Just curious, anyone know how student Clemson tickets sold? Also, does anyone know when the end zone bleachers are going up?

If there any other updates surrounding the 2015 season, please let us know.

I know it's been part of KBS for years, but does anyone else but me wish we'd match the north endzone temporary bleachers with temporary bleachers in the south endzone? I'm sorry, but hill seating looks so "high school" to me personally, no matter where it is - Wake, UVA, etc. I'm not considering ticket sales just aesthetics.

the hill doesn't bother me, but I agree its time to add seating, if for no other reason, we are now FBS, and we need to start thinking about a more professional look. I don't think its something that's urgent, but it would be nice to put in seating in the next few years.

moehler wrote:the hill doesn't bother me, but I agree its time to add seating, if for no other reason, we are now FBS, and we need to start thinking about a more professional look. I don't think its something that's urgent, but it would be nice to put in seating in the next few years.

I respectfully disagree with the "if we build it they will come" idea. Expansion should only happen when we can't pack any more people into the stadium. Ever watch a MTSU game on TV? Nothing but silver in the stands and I'm not talking about t-shirts. All it takes is 3 or 4 years of 9 or 10 win seasons to pack the stands.

boonetown1 wrote:Just curious, anyone know how student Clemson tickets sold? Also, does anyone know when the end zone bleachers are going up?

If there any other updates surrounding the 2015 season, please let us know.

I was under the impression the end zone seats come from Greensboro and the Wyndham Golf Classic. If I am correct I could see them going up as soon as Tuesday, assuming they need Monday to break them down. Realistically I bet later next week.

Any word on the Thursday night game schedules? When tailgate lots open etc?? I thought that was going to be announced a week or so ago.

They are going up!

APPdiesel wrote:

moehler wrote:the hill doesn't bother me, but I agree its time to add seating, if for no other reason, we are now FBS, and we need to start thinking about a more professional look. I don't think its something that's urgent, but it would be nice to put in seating in the next few years.

I respectfully disagree with the "if we build it they will come" idea. Expansion should only happen when we can't pack any more people into the stadium. Ever watch a MTSU game on TV? Nothing but silver in the stands and I'm not talking about t-shirts. All it takes is 3 or 4 years of 9 or 10 win seasons to pack the stands.

I get what your saying, but were kinda in a "chicken/egg thing", on one hand your point is, if we are only putting 24 thousand in the seats why expand to 35 thousand? But if you ask most recruits what they are looking for in a school, most are going to say the facilities played a major role in their decision, if GS, ULL, ARK ST, keep building and improving their facilities while we just sit on our hands, then we will lose the players we need to compete, which means we will starting losing more games, which means less fans will attend games, and make donations. As crazy at it is, you build to keep up, even if means spending money that maybe you don't need to do. Its crazy, but that's the life in the FBS. If we ever want to get to any significant national level we have to be willing to show recruits we are serious, and you do that by showing them first rate facilities.

I wouldn't say "we are sitting on hands" ...in actuality the GaSos of the area are trying to catch up with App...I have to disagree with you when it cones to the players and KBS...we have outstanding facilities like the locker room and the entire football complex + the indoor facility...these are the things that get the recruits attention...as for KBS all they care about is what it is like on gameday...

moehler wrote:I get what your saying, but were kinda in a "chicken/egg thing", on one hand your point is, if we are only putting 24 thousand in the seats why expand to 35 thousand? But if you ask most recruits what they are looking for in a school, most are going to say the facilities played a major role in their decision, if GS, ULL, ARK ST, keep building and improving their facilities while we just sit on our hands, then we will lose the players we need to compete, which means we will starting losing more games, which means less fans will attend games, and make donations. As crazy at it is, you build to keep up, even if means spending money that maybe you don't need to do. Its crazy, but that's the life in the FBS. If we ever want to get to any significant national level we have to be willing to show recruits we are serious, and you do that by showing them first rate facilities.

I certainly get what you're saying...I guess my logic is, if we drop (just throwing out a random number here) $5 million to add 10,000 more seats that sit empty when recruits come for official visits doesn't that make us look worse? I mean, do Duke basketball recruits say "Cameron Indoor only seats 9,000...I think I'll go somewhere else that has a 13,000 seat arena"? No, they say "wow, it may be a touch smaller but these 9,000 are insane and they camp out for two weeks waiting to get tickets to see me play".

I don't think either of us are wrong in our logic, just looking at it from different perspectives.

APPdiesel wrote:

moehler wrote:the hill doesn't bother me, but I agree its time to add seating, if for no other reason, we are now FBS, and we need to start thinking about a more professional look. I don't think its something that's urgent, but it would be nice to put in seating in the next few years.

