The University of Nevada, Reno’s new indoor practice facility has sparked a fierce debate across campus. On one side, proponents argue the $25 million project is a vital investment in the future of athletics and student life (“D” or Dominic Gutierrez). On the other hand, critics decry it as a misplaced priority, leaving essential student needs underfunded (“E” or Emily Hess). Here’s a look at both perspectives.
D: A Necessary Step for Nevada Athletics
A common complaint among UNR students when it comes to Nevada Athletics is they aren’t good enough to have something such as the field house. Here’s the problem: Nevada’s athletics program isn’t good because it lacks these facilities. There are too many factors to count that go into building a winning athletic program in college sports. Nevada athletics is far behind the other collegiate sports, and the fieldhouse is a necessary first step to catching up.
The football program will be highlighted to emphasize how important this is. When Nevada joined the Mountain West Conference in 2012, it was the only cold-weather school without an indoor training facility. It’s now 2025, and Nevada continues to be on the short end of the stick.
There are 134 NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) teams in the country. However, only 12 of those schools have an indoor training facility, and guess what? Nevada is one of them. Between the snowy winters, 100-plus-degree summers and overhead smoke from California fires, Reno is a place where you need indoor facilities to fully use something. Any coach would say a day of not working is a day where the competition gets better.
It can still benefit every student at UNR and not just the athletes. Yes, a big point that was made was the fieldhouse would be available to every student. Intramural clubs already share the Wolf Pack Park and the John Sala Intramural Practice Field with the athletic program. Not only will it be an innovation for students who aren’t in the athletic program, but numbers show that those same students will use it more than athletes. According to the school’s research reported by Nevada Sports Net, students currently use those facilities 46 percent of the time, with athletes only using them 21 percent. There’s still 33 percent of unused time, and with a state-of-the-art training facility, the goal is for it to be used 100 percent of the time.
E: Misplaced Priorities in a Time of Crisis
The decision to move forward with the field house is a glaring example of misplaced priorities. At a time when students are struggling to afford tuition, housing, and essential services, this project feels tone-deaf. While supporters claim the facility will benefit all students, in reality, it primarily serves athletics and a select few programs.
Students will now bear the financial burden through a $3.50 per-credit fee hike. This fee comes at a time when inflation and rising living costs are already stretching budgets to the breaking point. College students are already dealing with the weight of tuition hikes, student loan debt, and housing insecurity. Many work multiple jobs just to stay enrolled, and some are forced to choose between buying groceries and paying rent. The university is asking students to pay for an expensive project that does little to address their most pressing concerns. It’s deeply unfair to force students, many of whom will never use the facility, to finance a project they didn’t ask for. If the university truly wanted to serve its entire student body, it would be focusing on urgent campus-wide needs—such as affordable housing, expanded mental health services, and improved parking—rather than an expensive vanity project designed to boost the athletic department’s reputation.
Moreover, the reliance on student fees to fund the majority of this project’s cost highlights a troubling trend in higher education: the prioritization of athletics over academics and student welfare. This isn’t just an issue at UNR—it’s a nationwide problem. Universities continue to pour millions into athletic facilities while underfunding academic programs, mental health resources, and other student services. Every dollar spent on this facility is a dollar not spent on improving the quality of life and education for all students. Public universities exist to serve their students—not just their athletic programs—and this decision sends a clear message that winning games takes precedence over addressing students’ most pressing needs.
D: The Reality of Modern Universities
In today’s world of college sports, it’s all about money. And if you want to make it, you have to spend it. Let’s take a brief history lesson between Nevada and Boise State football. Both schools went from the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) to the Mountain West. Both programs were atop of the WAC for years, as Nevada was led by legendary head coach Chris Ault. Nevada fans saw a 13-1 season and a Top-11 AP ranking in 2010, one of the best seasons the football team has had since the turn of the century.
Both programs were good, but they weren’t at the next level. In 2006, Boise State built a $10 million indoor training facility, though the Broncos’ situation was a bit different than Nevada’s since the funding came from private donors and the athletic department’s budget. Nevada has received money from donors for previous projects, but Boise State has had longer success, leading to a bigger athletic budget and donor support that Nevada simply doesn’t have. Boise State has also added several renovations to its football stadium since 2006 and recently broke ground on a new $65 million project to improve its football stadium on Saturday, Jan. 4.
Thanks to these upgrades, Boise State will move from the Mountain West to the PAC-12 in 2026, which will be considered a “power conference” compared to the Mountain West. Playing in a bigger conference means more money, higher competition, more national coverage and potentially higher enrollment rates at the university.
The football team also recently made the College Football Playoffs as a top-four seed, something that’s nearly unheard of for a non-power conference school. Nevada and Boise State were on a similar level a decade and a half ago. But Boise State took the ball and ran while Nevada stayed put. The Wolf Pack is now suffering the consequences of that stagnation. What if Nevada had put in the same effort as Boise State in the early 2000s? Perhaps Nevada could’ve been gearing up for a move to the PAC-12 next year, but instead will stay put in a weakened conference.
E: The Bigger Picture
While proponents argue that the field house is an investment in the future, they fail to address the immediate, tangible needs of the student body. The idea that this facility will generate revenue for the university is speculative at best. Nevada is not Boise State, and there’s no guarantee that this investment will yield the same results. The assumption that simply building a field house will propel the university’s athletics to national prominence is overly simplistic. Athletic success is influenced by a multitude of factors, including recruiting, coaching, and overall institutional support—none of which are guaranteed by a single facility.
Instead of chasing a dream of athletic glory, the university should focus on initiatives that benefit all students—not just athletes or club members. More students would benefit from expanded counseling and psychological services, more scholarships, and improved infrastructure across campus. For many students, finding a place to live near campus is already difficult due to skyrocketing rental prices. The field house does nothing to alleviate these financial struggles.
At its core, this debate isn’t just about a building. It’s about values. Should UNR prioritize academics, mental health, and affordability? Or should it prioritize athletics, even at the expense of the majority of its students? For many, the answer is clear: this facility represents a step in the wrong direction.
The debate over Nevada’s $25 million fieldhouse highlights a divide in priorities among students and administrators. Is it a necessary step to elevate Nevada athletics and bring new opportunities to campus? Or is it a misplaced investment that ignores the immediate needs of students? Ultimately, the answer depends on where you believe UNR should focus its resources: on long-term athletic growth or on addressing the current challenges facing its student body.
Opinions expressed in The Nevada Sagebrush are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily express the views of The Sagebrush or its staff. Emily Hess is a student at the University of Nevada studying Journalism. She can be reached at emilyhess@sagebrush.unr.edu and on Instagram @emilyghess. Dominic Gutierrez is a student at the University of Nevada studying Journalism. They can be reached at domin8rgz@gmail.com and on Instagram @d_m_g_.16.
