KingDL1

There can be plenty of reasons from they don't have a finished plan, to who knows what the final price tag is. Maybe the School or the board wants more then 10% down. Maybe they are waiting for a couple big donors. Maybe the pledges have strings like when you have 10 million pledged. Maybe they are slow, or maybe they are looking at different plans for different sizes. Maybe they are waiting for something to play out, like an event or a corporate sponsor to help them with the Hotel/Stadium project. OR maybe they fudged the numbers a little, to make themselves look better.

No, it is not clear. And maybe you need to see if you might bring your expectations off the floor. Yes the Seats in the end zones suck, and as far as financing there is only a couple million dollars more to start a 10,000 - 15,000 seat more stadium. An addition which later, say ten years from now, may cost more then the stadium to add on There are real reasons to do it right now, and why anyone thinks it is 30,000 or we can't afford it blows my mind. A larger stadium draws bigger concerts, high school playoffs, big football programs, etc. Not to mention total enrollment. But wait lets base the new stadium on the past and a school that has just recently started to commit to a D1A football program. Such a lack of vision.

If you got a trillion to bet with, did you hear we need a new stadium?

Have a Happy Birthday on the 28th!

It is not easy to come up that kind of money, someone has to pay for it. It can kill economies, put taxes through the roof. Loss of jobs if one country just does lip service and puts nothing into effect. (China) No one can compete if they have to meet standards others don't. People like Gore and many so called "Climate Scientists" are making millions on millions as long as the play up Global warming which is a very dangerous conflict of interests.

What a waste of money. Global Warming Goes Round And Round Cooling Underway: Global Temperature Continues to Drop in May

SMU in their hay-day played at the Cotton bowl and Texas Stadium and had some great turnouts if I remember correctly. TCU has a current enrollment of around 8,000 and yet their stadium holds 44,000. There has always been a correlation with enrollment and stadium size. I do think 50,000 expandable to 80,000 is a great plan, 45,000 enrolled is a lot of people. On top of that Denton county is growing at an exponential rate, with DFW being the fastest growing of any large market. I think they said 162,000 people moved to this area last year. I am not sure why so many are out to say what we can't do, I know we can do and should do. Meeting total enrollment should be a bare minimum.

So what is reality? I am interested.

Honor is definitely due, we can never thank those enough who lost life and limb, to protect and preserve our freedom. God Bless America!!

No, its just very low expectations disguised as realistic goals.

I don't think RV has been fund raising the last 7 years for the stadium? If so he needs to be fired. I believe he has had other things to fund before the Stadium. On a project like this, 10% is the typical amount needed to move forward so we are talking about maybe a 2 or 3 million dollar difference. I do not believe for an instant we can't do a 45,000 seat stadium. I do think if we really feel that 30,000 is more then enough for the future with a cap at 50,000, we should pack it in. Yes I will still be there either way, I am addicted to this program. As long as we are D1A at least.

Are really really judging an entire breed due to the headlines? Not like you will ever see the headlines John Doe's Pit saved the family from intruders, good thing almost never make the news. As a UPS driver most of our drivers that were bit, were bit by Chows, Rots, mutts, and the minor stuff was all little nipper breeds. It just happens for some reason that having the meanest baddest dogs seem to be in lately with some inbred owner and there inbred dogs. These pits suck, true. But by far the vast majority of Pits, especially professionally bred pits are great dogs. It is the dumbass owners.

To start with flyer used those schools for comparison not me. Second why, why, why, such low expectations? If we are not going to elevate our football program with real commitment, why even bother with a new stadium. I can guarantee you if we start winning and approach the top 25, which I think is our goal, the masses will come. And its tons cheaper to build as much as possible now then later. We have such great possibility and we seem to want to limit our selfs, "OH My God We May Embarrass ourselves"? by building a stadium that can contain the total enrollment, to the real world it would feel embarrassed for us if a school as big as us who thinks so little of our football program to design the new stadium to hold 2/3 of our student body. Total enrollment, if you notice on all the D1a schools, is well exceeded in their actual attendance at the games with the exception of Houston. Plus the larger your total enrollment the more young alumni you produce.

Electric motors are much more efficient then gas, instant torque, crazy fast acceleration. If they get the batteries figured out they could make a car the could beat anything, top fuel dragsters, funny cars, anything.

