"athletics Provides A Window For The University"

ADLER · December 31, 2006

LSANGSGZZVVRROD.20061205202543.gif

A MESSAGE FROM BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT DR. BOB KUSTRA:

Dear Bronco Fans:

Few schools excel in both academics and athletics at the highest levels. Boise State’s rise to academic and athletic prominence has been swift and inspiring. A strong athletic program enhances the academic environment and provides a well-rounded educational experience for the student body and the entire University community.

Intercollegiate athletics also provides the institution with a window through which we can be seen and respected across the country. Bronco sports, comprised of 400 men and women competing in 18 sports, brings broad public awareness of Boise State as an accomplished institution of higher education on the athletic field as well as in academics. Our goal of athletic excellence truly complements the University’s academic mission.

We have some of the best and most talented coaches in the country directing our programs and recruiting the highest caliber student-athletes from across the nation to Boise State. These student-athletes need and deserve first-class, state-of-the-art facilities in which to train and compete. There is a great need for expanded space to accommodate our growing sports programs. The “Initiative for Athletic Excellence” campaign is intended to assist us in meeting these needs and boosting our recruiting efforts in an increasingly competitive market.

Boise State University has a rich and proud tradition in intercollegiate athletics. You can play an important role in maintaining that great heritage by taking advantage of the gift opportunities presented by this important campaign. With your partnership and generosity, outstanding accomplishments in sports will remain a hallmark of our great University for generations to come.

Sincerely,

Bob Kustra

President

Sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?

ScreamingEaglesFan · December 31, 2006

Sounds like they've been listening to our very own former Pres. Norval Pohl! Also I found (thanks Stebo) the video for the UNT stadium from ~ 2 years ago (I think) check it out and see how much our own situation is changed. Pretty impressive progress!!

Link to 2004 Stadium capital campaign video

It's time to get some new audio/ video!! :rolleyes:

ADLER · December 31, 2006

Sounds like they've been listening to our very own former Pres. Norval Pohl! Also I found (thanks Stebo) the video for the UNT stadium from ~ 2 years ago (I think) check it out and see how much our own situation is changed. Pretty impressive progress!!
Link to 2004 Stadium capital campaign video
It's time to get some new audio/ video!!

And we really need a new stadium design to get the majority of seating off the roof of the press box and into the stadium. (It's college football, gameday atmosphere is a large part of the draw)

That thing is likely the worst stadium concept ever conceived.

FirefightnRick · December 31, 2006

And we really need a new stadium design to get the majority of seating off the roof of the press box and into the stadium. (It's college football, gameday atmosphere is a large part of the draw)
That thing is likely the worst stadium concept ever conceived.

Agree!

Rick

flyeater · December 31, 2006

And we really need a new stadium design to get the majority of seating off the roof of the press box and into the stadium. (It's college football, gameday atmosphere is a large part of the draw)
That thing is likely the worst stadium concept ever conceived.

:blink:

Wow, just saw this video, and it's impressive as hell if even half of that stuff gets done. I can't believe this kind of vision is sitting out there, and you have the stones to criticize it or ANY stadium concept. Pretty shortsighted, considering the current state of affairs. Watch the video again, read your comment and then ask yourself why you even thought that in the first place.

ADLER · December 31, 2006

Wow, just saw this video, and it's impressive as hell if even half of that stuff gets done. I can't believe this kind of vision is sitting out there, and you have the stones to criticize it or ANY stadium concept. Pretty shortsighted, considering the current state of affairs. Watch the video again, read your comment and then ask yourself why you even thought that in the first place.

I know how you feel. When I was a child my parents took me and my brothers to the automobile dealership when they were looking for a new car. The kids all loved this shiny new car design called the AMC Pacer. We really, really, really, really, really liked it. It was all so new and exciting. Thank goodness my father had the foresight to say "no children, it may be more unique than the other options, but it's a hunk of junk." Like you, we couldn't understand it at the time.

It can take more than half a century to replace a poorly designed stadium. As North Texas fans, we know that better than anybody.

