as someone who has worked in stadium finance. The numbers never add up for building football stadiums: they just don't They cost the most to build, and they are only used 15-20 times a year. They are money losers in every fashion, unless they are domes (who have much more usability). So I never understand teams wanting to build separate stadiums when sharing is an option [Gophers/ Vikings (new stadium), 49ers/Raiders, OSU/Blue Jackets, etc]. I can understand it somewhat for a basketball arena, because usually those are easier to scale down for practical uses, and can be used year 'round to make up the debt service. I even understand baseball stadiums because it is not practical for two baseball teams to share a stadium, and the cost of building a stadium truely useful for baseball and football, would cost mor ethan building separate stadiums. But when you are Cincinnati, Houston, etc and you say you need a new stadium, I just don;t understand the logic of spending hundreds of millions when a stadium that is only used for 10 football gamea year is already available.


Many schools have off campus facilities, and are not hampered by this. Louisville's football and basketball facilities are off campus, and we have some of the best tailgating around for both sports (yes we "tailgate" for basketball too). It can be made to work. Sounds like a crutch to me.

Houston's stadium build plan is for $120 million:

http://www.uhcougars.com/sports/m-footbl...10aaf.html

(12-16-2010 11:30 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 11:12 AM)billetingman1 Wrote:  Plus the cost of renting those facilities long term is a negative. We could have built a 60,000 + seat stadium with the rent money we used on the dome.

It cost THe univeristy of Minnesota $230 million to build their 50,000 seat stadium. I would imagine it would cost some $300 million to build one today in Houston, if not more.
I also look at this as someone who has worked in stadium finance. The numbers never add up for building football stadiums: they just don't They cost the most to build, and they are only used 15-20 times a year. They are money losers in every fashion, unless they are domes (who have much more usability). So I never understand teams wanting to build separate stadiums when sharing is an option [Gophers/ Vikings (new stadium), 49ers/Raiders, OSU/Blue Jackets, etc]. I can understand it somewhat for a basketball arena, because usually those are easier to scale down for practical uses, and can be used year 'round to make up the debt service. I even understand baseball stadiums because it is not practical for two baseball teams to share a stadium, and the cost of building a stadium truely useful for baseball and football, would cost mor ethan building separate stadiums. But when you are Cincinnati, Houston, etc and you say you need a new stadium, I just don;t understand the logic of spending hundreds of millions when a stadium that is only used for 10 football gamea year is already available.

(12-16-2010 11:14 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  You can't beat the atmosphere that an on-campus college football game can bring to campus...an event that brings alumni back for 10-12 plus hours (days if you count those in RV's).

Many schools have off campus facilities, and are not hampered by this. Louisville's football and basketball facilities are off campus, and we have some of the best tailgating around for both sports (yes we "tailgate" for basketball too). It can be made to work. Sounds like a crutch to me.

UCF played off-campus in the Citrus Bowl until 2007...there's nothing like the on-campus stadium atmposphere compared. I'd rather play in our 45k seat college stadium on campus than do what USF does by playing in the very nice 65k seat Raymond James Stadium. I live in Tampa and love Ray Jay for Bucs games. But even I look forward to UCF games on campus, more than Bucs games, too. There's no comparison to that atmosphere.

The Magic just opened a spectacular arena downtown and we played UF there. But I'd rather UCF play in our own new arena on campus, anytime.

(12-16-2010 11:22 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  Cost. An on campus stadium and arena will bring money to the university as opposed to being a cost. As a state university we are required to have a balanced budget. Playing in those arenas in the short term is a no brainer if it means access to the BCS.

This is incorrect. Newer football stadiums are almost always money losers, when you compare the cost to build to the revenue generated AND used to pay off the debt. Nearly 100% losses. They make money for the teams that use it due to lopsided lease terms, and because donations are used to build them, but if you truely look at the cost, they ALL lose money. The only reason I cannot say 100% lose money, is because of domes; some of those do make money. On campus facilities will make even less money, not more, because they lose the ability to use the suites, lounges, club rooms etc, on a more daily basis, like downtown stadiums/arenas do. This is why nearly every new professional facility is built in a downtown area, even though it adds $100 million or so to the pricetag.

(12-16-2010 11:30 AM)Raleighwood Pirate Wrote:  The key word that I recognized in everything that you quoted Iliana on was "think". She said "think" quite a few times. She stated what she "thinks" which is absolutely irrelevant to BE expansion. Think infers that you are stating an opinion. It is not fact.

I "think" some Big 12 teams want out and the BE is willing to wait and add those schools over a UCF, ECU or Houston. The BE might not we waiting on Nova, but they certainly would love to have a Kansas, Iowa St., Kansas St., etc...

If I say "I think I'm going to take a big poop when I get home from work", 9 out of 10 times I will.