|
Post by Talon on Sept 9, 2007 23:01:58 GMT -5
Your are correct owlcountry UCF was not much even back in the late 90's. They have made huge strides over the past five or six years.
Bytor I was also venting but it does get old. I also like the horseshoe type stadium with the Jumbo Tron in the open area. Kind of like the Orange Bowl was back a ways.
|
|
|
Post by Bytor on Sept 10, 2007 4:52:09 GMT -5
I'm not sure we even need end-zone seating for the moment.
|
|
fauowl09
Full Flight
"Never mistake activity for achievement."
Posts: 484
|
Post by fauowl09 on Sept 10, 2007 9:32:13 GMT -5
I'm not sure we even need end-zone seating for the moment. doin't give the BOT ANYYYY ideas, hahaha no but i somewhat do agree... it's just a shame that the board will do the bare minimum at the pace in which it takes to build a fortress i think a horseshoe (opposed to simply no endzone seating at all) is the ideal situation right now, given the bot lacks of motivation and support for any athletics, our budget, our timetable (time is of the essence), and realistic needs
|
|
fauowl09
Full Flight
"Never mistake activity for achievement."
Posts: 484
|
Post by fauowl09 on Sept 10, 2007 9:34:38 GMT -5
p.s.
-the orange bowl IS a horseshoe -doak campbell started off as a horseshoe -the swamp started off as a horseshoe -there is a somewhat popular horseshoe in columbus, oh.... some of you may have heard of it... Ohio State University's stadium? hehe
|
|
faudiehard
Full Flight
"What you see & believe...You can achieve"
Posts: 484
|
Post by faudiehard on Sept 10, 2007 9:49:56 GMT -5
This is the best news I have read in a while. It seems as if our dreams our coming true. Whether we get the smaller version or the larger, we will be in good shape. If we go with the smaller, the positive is that the stadium will look fuller right off the bat, we will create a great buzz around the program. Of course the smartest thing to do is believe in the program and look at where it will be 5 years down the road and build the larger version.
Unfortunately, the B.O.T. is probably going to be like most people and go with the cheaper version. The problem is though, when it is time to expand the stadium the cost is going to be significantly higher. In my opinion although 8 million dollars is definitely a lot of cabbage, it is a bargain when you look at what the life of the stadium will be. Furthermore, if we are going to use this stadium as a "recruiting tool" for all students (both athletes and non athletes), we need to build something that shows we are on equal footing with all the other universities out there. Furthermore, 45,000 seats should not be a problem to fill, as long as we build more on campus housing.
|
|
|
Post by owlfan1 on Sept 10, 2007 10:15:37 GMT -5
I think a 35,000 seat horseshoe would be perfect and if need be add 10,000 seats down the line. Obviously it would make more financial sense to do it all right now, but I don't see the BOT doing that.
GO OWLS!!!
|
|
|
Post by Bytor on Sept 10, 2007 15:27:58 GMT -5
Do you really think the BoT worries about what the stadium will do for recruiting - wish they did have a clue.
|
|
|
Post by CanadianOwl on Sept 10, 2007 16:07:40 GMT -5
Do you really think the BoT worries about what the stadium will do for recruiting - wish they did have a clue. Exactly. That's why they will approve only the smallest, least expensive proposal. They aren't going to care what it costs down the road to (possibly) expand the stadium. They only care about covering their asses right now. Then when they start talking about expanding they can drag their feet for another 3 years until they have no other choices. That's why, while I have been a staunch supporter of the program and the stadium project since the beginning, the idea of "just build anything on campus" drives me crazy. All I can think of is the BoT giving us an on-campus no-frills version of Lockhart and believing that's what the boosters, alumni, students and community want. OK start small and built it in stages, but for Schnelly's sake, build it the right way THE FIRST TIME!
|
|
faudiehard
Full Flight
"What you see & believe...You can achieve"
Posts: 484
|
Post by faudiehard on Sept 10, 2007 17:14:38 GMT -5
I do not have a problem with an erector-set type of stadium. Besides for UCF, Doak Cambell is also all metal beneath that brick facade. Both look pretty good to me.
|
|
|
Post by FIUFanatic on Sept 10, 2007 17:18:56 GMT -5
Penn State's Beaver Stadium...holding 110,000 for some games...is also erector set type stadium....It is an awesome, impressive stadium.
|
|
|
Post by owlfan1 on Sept 10, 2007 17:48:57 GMT -5
I think if the facade is nice the stadium will look good regardless of the type of structure. Nothing wrong with building with steel as far as I am concerned.
GO OWLS!!!
|
|
|
Post by owlfan1 on Sept 10, 2007 17:51:45 GMT -5
Here is a pic of Penn State's Beaver Stadium. Looks pretty good to me. GO OWLS!!!
|
|
fauowl
Spread The Wings
Go Owls!!!
Posts: 235
|
Post by fauowl on Sept 10, 2007 18:20:42 GMT -5
The dome was never going to happen due to cost. I like the 30k-40k horseshoe shape if they make the outer facade look nice. Maybe in the open horseshoe endzone you have a lot of nice palm trees looking toward campus and maybe a burrowing owl sanctuary in the open end that is somehow protected, etc.
|
|
|
Post by rdownin1 on Sept 10, 2007 23:34:34 GMT -5
I agree with ya on the horseshoe type of stadium! It is one possible design that will allow for future expansion. To me that is what the BOT should be looking into!
|
|
|
Post by owlfan1 on Sept 11, 2007 9:27:27 GMT -5
The horseshoe is also a classic design that is underutilized in new stadiums.
GO OWLS!!!
|
|