Nt Daily Comes Out Against Stadium

FireFightnJoey · October 9, 2008

It is difficult to make a young college student truly realize the perception that they will be viewed once they graduate and enter the workforce. UNT is an outstanding education, forget the whole bang for your buck crap. But, it won't matter. Alumni from most of the schools in Texas will snub their noses and that includes Div II, like Texas State. Not just snubbing noses, but disregarding your education as pathetic and just a piece of paper. Athletics is the subject they base it on. During our bowl run, that perception was changing, but now its back in the toilet. But how do you get that across? Unless you are Ivy League, nothing else matters except how good athletics are perceived. Job interviews included. So, I cringe every time I hear one of these editorials basing their opinion on giving up on athletics and touting academics. Athletics builds pride in students and alumni. And that is the tool we need to increase future alumni participation from the students that will be graduating.

UNTLifer · October 9, 2008

Here's RV's response. The admins can delete this if needed.

Rick
posted 10/09/08 @ 12:15 PM CST
First let me say that even many of those whose oppose this fee do readily acknowledge the problems that exist at Fouts Field and even agree that something needs to be done, just not by students. Well the reality is that most programs viewed as athletically successful have a dedicated athletic fee and recieve support to help maintain that level. To be clear students at UNT have never been asked to fund the football program or the athletic program to the degree that schools such as East Carolina, Memphis,and North Carolina do. Not even to the level of UTA, Texas State or Texas A&M Corpus Christi. Students have never been asked to pay for a ticket to games even when this team was ranked in the Top 20 or going to four straight bowl games. Others such as Lamar, South Alabama and UTSA are instituting new student athletic fees at an amount above UNT's proposed increase just to bring football to their universities. None of their increases brings a new stadium with it. The only time we've been allocated a fee from students, which was mandated for women's sports, we've seen results that are outstanding! It was stated in this editorial that we should just upgrade Fouts Field and get it all from private donors. It was also stated that no "official" study had been done on this and therefore we didn't know how much it would cost to fix it. First my comments have never been based on "fixing" the stadium but bringing it to a level that we need to be competitive in recruiting, to attract new fans and position us to be more attractive to television and name opponents. We also didn't pursue an official plan on that site because about four years ago the campus master plan was formulated with no football stadium on the north side of I-35, with that area being replaced with student and academic use based buildings and functions. Concerning the comments on visiting presidents I did not imply that a visit to the press box was the "only impression" they have of UNT as it was part of a tour talk that included many comments. But it does leave an impression when you have to climb the very steep stairs to the third floor because their is no elevator and watch the game from a space that is cramped and old. That impression might simply be that UNT is not really commited to football and other things in general. Lastly my statement has always been that the athletic department will still have to raise the other half of the funding a new stadium. As I have stated a good portion of that fund raising would be based on naming opportunities for the stadium itself as well as other areas, suite sales, club level seating and other amenities, items that most likely not be available in a Fouts Field renovation. I don't believe most people will want to invest in "fixing up" a stadium.
I don't mind getting beat up over this project because I truly believe it is needed for this program to progress and that it can add value to this institution. I am only stating a need that should have been addressed by administrations long ago, especially those that took the program back to Division I. And the fact that the team is losing now and has a bad ranking should be reason to give it some tools to improve and progress, not to ignore it and say until you get better we don't want to help. This stadium is not being built for Coach Dodge or this year's team or this administartion. I'm not building it for me as no one will remember who the AD was in 2008 and that's the way it should be. It is needed to have a program that will serve the alumni who came before and those who will attend this institution for decades to come. I'm very proud of the progress we have made academically and athletically as well as in facilities. It's my job to educate the university community in what I believe is needed to continue to advance the overall progress of the athletic program. That's all I have tried to do. We have partnered before with students on other projects on this campus that benefitted everyone. The Warranch Tennis facility was a result of a private athletic donation and student funding. These type partnerships can and should work. That decision is yours.
As a side note in an effort to give the best information for an aducated decision, we are currently using only 5-6 generators(more may be needed for homecoming)due to some power revamping and some "temporary power" recently run to areas that is now being run because generators are needed in South Texas at this time. However we still need external generators to help run concessions as well as hospitality and entertainment areas on game days.

NT80 · October 9, 2008

The Daily should be shut down.

Green Dozer · October 9, 2008

Here's RV's response. The admins can delete this if needed.

Lifer, this is concise and to the point. Just like the campaign should have been run.

JayDub · October 9, 2008

Liberal, hippie sports lover here...

meangreendork · October 9, 2008

The Daily should be shut down.

Knee-jerk much? While I think some of the articles that go through are poorly written and poorly researched, they're not all bad and that's basically the way I kept up with campus news back when I was a student.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · October 9, 2008

I still think Fouts can be renovated and another track facility built cheaper than building a completely new stadium...

