Stadum Expansion and track Removal

[EastHallApp]

Here is an example of what could be for ASU.

If a new FCS program can get $5M then surely App can get a $20M investment to pay for our stadium expansion. Again, we need to bring in a heavy hitter Assistant AD that has experience and specializes in this area and can deliver the goods. Give them a sizable commission as part of their compensation plan and give them some strong incentive to deliver. If I were Cobb, I would already have the business plan and business justification in my pocket and "make it happen". That would allow him to focus on more general AD executive responsibilities while this person goes out and hunts for the big fish.

Actually, contract Peacock to do this upon his retirement. Yea, that is the ticket.

https://web.kennesaw.edu/news/stories/k ... k-announce

http://www.ksusentinel.com/2013/08/22/f ... su-campus/

Only caveat I'll mention in that example is that the bank got naming rights to the football stadium, which is something I doubt App would want to do. At least, I hope not.

But overall, I totally agree with your point.

[appdaze]

http://www.sportsknowhow.com/football/f ... sions.html

Dimensions of an NFL Field.

http://www.sportsknowhow.com/football/f ... sions.html

College requirements.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... dium_2.JPG

This is MN field. You can see the dotted 6ft line around the sidelines. I would guess there is 18ft from the endzone to each endbleachers. I would guess the sidelines are a little over 30ft to the first side seats. They pretty much left as little room as possible between seats and field while staying within the legal boundaries of a college field.

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/1113/ma ... tad_13.jpg

Here is a field many of you remember. Again they come as close as requirements will allow. Same as MN.

http://image.cdnllnwnl.xosnetwork.com/p ... 031704.jpg

Now here is our stadium with the temp bleachers on the field house side.




Honestly I don't think we can get much closer on the sidelines by more than 10 ft maybe. If we want to truly expand seating the, much loved by some, hill is going to have to go and be bowled in. I would much rather lose the hill than lose the view of the knob and the campus. In the end we probably will get rid of the track but I don't think we will get as close as some of you are hoping to the field. We are already about as close as sidles allow.

[norrisrk]

So, I wonder if they will be adding the Sun Belt logo to the football field this summer? From what I have seen, most Sun Belt teams have the logo on their field, and I know that we do not have the SoCon logo on our field currently, so I wonder if we will be making that addition. I sure hope so, especially since we'll have some televised games this year.

[bcoach]

I don't see anything about "removing" the track. I see " relocating" the track and I don't think that means picking up the old one and moving it. I think it means building one in a new location. Now they may cover it but I don't see anything about getting seats closer to the field.

Moving the track should not have any effect on moving seats closer to the field on the sidelines. It would allow seats closer to the field in the endzones but not the sidelines. Look at ANY trackless stadium and the space behind the benches is approximately the same as the width of a track. So I'm thinking we could get seats to within 15 ft. of endlines but doubt seats would be any closer on sideline.

That is correct. Even if you were to move in a little on the sidelines you could not justify the cost of lowering the field for the number of seats you would get. Now in the end zone is a different story. You would be able to get a lot closer and add a lot of seats.
I don't have a problem with the track and don't really care either way. I just don't see the value in lowering the field. If the track bothers people that bad just paint the damn thing green and pretend it is grass.

[moehler]

ultimately, it come down to money, with enough, you can build anything, unfortunately, unless something unexpected happens, they next building phase will probably be on the "budget side". If I was to bet, I would think they would address the endzone seating first. My dream setup, which I think they could eventually do, is move the sideline seating closer to the field, and use that new seating for the students. That would be great to have 10,000 screaming students right on top on the field, of course, it would look horrible when they leave at halftime, but, what can you do.

[Kgfish]

I don't see anything about "removing" the track. I see " relocating" the track and I don't think that means picking up the old one and moving it. I think it means building one in a new location. Now they may cover it but I don't see anything about getting seats closer to the field.

Moving the track should not have any effect on moving seats closer to the field on the sidelines. It would allow seats closer to the field in the endzones but not the sidelines. Look at ANY trackless stadium and the space behind the benches is approximately the same as the width of a track. So I'm thinking we could get seats to within 15 ft. of endlines but doubt seats would be any closer on sideline.

That is correct. Even if you were to move in a little on the sidelines you could not justify the cost of lowering the field for the number of seats you would get. Now in the end zone is a different story. You would be able to get a lot closer and add a lot of seats.
I don't have a problem with the track and don't really care either way. I just don't see the value in lowering the field. If the track bothers people that bad just paint the damn thing green and pretend it is grass.

In 1979 Washington State removed the track, dug down 16 feet and added 12,000 seats to Martin Stadium. I've heard all talk about underground streams below KBS's playing surface but the Holmes Center has a creek running below it. Easy solution to the issue. Pipes.

http://www.wsucougars.com/ViewArticle.d ... =208264711

[bigCasu]

how many years do we have left on current turf?