30,000 is not cost effective and you are comparing apples to oranges. Just so you know: Houston's stadium was built in 1946 with a current capacity 32,000, and they are about to expand it to 50,000. Total enrollment 35,000 Boise's Stadium was built in 1970 with a current capacity 32,000, and they also have plans to expand to 50,000 with a total enrollment of 18,000 SMU's Stadium was built in 2000 with a current capacity 32,000 not counting the hill and was planned to expand to 45,000 with only a 11,000 total enrollment. Wake Forest's Stadium was built in 1968 with a current capacity of 31,500 Not counting they new construction (In January 2007, construction began on Deacon Tower, a massive new seven-story pressbox that will house luxury suites, club seats, boxes for the University President, home and visiting athletic directors and print and electronic media. Construction is scheduled to be finished in time for the 2008 season. The new Deacon Tower will be located on the west side of the stadium.) And drum roll please a total enrollment of 6788! And as for the future another swing and a miss: Louisville’s stadium was built in 1998 with a current capacity of 42,000, not counting (In November 2006 the Louisville Athletic Association Board of Directors approved a $72 million expansion that will increase the capacity of Cardinal Stadium to 63,600. This expansion is to be complete by the 2010 season, will include 2,000 luxury seats and 45 luxury suites on the east side.) Plus it was built with plans to be expandable to 80,000. Total enrollment 21,000 East Carolina's stadium was built in 1963 with a current capacity of 43,000, with plans to expand to 60,000. Total enrollment 22,767 Boston College's stadium was built in 1957 with a current capacity of 44,500 and who know where they will be in 10 years (no current plans). Total enrollment 14,829

That is not the point by no means, gee lets just see if we can move as slowly forward as possible. With this kind of wait and see attitude we have no business in D1A. We need to at least match the total enrollment UNT knows it will be at in the near future and we will save tons of money in the long run.

You had better believe the AD has several scales and sets of drawings to play with and several different seating capacities. Nothing is ever really set in stone until it is built.

It is not about the past, too many of you are stuck in past small school thought. It is the enrollment plus a commitment to a football program. If the football program gets off the ground the attendance will be there. Plus UNT plans on using this (Stadium on the Greens) for many other events where more seats means more money. Fouts is sold out a 20,000 as far as I am concerned. And once again you do not have to sell it out if you can get at first 28,000 in it for a football game you are fine, the attendance will grow.

There is no folly it is simply a commitment, why should we ever improve. The enrollment growth alone should be reason enough, and for funding, I have been told that it is not much different between 50 million and 70 million (just a guess) as far as the difference between what the two sizes may cost. I was told that 10% gets you rolling, not sure just told that. That means 5 million vs 7 million to get the project off the ground. Now cost of construction goes up all the time and "to add on latter" means you have to get all the equipment and support back in place again which tacks on more money. So what may have cost 20 million today in three years may cost you 30 million to add on.

I doubt that this will ever happen, at least in our lifetimes, there is no benefit at all to this happening for the United States, none. The Dollar would have to slam into the gutter for this to every be an option. But I like pure gasoline! Don't junk it up with some crappy alcohol.

This Thread won't die, or swing off topic for long, how silly. Don't you know it now has a life of its own.

I think it was 2.25 when I was there.

Larger Image

I think I need a refund, surely they meant 3.5?

We don't have sell out every game, as for the extras like lights, bathrooms, concessions, etc. they don't have to have them all open. In a horse shoe configuration just cover the seats in the end-zone with a huge Mean Green Banner, and shut down the service behind it. I doubt of the 45,000 total enrollment that 15,000 of our main campus would be grad students, but I would still expect a good percentage of the grad students to be in the mix. If we won 10+ games a year consistently and were able to knock off a BCS team here and there you would see a packed house in Denton. I think the fan base will show up in Denton if we started really winning, Under DD we really didn't have what the casual fan would see as any big wins/upsets, and saw us in a crappy conference. The Sunbelt is getting a better rep these days, but we need to play at home the likes of Rice, Baylor, Tech, Oky state, TCU, A&M, etc. to really get people on board. I think it is easier to attract those teams with a bigger stadium and at first it would be games like these where we open up the end-zone. Boise State has a total enrollment of around 18,000, plus they don't have a huge metro area to pull alumni from. I don't agree that a pro sports town makes it that much harder. A winning tradition combined with recognizable opponents would keep the attendance at games high. Plus I am sure we will use any new stadium for several other events that were more worried about the condition and layout of Fouts.