2015 football questions

[DaphneUrquhart]

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.

"The Rock" is more than just a boulder near the entrance to the stadium. Many of the folks I've talked with in the athletic department say that there's pretty much solid rock under the football field. That would make lowering the field a costly endeavor.

[dubs21]

Missouri has a hill and has been FBS for a a little while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurot_Field

Just offering a different perspective.

[appchicago]

Heck, Clemson famously has a hill.

And I have never understood the preoccupation with getting rid of the track. I think we spend more time worrying about our track than anyone else does.

But if we're getting all engineering-y, what's the expected lifespan of the upper deck on the East Side? I don't know anything about how long aluminum stands like that are expected to last compared to concrete. Is there a long-term plan for the East Side?

[appbanker]

My ideal upgrade to the stadium would be to remove the track and move the field and east stands closer to the west stands. Then build a tower behind the east stands to match the west side. It could have dorms on the lower floors and additional club level and luxury boxes at the top.

And while we are dreaming about athletic upgrades, buy the old Watauga High property and locate the track, soccer, field hockey and whatever other sports the property would allow over there with training facilities, weight rooms and locker rooms. And if space allows, build additional dorms to house those athletes and the general student population.

[EastHallApp]

I have no desire to see the entire south end of the stadium bowled in, or the hill seating eliminated. I think that's a valuable part of the experience for some fans, plus it provides good overflow seating for students when their section gets crowded (otherwise they just start sitting in people's reserved seats).

What I would suggest is adding some limited premium seating in that area. Expand the paved concourse area to add some patios and put in some cafe tables and/or reserved boxes. Would be another nice seating option for a few, and would give the stadium a nice high-end aesthetic touch.

[dubs21]

Also, where was Doug Gillin before ASU? Might give some insight as to what he is familiar with and what he might do in the future. Pure speculation.

Also, i've heard first hand from somebody near the top of the AD that we aren't doing anything big with the stadium for several years at the earliest.

[APPdiesel]

I've heard first hand from somebody near the top of the AD that we aren't doing anything big with the stadium for several years at the earliest.

You're probably right...I'm sure we're still paying for that shiny new press box. To appchicago who said "we're more worried about our track than anyone else"...just about everyone I've ever talked to about App football who didn't go to App says, "yeah nice stadium but that track makes it look like a high school". Just relaying what I've personally heard. Though I do agree with you and never understood the cheapness of the all-aluminum east side upper deck.

Clemson's hill is embedded in their tradition...their players run down it every single game as part of the "most exciting 25 seconds in college football". Ours is just "there". Why do we really need overflow seating? Unless we're over capacity it usually becomes "leave your actual seat empty and sit where you want. I hate seeing a half full hill and quarter empty stands.

[moehler]

makes sense they aren't going to do any physical work on the stadium for atleast a couple of years, I would rather they do that, raise the necessary capital to do the renovations the right way. My question to the administration is, if we are going to wait 2, 3, or 4 years, isn't this the time to try and raise the capital? I know we just finished a very successful 200 million dollar fund raising campaign, and moneys tight for families, but it wouldn't be such a horrible idea within the next year, to start a fund campaign specifically targeted for the renovations of the football stadium? Bottom line is, if we plan to renovate the stadium now is the time to start raising the necessary capital. As far as what I would like to see done, is first and foremost, get rid of the track, its an eyesore, and really takes away from one of the prettiest settings in all of collage football. Second, make sure there is some kind of uniformity, piece mill stadiums look cheap, and are ugly as hell.

[canes_mj]

My only issue with the hill is how far away it is from the field. I think overall it adds aesthetically to KBS, just wish it were closer to the field. One of my top wants for KBS upgrades are new endzones. Really wish we'd go back to the black endzones with the gold lettering. I've never liked the ones we have now. Had heard on the media day special talk about some aesthetic improvements to the stadium, and was hoping this was one of them, but don't think so

[appchicago]

You're probably right...I'm sure we're still paying for that shiny new press box. To appchicago who said "we're more worried about our track than anyone else"...just about everyone I've ever talked to about App football who didn't go to App says, "yeah nice stadium but that track makes it look like a high school". Just relaying what I've personally heard. Though I do agree with you and never understood the cheapness of the all-aluminum east side upper deck.