Football has only played on the current surface for three seasons. I know field hockey takes a toll, but we shouldnt be anywhere close to a replacement if the turf was similar to the last turf, which as played on from 2003-2010.

[bcoach]

I don't see anything about "removing" the track. I see " relocating" the track and I don't think that means picking up the old one and moving it. I think it means building one in a new location. Now they may cover it but I don't see anything about getting seats closer to the field.

Moving the track should not have any effect on moving seats closer to the field on the sidelines. It would allow seats closer to the field in the endzones but not the sidelines. Look at ANY trackless stadium and the space behind the benches is approximately the same as the width of a track. So I'm thinking we could get seats to within 15 ft. of endlines but doubt seats would be any closer on sideline.

That is correct. Even if you were to move in a little on the sidelines you could not justify the cost of lowering the field for the number of seats you would get. Now in the end zone is a different story. You would be able to get a lot closer and add a lot of seats.
I don't have a problem with the track and don't really care either way. I just don't see the value in lowering the field. If the track bothers people that bad just paint the damn thing green and pretend it is grass.

In 1979 Washington State removed the track, dug down 16 feet and added 12,000 seats to Martin Stadium. I've heard all talk about underground streams below KBS's playing surface but the Holmes Center has a creek running below it. Easy solution to the issue. Pipes.

http://www.wsucougars.com/ViewArticle.d ... =208264711

Easy is not a term I would use but VERY expensive is a term I would use. They also didn't pick up 12000 seats on the sidelines. That 12000 was all the way around. We can add seats in the end zones without lowering the field.
Did you notice there was not a cost given for the lowering?

[JTApps1]

Small steps, we have been waiting for many, many years to get rid of that dam track, I can't imagine they would relocate it without plans to eventually expand the seating, would not make sense to go thru all that trouble and not eventually do something.

I think we can safely assume a relocation of the track will include seats that will be closer to the field, especially in the north end zone.

Agree. The seats on the sideline probably wont get closer, but this will give us the ability to put end zone seats right on top of the field. If we put 5-6,000 in each end the atmosphere will be off the charts.

[Kgfish]

I don't see anything about "removing" the track. I see " relocating" the track and I don't think that means picking up the old one and moving it. I think it means building one in a new location. Now they may cover it but I don't see anything about getting seats closer to the field.

Moving the track should not have any effect on moving seats closer to the field on the sidelines. It would allow seats closer to the field in the endzones but not the sidelines. Look at ANY trackless stadium and the space behind the benches is approximately the same as the width of a track. So I'm thinking we could get seats to within 15 ft. of endlines but doubt seats would be any closer on sideline.

That is correct. Even if you were to move in a little on the sidelines you could not justify the cost of lowering the field for the number of seats you would get. Now in the end zone is a different story. You would be able to get a lot closer and add a lot of seats.
I don't have a problem with the track and don't really care either way. I just don't see the value in lowering the field. If the track bothers people that bad just paint the damn thing green and pretend it is grass.

In 1979 Washington State removed the track, dug down 16 feet and added 12,000 seats to Martin Stadium. I've heard all talk about underground streams below KBS's playing surface but the Holmes Center has a creek running below it. Easy solution to the issue. Pipes.

http://www.wsucougars.com/ViewArticle.d ... =208264711

Easy is not a term I would use but VERY expensive is a term I would use. They also didn't pick up 12000 seats on the sidelines. That 12000 was all the way around. We can add seats in the end zones without lowering the field.
Did you notice there was not a cost given for the lowering?

Easy as in moving water out of the way. We all know in Boone if you dig 5 feet down you are subject to hit rock. I'm well aware of the fact they didn't pick up the 12K seats on the sidelines but we're talking about adding seats period. Not just to the sidelines.

[8993]

What I wonder is whether or not the Sun Belt logo will be added to the football field over the next month. I know the field is turf, so I wonder what effect that will have on them adding the logo to the field. Most of the other Sun Belt teams have the logo on their field, so I would hope we do the same, especially since we have a few televised games this year. The stadium is filled with SoCon logos, too, so I sure do hope that they start the transition process soon.

[BeauFoster]

I can't wait to read all the complaints when we don't lower the field. Jesus this board will implode.

[moehler]

If you want it done right the field needs to be lowered, but I would imagine that would be very expensive. The best we can probably hope for is to "piece mill" the expansion to the stadium, will not look great, but it would get the job done

[goapps93]

I don't think lowering the field is the only way "to do it right". Both lower levels have been there a long time and are in pretty bad shape. The upper level on the west side is also fairly old and probably in need of repair, if not now then soon. Another alternative would be to demolish the whole stadium except for the Athletics Center and rebuild all of the seating to fit our needs and be symmetric. Unless the Athletics Center is permanently connected to the west stands, which it shouldn't be, then it should be able to remain and have a new stadium built to fit it. Something like that would be less expensive in the long run, not cause as many environmental concerns that lowering the field would bring about, result in a brand new stadium and keep the Athletics Center intact. A good architect could also come up with a better way for the team to enter the field with a completely new design.