...but, as is well documented...the athletic department doesn't seek my opinion when it comes to crunch time. (But, they should...the worms) :ph34r:

VideoEagle · October 9, 2008

The Daily should be shut down.

No, this isn't nearly the first completely stupid and uniformed editorial they've run and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Green Dozer · October 9, 2008

I still think Fouts can be renovated and another track facility built cheaper than building a completely new stadium...
...but, as is well documented...the athletic department doesn't seek my opinion when it comes to crunch time. (But, they should...the worms)

You are correct! This is the most sensible and logical solution that anybody has made. Of course, you might not want to tell anybody that Mr. Negative Green Dozer agrees with you.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · October 9, 2008

You are correct! This is the most sensible and logical solution that anybody has made. Of course, you might not want to tell anybody that Mr. Negative Green Dozer agrees with you.

Many people have suggested it. Tulsa did it to their uber-crappy Skelly Stadium. Granted, they didn't have a track in the way, but.... Anything is possible. If the students are too...short-sighted...to pass this thing. Well, let's get a good Plan B together so there will at least be something.

Maybe Rick V. can take a tour of refurbished crappy stadiums. I suggest Kelly and the architechural nightmare that Iowa State plays in. Lord, what a piece of junk that thing is - and they renovated it a decade or so ago!

The thing is, not every school can pony up (sorry for the pun) $60+ million for a new stadium. If we can't pass the referendum, take the lemons and make lemonade. Or, something to that effect.

gangrene · October 9, 2008

I see "checkfacts" is hanging around again, posting comments on the nt daily article.

rcade · October 9, 2008

I still think Fouts can be renovated and another track facility built cheaper than building a completely new stadium...

Because of issues with the water table, and possibly frontage issues with the state, Fouts can't be renovated by removing the track and putting seats closer and lower.

October 9, 2008

I don't think that it can. I'm not an expert on renovating stadiums and I doubt that any of the posters on this board are either but there have been engineering studies since the Hayden Fry years and all that I know have concluded that it would not be economically feasible.

Hayden wanted to take out the track, dig down to lower the field, and make the existing the upper decks. There was an underground water table that prevented that from happening. The only solution was to tear down one side and build a new west stands nearer the existing east (student side) stands. You would still have 10,000 seats with crappy sight lines because the elevation doesn't rise steeply enough. Another question, how would you elevate the west stands? Make them steeper? In my opinion that would look like crap. If you make it the same you will lose some seating. With no end zone it would look very high schoolish so at least one end needs seats. I don't know how many seats that would give you but certainly less that 30,000 unless the west stands were double-decked. The east stands would then need refurbishing. Throw in some luxury suites and your beginning to talk somewhere near the cost of new stadium and it wouldn't look nearly as nice.

Another factor to consider is that I-35 is to be widened to six lanes in a few years. At the present time the service road comes to within???....100 feet or so of the stands as they now exist. I'm not sure there's enough room to encompass both the widening and the new construction.

Lastly, the Master Plan calls for a different usage for that property. If I remember correctly, most of it is for parking, including a multi-level garage, and a transit station. Maybe a dorm at the north end. It would be awkward to put the transit station elsewhere but perhaps more property could be acquired for parking.

I think that these engineers just might know what they are talking about.

Edited October 9, 2008 by GrayEagleOne

UNT_playmaker · October 9, 2008

The NT Daily just proved how much they care about the university and the future of our great institutuion.

This is not the pulse of NT students, it is not whatsoever......

The NT Daily just wants to make the arts and sciences people happy that their money isnt go into something beneficial to the university as a whole...

The NORTH TEXAS DAILY serves a new purpose to the university: TOILET PAPER

WHERE IS UNT PREZ GRETCHEN BATAILLE IN HER SUPPORT FOR THE NEW STADIUM: Good Job by RV!!!!!!

Green to the Bone · October 9, 2008

The NT Daily just proved how much they care about the university and the future of our great institutuion.
This is not the pulse of NT students, it is not whatsoever......
The NT Daily just wants to make the arts and sciences people happy that their money isnt go into something beneficial to the university as a whole...
The NORTH TEXAS DAILY serves a new purpose to the university: TOILET PAPER
WHERE IS UNT PREZ GRETCHEN BATAILLE IN HER SUPPORT FOR THE NEW STADIUM: Good Job by RV!!!!!!

It's an opinion piece. That's why it's full of opinions. Opinions, you can take or leave as you choose.

3XNTGRAD · October 10, 2008

The NT Daily just wants to make the arts and sciences people happy that their money isnt go into something beneficial to the university as a whole...

