(03-23-2016 07:08 PM)LaCajunsFan Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 10:31 AM)CajunAmos Wrote:  Cajun Field is pretty much outlined in our Athletics Master Plan. It includes taking down the home side upper deck, and the construction of a seven story building housing office space, an apparel store, and team support areas along with a new top deck for press, suites, club facilities, and some outside seating. They've already bowled one end zone to give extra seating when this work is going on. I'd also like them to redo the seating on the two sidelines to new seating with actual chair backs to fit current codes.

Here is the most recent rendering I have of the renovation to Cajun Field:

And that's a fairly old rendering. At the moment, I don't think ABM (the firm who did that rendering) really has the resources to be able to tackle a project the size of the Cajun Field renovations. Plus ASW did the SEZ expansion, so typically once a firm gets their foot in the door at a facility, they are likely to get future projects there. But in reality, anything you'll see on the Cajun Field expansion is super conceptual stuff as they are not even remotely close to getting the ball rolling on design.

EDIT: If the baseball stadium project runs smoothly and comes out nice, I'd like to see ACDA get the stadium job over ASW.

(03-24-2016 08:23 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 07:10 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 06:39 PM)High Country Student Wrote:  I think we need to remove the track, tear down the dated Owens field house. Replace Owens with a new improved end zone field house that offers two levels of permanent seating including club up top along with suites. No need to expand seating capacity too much more at this point when we haven't had 30,000 fans consistently in the stadium since the national championship days and the few years after. Sure Miami will draw a huge crown but we don't want to build a stadium for one game. If we get to the point where the demand is there, we will supply more seats. Simple economics but that time isn't now.

It's not simple economics. It is the classic Chicken vs Egg argument. I've been through it numerous times in the business world and the same applys here. A growing, vibrant company finds itself with a hot product and all the market research projects great growth. The bean counters say: When we need more capacity we'll build it. Salespeople counter with: If we wait until need exceeds current capacity it'll be too late and we'll miss out on sales. Which ALWAYS happens.

We definitely need to increase seating capacity. 95% of our crowds are App fans. For the biggest game in App history we had to guarantee Miami 5,000 seats. That's 4,000 App fans who would normally come to this game won't be there. In order to get more games like this the same will be true. We have WF coming in 2017 and Marshall down the road. We won't get ECU to come to Boone unless we have more actual seats. That game would easily draw 35-40,000. It is unrealistic to expect a sellout every game, esp with Boone's wacky weather. The big misconception is that you build max capacity for your average crowd. Nope. It is for those 2-3 games per year that you can hit a HR. A lot of App fans use the bank as a reason for not expanding. While the bank may be a tradition with some App Fans, you can't charge people, esp opposing fans, $50 to sit on a wet piece of grass that far from the game. I'm not advocating building 45,000 seats, but we need 28-30,000 ACTUAL seats. If built correctly additional seating could easily and quickly be added to the South (bank) endzone when needed. We have one of the top settings in college football, it's time the facility lived up to it's surroundings.

exactly. This is actually an issue for GS and is a big reason why we home a very hard time scheduling OOC home games. We just don't have the seats to give away. We need 5K more seats to get us close to 30K actual seats. This should help with scheduling (the other would be to see 2-3 million more in the budget) We get those 2 things and everything will fall into place.

What GS's stadium needs (IMO) is to expand the pressbox side to the endzones match the newly renovated side. Replace the old pressbox with a mid-deck and new pressbox/suites. Bowl in the Bishop endzone with seating and concourse that connect the 2 halves and expand the biulding with more club seats and suites. Hopefully something that would make entering the stadium more impressive and remove all/any chain link fencing. After that we can always add an upper deck to the student/away/north side of the stadium. Eventually I'd like to see 45K capacity with an average of 40K/game.

Exactly. Stadium's don't just attract players they attract perspective home games. I like our hill at kidd brewer but I don't look at it as some kind of sacred idol that needs protecting. It's a grass hill for overflow seating nothing more nothing less. I'm confident that Doug Gillan (and for that matter Tom Kleinlein [apologies if I misspelled that]) both at least have a vision that's somewhere on a developmental scale. They wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't. And with Sunbelt football finally catching up to the other G5 conferences we need top quality stadiums.

twitter.com/DieselOnRadio

(03-24-2016 08:41 AM)Hemi Man Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 09:25 PM)RamblinRedWolf44 Wrote:  Troyman, is that going to be a complex/endzone facility of some kind?

Yes. If accurate that's the back of the facility. The current facility is to the right of that picture.


I'm not a Troy fan because of wins and losses.

Wayne Otto said hello.

(03-24-2016 11:31 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 08:41 AM)Hemi Man Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 09:25 PM)RamblinRedWolf44 Wrote:  Troyman, is that going to be a complex/endzone facility of some kind?

Yes. If accurate that's the back of the facility. The current facility is to the right of that picture.


I'm not a Troy fan because of wins and losses.

Wayne Otto said hello.

Give World B my best.


I'm not a Troy fan because of wins and losses.

I agree with DG. Back in 1980, the NCAA placed a minimum capacity of 30,000 seats for I-A membership. It's not out of the realm of possibility for them to reinstate that -- without the attendance exceptions they had then. We need 30,000 seats, and given our past attendance figures, that's not an unrealistic figure.