Put seating where people want to sit. Fans strongly prefer to sit inside the stadium at college football games.

flyeater · December 31, 2006

I know how you feel. When I was a child my parents took me and my brothers to the automobile dealership when they were looking for a new car. The kids all loved this shiny new car design called the AMC Pacer. We really, really, really, really, really liked it. It was all so new and exciting. Thank goodness my father had the foresight to say "no children, it may be more unique than the other options, but it's a hunk of junk." Like you, we couldn't understand it at the time.
It can take more than half a century to replace a poorly designed stadium. As North Texas fans, we know that better than anybody.
Put seating where people want to sit. Fans strongly prefer to sit inside the stadium at college football games.

Unless I don't know something, neither you, nor I, nor pretty much anyone we know will contribute jack squat to the bottom line in any new stadium, though for the price of game admission we'll get to enjoy it no matter how it's designed. If that's the current plan, the upper-deck looks like it has excellent sight lines to the action on the field. Not sure where the bad seats (maybe a few too many around the end zones) are. If it's such a bad deal, then be the first in line to buy season tickets for the lower deck.

By the way, your little speech about the Pacer is cute, but mostly irrelevant. Whatever replaces Fouts won't be inferior to the original. I'm sure we'd love for UNT to take all our nitpicky ideas to heart, but to already be talking about a new stadium being "poorly designed"? You gotta be out of your mind.

UNTFan23 · December 31, 2006

I hope we can fit the original 10k on the lower level of the new stadium, like Fouts does now. If we can't, that is all the more incentive for people to join the Mean Green club ... but could discourage some people if the minimum level ends up being something like $1,000 just to sit on the lower concourse.

Edit: To make myself clear, when I say 10k, I mean as it is on the press box side as well as the student side.

Edited December 31, 2006 by UNTFan23

flyeater · December 31, 2006

I hope we can fit the original 10k on the lower level of the new stadium, like Fouts does now. If we can't, that is all the more incentive for people to join the Mean Green club ... but could discourage some people if the minimum level ends up being something like $1,000 just to sit on the lower concourse.

My best guess is that wouldn't be the case. The plans look pretty preliminary, and I can envision some tweaking when ground is finally broken. Eyeball it again, and the bottom level looks more like 20K to me with all the covered seating you don't see very well. Any new stadium generates buzz, but with UNT still being mostly a commuter school (I know everyone hates that term; so do I) the rush for season tickets might not be as brisk as other places. They will sell, but we don't know if it's going to take $1,000 or some pricey PSL to get a good seat in this place. Right now, Dodge or no Dodge, that kind of demand doesn't realisitically exist. Not to say it won't someday, but I just can't imagine UNT creating the kind of haves/have-nots system of ticket distribution that you see at places like Tech, UT or A$M.

Now, as far as parking, luxury seating, corporate stuff, etc., I can see where the option of giving a minimum donation to MGC could get you and yours some extra bells and whistles. That goes on everywhere. You need that to generate higher-end revenue anywhere. How much that trickles down to Joe Q. Ticket Buyer, we don't know right now.

emmitt01 · December 31, 2006

I disagree flyeater. There is already a premium on section E at Fouts. If they said I would have to give $1,000 to sit on the 50 I would gladly give it...as would all of those who sit around me I believe if for no other reason than to continue sitting next to eachother.

centex eagle · January 1, 2007

here we go again on commuter--someone go back and put up the number of students living on and within 3 miles of campus--seems I remember we were impressed by the numbers.

January 1, 2007

Pup me in the camp of those that think that the design is pretty damn good. It's a little unique in that the luxury suites are in the middle rather than the nosebleed area. The people that occupy those suites will be the ones that have paid the most dearly and are entitled to a better seat than casual fan. There look to be plenty of good seats in the lower sections and will more than accomodate present Mean Green Clubbers.

Why would you want to use Boise's new stadium plan to bring attention to ours? If you'll look, they have perhaps more upper level seats than we'll have and their luxurey boxes appear to above that. I'll take our design over the Broncos any day.