I respectfully disagree with the "if we build it they will come" idea. Expansion should only happen when we can't pack any more people into the stadium. Ever watch a MTSU game on TV? Nothing but silver in the stands and I'm not talking about t-shirts. All it takes is 3 or 4 years of 9 or 10 win seasons to pack the stands.

Then we should have done it years ago.

YesAppCan wrote:Then we should have done it years ago.

We did...we added an upper deck. I see that track lasting another 2-3 years (by which point it will be kind of old) and maybe then we'll drop the field.

WVAPPeer wrote:I have to disagree with you when it cones to the players and KBS...we have outstanding facilities like the locker room and the entire football complex + the indoor facility...these are the things that get the recruits attention...as for KBS all they care about is what it is like on gameday...

Bingo. When recruits talk about facilities, they aren't talking about wanting a few thousand more empty seats on game day. They're talking about the stuff they use every day - weight rooms, locker room, players' lounge, etc. And if you read post-visit interviews with recruits, they often talk about how ours are on a different level from our peer schools' and comparable to P5 facilities.

APPdiesel wrote:

YesAppCan wrote:Then we should have done it years ago.

We did...we added an upper deck. I see that track lasting another 2-3 years (by which point it will be kind of old) and maybe then we'll drop the field.

Will not drop the field until the warranty goes off of the turf in like 6 years. (or how ever long is left on it)

I don't think we will need to lower the field. We can easily slide to closer to the West Side, and then extend a lower level off of the East Deck that will come out onto the current track. That would cost a ton less than digging out the dirt/rock under the field. Then build end zone sections to match the lower East Side.

JTApps1 wrote:I don't think we will need to lower the field. We can easily slide to closer to the West Side, and then extend a lower level off of the East Deck that will come out onto the current track. That would cost a ton less than digging out the dirt/rock under the field. Then build end zone sections to match the lower East Side.

The problem with extending the current stands without lowering the field is that then you get the front few rows at essentially field level, which makes it basically impossible to tell what's happening unless the action is right in front of you. So those seats, which should be some of the best in the stadium, actually become the worst.

JTApps1 wrote:I don't think we will need to lower the field. We can easily slide to closer to the West Side, and then extend a lower level off of the East Deck that will come out onto the current track. That would cost a ton less than digging out the dirt/rock under the field. Then build end zone sections to match the lower East Side.

That is a great option, JTApps. I have always thought that the big hold up in expanding with the track in place was the $$$$$ involved with a dig down through all of that rock and creek that runs under the property. Moving it a little west would work just fine. Hope that someone is talking to Doug Gillen about this option.

EastHallApp wrote:

JTApps1 wrote:I don't think we will need to lower the field. We can easily slide to closer to the West Side, and then extend a lower level off of the East Deck that will come out onto the current track. That would cost a ton less than digging out the dirt/rock under the field. Then build end zone sections to match the lower East Side.

The problem with extending the current stands without lowering the field is that then you get the front few rows at essentially field level, which makes it basically impossible to tell what's happening unless the action is right in front of you. So those seats, which should be some of the best in the stadium, actually become the worst.

Not if you raise the lower stands to match the angle of the upper deck and then extend towards the field. The field could then be shifted towards the west stands and the first row could essentially remain the same height as now.

97APP wrote:

EastHallApp wrote:

JTApps1 wrote:I don't think we will need to lower the field. We can easily slide to closer to the West Side, and then extend a lower level off of the East Deck that will come out onto the current track. That would cost a ton less than digging out the dirt/rock under the field. Then build end zone sections to match the lower East Side.

The problem with extending the current stands without lowering the field is that then you get the front few rows at essentially field level, which makes it basically impossible to tell what's happening unless the action is right in front of you. So those seats, which should be some of the best in the stadium, actually become the worst.

Not if you raise the lower stands to match the angle of the upper deck and then extend towards the field. The field could then be shifted towards the west stands and the first row could essentially remain the same height as now.

This is the point where I realize I am out of my depth when people start talking engineering.

97APP wrote: Not if you raise the lower stands to match the angle of the upper deck and then extend towards the field. The field could then be shifted towards the west stands and the first row could essentially remain the same height as now.

Not sure what would cost more...blasting out bedrock to lower the field and adding 10 rows on each side or blasting out the east side lower deck and rebuilding it to match the angle of the upper deck. Obviously every situation is different but the schools who have removed a track have always lowered the field so I'd assume that's the cheaper and easier route. Either way it's substantial construction.