[NewApp]

I don't think lowering the field is the only way "to do it right". Both lower levels have been there a long time and are in pretty bad shape. The upper level on the west side is also fairly old and probably in need of repair, if not now then soon. Another alternative would be to demolish the whole stadium except for the Athletics Center and rebuild all of the seating to fit our needs and be symmetric. Unless the Athletics Center is permanently connected to the west stands, which it shouldn't be, then it should be able to remain and have a new stadium built to fit it. Something like that would be less expensive in the long run, not cause as many environmental concerns that lowering the field would bring about, result in a brand new stadium and keep the Athletics Center intact. A good architect could also come up with a better way for the team to enter the field with a completely new design.

Where would we play home games while the stadium was being replaced?

[BeauFoster]

I don't think lowering the field is the only way "to do it right". Both lower levels have been there a long time and are in pretty bad shape. The upper level on the west side is also fairly old and probably in need of repair, if not now then soon. Another alternative would be to demolish the whole stadium except for the Athletics Center and rebuild all of the seating to fit our needs and be symmetric. Unless the Athletics Center is permanently connected to the west stands, which it shouldn't be, then it should be able to remain and have a new stadium built to fit it. Something like that would be less expensive in the long run, not cause as many environmental concerns that lowering the field would bring about, result in a brand new stadium and keep the Athletics Center intact. A good architect could also come up with a better way for the team to enter the field with a completely new design.

Where would we play home games while the stadium was being replaced?

You could do one side in a year. Spring practice might have to happen in the barn or at State Farm, but it could easily be done. We aren't nearly as boxed in as you have said.

[GoApps70]

Thing about it is these are "future projects". That doesn't really tell us much.
When?

[Yosef84]

I would guess that, once the track is relocated, the field will be shifted (new turf budgeted) to one side and the opposite side will be rebuilt. Ultimately, the West side stand will have to be rebuilt and I think they would install a decked system that will improve the "Piece meal" look of the stadium, but I'm not sure if that is the first move. Although they are not old, the lower deck of the East side is not aging well, so I'm wondering if it could be rebuilt but elevated to increase seating and expand further toward the field. I'm not sure what the clearance to the upper deck would be or if this was considered in the design but currently, the top row is at concourse level. If it were raised, I think it would extend much further toward the field and still allow for a good line of site.

So, I'm no architect, but the project could be done in phases as the funding became available:
1) remove the track, shift field and rebuilt lower deck of East stands.
2) Construction of seating in North endzone (matching the new configuration of the East stands lower deck).
3) Rebuilt the West Stands with a decked configuration that synchs with the East (aligning top with the athletic complex of course).

As I said....I'm not architect, but I would think this approach would accomplish our needs, result in a more consistent appearance to the stadium (when complete) and would not require lowering the field.

[WVAPPeer]

Just a question here --- I am certainly no architect, far from it --- I have no vested interest in what is done to KBS as far as lowering field, moving sideline stands closer, etc., --- I do see it being much more efficient to add the seating to the endzones --- here's my question --- If major renovation were to occur (NOT adding end zone seating to current structure) such as lowering the field --- Where would the team play? - the regular season isn't over until Dec, everyone is aware of Boone's winters, I see no way football could be played at KBS by the following Aug??? --- again, I will reiterate, I am no architect ---

[JTApps1]

I would guess that, once the track is relocated, the field will be shifted (new turf budgeted) to one side and the opposite side will be rebuilt. Ultimately, the West side stand will have to be rebuilt and I think they would install a decked system that will improve the "Piece meal" look of the stadium, but I'm not sure if that is the first move. Although they are not old, the lower deck of the East side is not aging well, so I'm wondering if it could be rebuilt but elevated to increase seating and expand further toward the field. I'm not sure what the clearance to the upper deck would be or if this was considered in the design but currently, the top row is at concourse level. If it were raised, I think it would extend much further toward the field and still allow for a good line of site.

So, I'm no architect, but the project could be done in phases as the funding became available:
1) remove the track, shift field and rebuilt lower deck of East stands.
2) Construction of seating in North endzone (matching the new configuration of the East stands lower deck).
3) Rebuilt the West Stands with a decked configuration that synchs with the East (aligning top with the athletic complex of course).

As I said....I'm not architect, but I would think this approach would accomplish our needs, result in a more consistent appearance to the stadium (when complete) and would not require lowering the field.

AppMan and I have discussed this exact plan. As you said the lower concrete sections especially the East side are starting to crumble. This would take two offseans to complete, but we would have a stadium with a cohesive desgin. The sight lines would be better, the crowd would be closer, and the seating more comfortable (upper west side). I would just have the bottom sections in the end zones to keep the views of the surroundings in place, and then the larger upper decks on each side. If we use steel we could add a nice facade on the outside to dress it up.