ADLER · January 1, 2007

Don't get me wrong, Boise has a bad design for their stadium. It's bad by necessity because they are expanding a structure that is built around removable stands that cover the school's track. Even with that pre-existing hadicap, BSU is still able to seat their upper deck fans inside the stadium as best possible.

At North Texas where we had a totally clean slate, we have/had a concept design (which may have already been discarded) that had a small amount of fan seating in desirable locations, several stories of press boxes and Department friends&family boxes, and then a whole lot of undesirable empty seats on top of the press boxes.

UNTLifer · January 1, 2007

By the way, your little speech about the Pacer is cute, but mostly irrelevant. Whatever replaces Fouts won't be inferior to the original. I'm sure we'd love for UNT to take all our nitpicky ideas to heart, but to already be talking about a new stadium being "poorly designed"? You gotta be out of your mind.

You are missing Adler's point. If NT is going to spend $40 million plus on a new stadium, shouldn't we build the best option with the best design, etc...?

BTW, your "commuter school" reference shows your facts are off.

ADLER · January 1, 2007

You are missing Adler's point. If NT is going to spend $40 million plus on a new stadium, shouldn't we build the best option with the best design, etc...?
BTW, your "commuter school" reference shows your facts are off.

The "AMC Pacer" concept may already be dead. Sparks Architecture of Tulsa, Oklahoma has already deleted the concept thumbnails from their website.

Hopefully they, or another architectural firm, are busy designing a functional stadium for North Texas.

NT80 · January 1, 2007

As I understood it, the initial stadium concept was to have the suite/pressbox level at walkin level, thus eliminating the need for a ton of elevators and expense. However that also elimated the ability to have a large seating area below the suite level and the need to put more seats above. While I agree it is best to have a single level of stands (see Utah's stadium), this will have to be balanced by the cost of moving the pressbox and suites higher. We either dig lower (can this be done with the water table there?) or build suites and elevators higher. I'm also in favor of having as few endzone seats as possible. I'd rather have upper deck (sideline) seats than endzone seats anytime.

Edited January 1, 2007 by NT80

UNTLifer · January 1, 2007

Anybody else feel kind of queezy after seeing that the name of the club in the new stadium is Agri-Beef Club and BSU is the Broncos? :blink:

flyeater · January 1, 2007

You are missing Adler's point. If NT is going to spend $40 million plus on a new stadium, shouldn't we build the best option with the best design, etc...?
BTW, your "commuter school" reference shows your facts are off.

I didn't miss any point; get a little reading comprehension. Just cuz a few whiners who don't want to plunk down $ for a premium seat think a stadium is "poorly designed," that doesn't make it so. You can't just look at a CG model of a new stadium an automatically write off 3/4 of the seats as "undesirable." It's also silly to parallel a new stadium (more like $60) with luxury seats and boxes you didn't even have before to a disposable kit car with a lawn-mower engine.

Gee, I guess since I mistakenly invoked the banned term "commuter school," there can be nothing factual that emanates from my keyboard. Sorry for that, oh holy purveyor of all that is factual. Just trying to have a discussion.

MeanGreen61 · January 1, 2007

Something you can bet on. We can get a state-of-the-art stadium that is the envy of most and some on this board will still find something to moan and groan about. :rolleyes:

ADLER · January 2, 2007

I'm sure that somebody was accused of "whining" and "moaning" when he initially asked "Why are the stands at the proposed Fouts Field stadium 50 friggin yards away from the field? Why don't they put the seats where people would want to sit?"

Well, here we are 60 years later and people are so excited that they're wetting their pants because they have been shown a picture of a proposed new stadium. "who cares if it, like Fouts, is a horrendously poor design, it's NEW!" "Attack anyone that points out the fact that the design isn't functional!"

PlummMeanGreen · January 2, 2007

As I understood it, the initial stadium concept was to have the suite/pressbox level at walkin level, thus eliminating the need for a ton of elevators and expense. However that also elimated the ability to have a large seating area below the suite level and the need to put more seats above. While I agree it is best to have a single level of stands (see Utah's stadium), this will have to be balanced by the cost of moving the pressbox and suites higher. We either dig lower (can this be done with the water table there?) or build suites and elevators higher. I'm also in favor of having as few endzone seats as possible. I'd rather have upper deck (sideline) seats than endzone seats anytime.