How many sales have we missed out on because people didn't want to sit on a hill 50 yards away from the near end zone?

Now, I don't have a strong opinion on moving the sideline stands closer to the field, but I would like to see the track removed yesterday.

(03-24-2016 04:20 PM)AppinVA Wrote:  I agree with DG. Back in 1980, the NCAA placed a minimum capacity of 30,000 seats for I-A membership. It's not out of the realm of possibility for them to reinstate that -- without the attendance exceptions they had then. We need 30,000 seats, and given our past attendance figures, that's not an unrealistic figure.

How many sales have we missed out on because people didn't want to sit on a hill 50 yards away from the near end zone?

Now, I don't have a strong opinion on moving the sideline stands closer to the field, but I would like to see the track removed yesterday.

Wait, y'all don't have 30k seats?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-24-2016 04:26 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 04:20 PM)AppinVA Wrote:  I agree with DG. Back in 1980, the NCAA placed a minimum capacity of 30,000 seats for I-A membership. It's not out of the realm of possibility for them to reinstate that -- without the attendance exceptions they had then. We need 30,000 seats, and given our past attendance figures, that's not an unrealistic figure.

How many sales have we missed out on because people didn't want to sit on a hill 50 yards away from the near end zone?

Now, I don't have a strong opinion on moving the sideline stands closer to the field, but I would like to see the track removed yesterday.

Wait, y'all don't have 30k seats?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's 24,650, but the hill allows for crowds in excess of 30,000. As it sits right now, I guess you can shoehorn in around 32,000.

(03-24-2016 04:20 PM)AppinVA Wrote:  I agree with DG. Back in 1980, the NCAA placed a minimum capacity of 30,000 seats for I-A membership. It's not out of the realm of possibility for them to reinstate that -- without the attendance exceptions they had then. We need 30,000 seats, and given our past attendance figures, that's not an unrealistic figure.

How many sales have we missed out on because people didn't want to sit on a hill 50 yards away from the near end zone?

Now, I don't have a strong opinion on moving the sideline stands closer to the field, but I would like to see the track removed yesterday.

Anything we do has to begin with removing the track. There is no way to justify the cost of lowering the field level and extending the bottom sections. First, the East Side lower level is disintegrating and second, there is simply too much rock and water to contend with. The quickest, most economcal way to expand is to push the field over to the West Stands. Add a new lower level on the East Side that comes off the walkway of the upper deck and extends down over the existing lower level. Keeping the same angle as the top deck it would land (depending on how high you wanted to make the wall) anywhere from about halfway on the track to where the track meets the turf. Wrap that same configuration around both endzones and extend some type of walkway from the endzones to the lower West Stands to tie it all together. Add the new bulding in the North Endzone and you've got one heck of a facility. I agree with Saint, we need to do whatever it takes to hide those ridiculous ramps. If nothing else wrap em in brick.

I could go for that. But most importantly, remove the damn track.

(03-24-2016 10:58 PM)AppinVA Wrote:  I could go for that. But most importantly, remove the damn track.

I like your stadium and you're correct removing the track would improve it even more. Lowering the field and adding seating would be the next logical step.

Guys lowering the field would be more expensive (probably twice as much) than moving the field towards the west side and redoing the lower east side, lowering the field isn't an option.

(03-25-2016 08:54 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Guys lowering the field would be more expensive (probably twice as much) than moving the field towards the west side and redoing the lower east side, lowering the field isn't an option.

Ya'll got dynamite right?

App needs to get rid of the track. That needs to happen before everything else is even discussed.

Georgia Southern would be better suited to save its money for several years until it can create enough revenue for a structure similar to the Deacon Tower at Wake Forest. It's impressive and serves multiple purposes when football season is not in season. http://www.wakeforestsports.com/faciliti...tower.html

App used the same architect for our 7 story tower.

According to the master plan, this is the future of Paulson Stadium

(03-25-2016 11:18 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  According to the master plan, this is the future of Paulson Stadium

That might be hard to do, considering we just put the FOC right where the "bowl" portion is. lol

(03-25-2016 11:41 AM)NO_QUARTER Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 11:18 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  According to the master plan, this is the future of Paulson Stadium

That might be hard to do, considering we just put the FOC right where the "bowl" portion is. lol

Yeah this plan is extremely outdated so I guess there is another plan that hasn't been added to the master plan yet. Looks like all they did though was flip the plan to where the bowl section will go where Bishop is. I guess they've begun phase A and have already completed phase B except it extends from endzone to endzone in real life.

(03-25-2016 09:07 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 08:54 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Guys lowering the field would be more expensive (probably twice as much) than moving the field towards the west side and redoing the lower east side, lowering the field isn't an option.

Ya'll got dynamite right?

It's basically bedrock a few feet below the playing surface. There's also concern the vibrations from blasting will damage other buildings in the area.

(03-25-2016 09:46 AM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  App needs to get rid of the track. That needs to happen before everything else is even discussed.

We should remove the track before we even pay to replace another roll of toilet paper in the Athletics Center. TOP priority. I can't believe it's still there.