During the last decade, UB has upgraded its athletics programs. In the mid-'80s, I counseled against that, stating (verbatim) "One of my misgivings is that, once begun, this program will start to lead a life of its own, and that even when it turns out that the hoped-for support is lacking, we will inexorably move toward completion."

I then floated a motion, commenting "What I want to preserve with this motion is the explicit recognition that, although the future is uncertain, it is no longer uncertain when the future slowly but surely becomes the past, and one ought not to be blackmailed by long-run contracts, or by sunk costs, or by explicit promises to alumni, or by sheer laziness, to blithely charge ahead, even when it becomes evident that the baby, if not stillborn, will require life-support systems of heroic dimensions."

Developments since have shown that the costs are indeed steep, and that the support, as measured by attendance at games and contributions from benefactors, has been meager.

The costs include not only financial costs, but also a loss of freedom in making one's own decisions: we are subject to rules and regulations of the NCAA, a watchdog organization that forces our hands in any number of ways we would prefer not to go had it been left up to us. But as it is, we either play ball with them, or not at all.

In previous instances where we danced to their tune, it might be hoped that the forced decisions would turn out for the best-they might have been undesired, but they were not insane.

But now there is a situation where the watchdog wants us to jump through a loop we should refuse to jump through. It makes no sense, none whatever, educationally, socially, athletically, to insist on expanding the capacity of the stadium by 13,000 seats at a cost of $2 million (say).

The stadium we have has never been filled to anything near capacity. Typically, there are 15,000 empty seats, and this despite the fact that all students can get in for free (for they have paid an athletics fee). For the one event each decade where capacity might be inadequate, we have Rich Stadium (by whatever name) within striking distance.

Surely an accommodation can be reached between Rich Stadium and UB, which would allow society to spend resources in a more productive fashion. Surely? Not by NCAA rules. For what plausible purpose? We have a nice stadium of ample capacity and elegant design, and are forced to spend millions to produce an architectural monstrosity serving no purpose at all.

My fears, expressed a decade ago, that the program will start to lead a life of its own, despite the need for life-support systems of heroic dimensions, are no longer fears, they are reality. How immensely sad.

Trustee de Russy, where are you when we need you?

�John Boot, professor and chair, Department of Management Science and Systems