One major concern, NT80, if we dig too deep is by some quirk of nature the Denia Duck Pond will somehow drain into what will be the flooring area of our new stadium whick will then give us the worlds largest water volleyball venue. :blowup:

A convenient time to schedule the Oregon U team, eh? :rolleyes:

Edited January 2, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

FirefightnRick · January 2, 2007

I didn't miss any point; get a little reading comprehension. Just cuz a few whiners who don't want to plunk down $ for a premium seat think a stadium is "poorly designed," that doesn't make it so. You can't just look at a CG model of a new stadium an automatically write off 3/4 of the seats as "undesirable." It's also silly to parallel a new stadium (more like $60) with luxury seats and boxes you didn't even have before to a disposable kit car with a lawn-mower engine.
Gee, I guess since I mistakenly invoked the banned term "commuter school," there can be nothing factual that emanates from my keyboard. Sorry for that, oh holy purveyor of all that is factual. Just trying to have a discussion.

If your trying to have a "discussion" then you might want to lose the attitude and name calling. ADLER isn't a whiner but is one of our top supporters of this program and has traveled to a majority of our away games in support of the Mean Green as well as visited many of the college stadiums of the south. I would take his oppinion concerning what is and is not a good design for fans any day.

Anyone who has sat in the upper deck of Amon Carter or another stadium location similar has a legitimate concern when looking at the current stadium design. We have a chance to do it right the first time, without having to add construction around a previous bad design. There is no reason we cannot get everyone we need to sit down low and tightly around the field in order to give fans the best seats possibe, and more importantly create the best home field advantage for the Mean Green.

Rick

ADLER · January 2, 2007

If your trying to have a "discussion" then you might want to lose the attitude and name calling. ADLER isn't a whiner but is one of our top supporters of this program and has traveled to a majority of our away games in support of the Mean Green as well as visited many of the college stadiums of the south. I would take his oppinion concerning what is and is not a good design for fans any day.
Anyone who has sat in the upper deck of Amon Carter or another stadium location similar has a legitimate concern when looking at the current stadium design. We have a chance to do it right the first time, without having to add construction around a previous bad design. There is no reason we cannot get everyone we need to sit down low and tightly around the field in order to give fans the best seats possibe, and more importantly create the best home field advantage for the Mean Green.
Rick

Rick, I think most of our fans know the real dangers of putting the majority of seating in an upper deck on the roof of the press box. Fans may be willing to sit there during good seasons, or even for big games during average seasons, but they will never pay to sit there for average games during average seasons. Attendance will plummet in spite of having a new facility, and North Texas could start failing to meet the NCAA attendance quotas.

But, other than that, the pictures are very pretty.

ADLER · January 2, 2007

So, back to the original subject being discussed before we got something in the ointment.

Does anybody think "the iron is hot" at Boise State right now? Will the incredible football success combined with the facility improvements make Boise State too attractive for the MWC to resist? Would/could the MWC stop at 10 teams? Who else would/could go MWC with Boise State?

Is another shake-up coming very soon in the non-BCS conferences? If so, what does North Texas need to do in the meantime to improve our positioning?

The dominos could start falling as early as late March after the BCS game payouts have been delivered to schools.

GreenEddieNT · January 2, 2007

So, back to the original subject being discussed before we got something in the ointment.
Does anybody think "the iron is hot" at Boise State right now? Will the incredible football success combined with the facility improvements make Boise State too attractive for the MWC to resist? Would/could the MWC stop at 10 teams? Who else would/could go MWC with Boise State?
Is another shake-up coming very soon in the non-BCS conferences? If so, what does North Texas need to do in the meantime to improve our positioning?
The dominos could start falling as early as late March after the BCS game payouts have been delivered to schools.

I still think the MWC will go to 14 teams by adding Boise State, Fresno State, Hawaii, Nevada, and UTEP. Obviously it will kill the WAC and create an opening in CUSA.