I'm just saying that in my own experience, I've heard lots of App people say that other people have brought up the track, but have never actually had a fan from another school say that to me. Because it does seem like a little bit of minutia.

Clemson's hill is embedded in their tradition...their players run down it every single game as part of the "most exciting 25 seconds in college football". Ours is just "there". Why do we really need overflow seating? Unless we're over capacity it usually becomes "leave your actual seat empty and sit where you want. I hate seeing a half full hill and quarter empty stands.

I'm from a family of Clemson fans (though I went to App and USC myself), so I'm certainly familiar with the tradition, but that hill wasn't put there so the players could run down it. That's a tradition that was born from necessity or convenience, and caught hold as a part of school lore. But none of that changes the fact that they still keep a portion of the hill reserved for fans who covet a spot there.

For App, it seems to me that the order of events should be this:

1) Win. Consistently and at our current level and against big teams.
2) Pack out our present stadium consistently. Develop and maintain a fanbase who'll suffer through wet butts on the hill for the whole game in the rain and sleet and snow in November when we're 5-4 on the season and losing to a team we should be beating.
(big gap)
3) Expand the stadium.

[appchicago]

Also, where was Doug Gillin before ASU? Might give some insight as to what he is familiar with and what he might do in the future. Pure speculation.

Mizzou

[JTApps1]

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.

We could build the stands out a good bit, but still have the first row 8 feet or so off the ground. It would be much better than the current setup.

[JTApps1]

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.

My dad (AppMan) actually came up with this idea a few years back as we were walking around KBS. It's hard to picture without looking at the stands, but it would actually work out very well once you see it in person. One thing we would need to do is widen the walkway on the front of the upper deck. More traffic flow plus it would get the seats a little closer before building down to the field.

[JTApps1]

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.

We wouldn't need to remove the current lower section in the scenario I spoke about. Just cover them up as the new stands are connected to the upper deck.

[dubs21]

Also, where was Doug Gillin before ASU? Might give some insight as to what he is familiar with and what he might do in the future. Pure speculation.

Mizzou

Exactly. I was sort of referencing my earlier post in the thread with that rhetorical question.

[boonetown1]

When we do move forward with the renovation to the field-house end-zone, I think they need to keep the hill. However, we need to move the hill closer to the field and create more seating along the top. We should have a bigger plat are when the hill is pushed out.

I'm not sure about not seeing any renovations for 4 years though. As Doug Gillin said, if there is not a crane on campus.....were doing something wrong.

[BeauFoster]

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.

My dad (AppMan) actually came up with this idea a few years back as we were walking around KBS. It's hard to picture without looking at the stands, but it would actually work out very well once you see it in person. One thing we would need to do is widen the walkway on the front of the upper deck. More traffic flow plus it would get the seats a little closer before building down to the field.

I drew this exact thing on a whiteboard for another member back in about 2006. It's the most cost effective way to do it. Anytime I see someone talk about digging down I cringe. We will have to think about replacing the lower east deck at some point anyway, might as well get it done.

[APPdiesel]

I drew this exact thing on a whiteboard for another member back in about 2006. It's the most cost effective way to do it. Anytime I see someone talk about digging down I cringe.

I only say dig because it's the only way I knew to do it...I'd never considered your idea. I just drew it out on a piece of paper and it actually does work very well. The east side faces the sun, making them less than desirable. I could see them building atop the existing concrete foundation (assuming it's solid) and placing stadium seats with chair backs between the 30's turning them into premium seats.

[Appstate88]

Sounds like a cost effective way to remove the track. Let's also add an authentic looking Appalachian mountain cabin "circa 1899" on the hill with a "real" Yosef on the front porch. Could be a great focal point in the stadium.

[dubs21]

See Raymond James Stadium (Tampa Bay Buccaneers)