Sorry - but this statement makes no sense whatsoever. The Dean of Arts & Sciences is on record supporting the stadium effort, so don't put the opinions of a few Daily staffers off onto the whole college.

October 10, 2008

I'm breaking radio silence to point out the painfully obvious: we have a frog that just does not really want to be a prince.

NT80 · October 10, 2008

Knee-jerk much? While I think some of the articles that go through are poorly written and poorly researched, they're not all bad and that's basically the way I kept up with campus news back when I was a student.

It's the same knee-jerk The Daily uses when it's editorials constantly calls for no athletics funding. Yes, I'd rather have a stadium than that fishwrap.

NT80 · October 10, 2008

I still think Fouts can be renovated and another track facility built cheaper than building a completely new stadium...

For the gazillionith time you can't renovate Fouts in the condition and location it is at. It is cheaper to build new. Also by moving the stadium across the highway it will free up central core land for the main campus. This is not rocket science.

bflan · October 10, 2008

Sooner or later....a new facility will have to be built. Buildings come and go and Fouts is old. Very old. Why not build it now? It will cost more 15-20 years from now to build the same stadium today.

If we can't get a stadium to remain competitive with the schools we go up against (And I'm talking more than sports here people), we might as well go I-AA. OR even worse Div III non-scholarship athletics...or hey, lets play Pop Warner.

Maybe our Jazz bands can put out a killer new 8-track tape? Maybe the Education department can buy our future teachers a set Commodore 64 computers to train them for the real world classroom?

I got it, Slide Rules for the Math department!

No wait.....just let the Drama department produce the awesome hot, new play Grease, no Cats!

PROGRESS please.

Uuhg.

Green Dozer · October 10, 2008

For the gazillionith time you can't renovate Fouts in the condition and location it is at. It is cheaper to build new. Also by moving the stadium across the highway it will free up central core land for the main campus. This is not rocket science.

NT80, there has not been a study of any kind to see what it would take to renovate Fouts. I do not think it would be anywhere near 60 million dollars, and much feasible for our budget at this time. I think Fake Lonnie's idea has a lot of merit. Your right, this is not rocket science.

UNTFan23 · October 10, 2008

NT80, there has not been a study of any kind to see what it would take to renovate Fouts. I do not think it would be anywhere near 60 million dollars, and much feasible for our budget at this time. I think Fake Lonnie's idea has a lot of merit. Your right, this is not rocket science.

You need to level the stands to do any real work on the stadium. Might as well start over new at that point.

NT80 · October 10, 2008

NT80, there has not been a study of any kind to see what it would take to renovate Fouts. I do not think it would be anywhere near 60 million dollars, and much feasible for our budget at this time. I think Fake Lonnie's idea has a lot of merit. Your right, this is not rocket science.

There has been feasibility and cost analysis done of different options. Do you really think RV would go through all this agony trying to secure $60 million if it wasn't needed and there was another option?

Green Dozer · October 10, 2008

There has been feasibility and cost analysis done of different options. Do you really think RV would go through all this agony trying to secure $60 million if it wasn't needed and there was another option?

Well here is his quote in the UNT daily, and if it had been done, then wouldn't he have alluded to a study if it had been done:

"It was also stated that no "official" study had been done on this and therefore we didn't know how much it would cost to fix it. First my comments have never been based on "fixing" the stadium but bringing it to a level that we need to be competitive in recruiting, to attract new fans and position us to be more attractive to television and name opponents. We also didn't pursue an official plan on that site because about four years ago the campus master plan was formulated with no football stadium on the north side of I-35, with that area being replaced with student and academic use based buildings and functions."

And yes, I think he would pursue this stadium even if there were other options. Why wouldn't he pursue it? Don't you expect that of him? For his career, if he gets this done, it is a nice feather in his cap. Soldier Field, Lambeau, even Amon Carter have been renovated over the years, and are all good stadiums. TCU is even looking into further renovation. And as for as the master plan for area that Fouts is located at, well, it is a plan and not law. All I said was it would be cheaper to fix Fouts. I know that is not what you want to here, but it would not cost anywhere near $60 million dollars. Heck, I bet a lot would be done for $15 million and we could come a lot closer to raising that than $60 million. The student vote is important, but you can bet the board of regents will not let this thing get started until they know where all the funding is coming from. This university cannot afford otherwise. And you know, Rick M. has said the same thing in his posts, alluding to the remaining funding above and beyond the student fee. Didn't say RV should not pursue the stadium or anything of the sort, just that I agreed with Lonnie. Obviously you do not agree with either one of us and that is your prerogative. Also, I have not seen a post where Lonnie said he did not want a new stadium. Just because you have a different idea does not mean you are totally against what is going on. Just my opinion, sorry i am not a rocket scientist.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Green Dozer