The dome is small only 12,000 seats. I can't figure out why ETSU can't put butts in all the seats that exist in that building. When they built the thing, the concern was the seating capacity was to small. So sad. With professional management...I'm praying that ETSU will fill all the seats and solve the problem of the fire mashall restriction limiting seating capacity.

(01-17-2013 08:05 PM)Mister Jennings Wrote:  The dome is small only 12,000 seats. I can't figure out why ETSU can't put butts in all the seats that exist in that building. When they built the thing, the concern was the seating capacity was to small. So sad. With professional management...I'm praying that ETSU will fill all the seats and solve the problem of the fire mashall restriction limiting seating capacity.

yeah, but wasn't it original built with football primarily in mind?

No, it was legitimately "multi-purpose", with of course football being a big feature of it. Search this forum for multiple, in-depth, quality discussions of the construction and history behind the Dome.

(01-17-2013 08:52 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  No, it was legitimately "multi-purpose", with of course football being a big feature of it. Search this forum for multiple, in-depth, quality discussions of the construction and history behind the Dome.

And many people still do not know about the funding being cut and the building shortened and the sight lines therefore ruined. Saving that money doomed it.

(01-17-2013 09:21 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 08:52 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  No, it was legitimately "multi-purpose", with of course football being a big feature of it. Search this forum for multiple, in-depth, quality discussions of the construction and history behind the Dome.

And many people still do not know about the funding being cut and the building shortened and the sight lines therefore ruined. Saving that money doomed it.

I don't remember it being a matter of money I remember it being the site wasn't big enough to support the original dome we were copying.

(01-17-2013 09:21 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 08:52 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  No, it was legitimately "multi-purpose", with of course football being a big feature of it. Search this forum for multiple, in-depth, quality discussions of the construction and history behind the Dome.

And many people still do not know about the funding being cut and the building shortened and the sight lines therefore ruined. Saving that money doomed it.

I don't remember it being a matter of money I remember it being the site wasn't big enough to support the original dome we were copying.

(01-17-2013 09:21 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 08:52 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  No, it was legitimately "multi-purpose", with of course football being a big feature of it. Search this forum for multiple, in-depth, quality discussions of the construction and history behind the Dome.

And many people still do not know about the funding being cut and the building shortened and the sight lines therefore ruined. Saving that money doomed it.

The dome has performed magnificently with it's planned obsolescent feature built in with the sight line problem. Track meets, graduations, fire marshall, weight room, medical school, football, basketball, baseball practice facility, racketball, rifle range all for 9 million. It a good deal with roof leaks and all. Ponder the fact the roof covers 4.5 acres. I don't like it when people make fun of the dome. I'll even go further...I wish football returned to the dome while the stadium is being built. New carpet and it's possible location of an NFL training site...as I recall, the Titans considered it.

(01-17-2013 09:27 PM)RodShaw2 Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 09:21 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  [quote='posterformerlyknownasthedoctor' pid='8850636' dateline='1358473952']
No, it was legitimately "multi-purpose", with of course football being a big feature of it. Search this forum for multiple, in-depth, quality discussions of the construction and history behind the Dome.

And many people still do not know about the funding being cut and the building shortened and the sight lines therefore ruined. Saving that money doomed it.

I think it was orginally designed to be like the one in Idaho where the grand stands come down and there are good sight lines. If you look at all the space the ramps take up I think there was more than enough room to make it right. Just the way our school has usually done things unfortnately.

Idaho State.

etsudolfan --

I've taken the trouble (for you) to find only the most recent good discussion on the planning and construction of the Dome - there are others. Might take you 10-15 or so minutes to read this, but it'll enlighten you:

earlier Dome design and purpose discussion

Fact: the sightlines were screwed up to save ~$1 million, not because it wouldn't fit in the footprint. We've all seen pics of the Idaho State building, and it's served them very well, with great sightlines.

Fact: there *were* negotiations with Annheuser-Busch (sp?) to have the Dome painted like a half-buried beer can (the "half-Assed-tro Dome", as a play on the AstroDome, which at that time was still a big deal - and remember, the SuperDome was being built in this same time frame). I was there, peripherally associated with those discussions, and the number mentioned was $1 million - I think for keeping it that way for 10 years, but not sure on that time expiration. It was reasoned (correctly, probably) that the state of Tennessee would never go for that, so it never got very far.

Facts: despite it's shortcomings, the Dome has served ETSU extremely well, and continues to do so, although I think we all know it's been dated for a while. It was not a "mistake" at all; it's more that perceptions have changed, and the "multi-use" facility concept has faded in popularity. It was a great thing for a long time, and even if it was only "adequate" for some things, it was fantastic for many more. Back in the late '70s and early '80s, when 10-12,000 filled the place for BASKETBALL games, people didn't ***** about "the court is so far away". They just didn't, even when it was out in the middle of the big floor. It was a great product, and to say ETSU games were a "hot ticket" is a huge understatement. But at the same time, the criticism for poor sightlines for football (and of course even worse for track) was swift, and on-target. *That* was seen immediately as a significant negative, and I don't think the Dome (for football) could ever overcome that image that sort of resonated throughout the community. It was almost like discussing a restaurant: "Yeah, the food is good, but the service is terrible." That sort of feeling. At one time (long after opening - maybe late '80s?) a study (estimate?) was done on knocking out the first 5 or so rows of each side of the stands, to bring the sidelines back into view for football. I used to know that estimate, but have forgotten it. Seemed to me it was reasonable, but that idea never seemed to get much traction.

And I can't believe many people don't know about the building being "squeezed" to save money. Anyone with even a smattering of ETSU Athletics history I think knows that.

So Noland has made it clear that all that will go away. Now let's see how much money does how much talking....

(01-18-2013 04:05 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  etsudolfan --

I've taken the trouble (for you) to find only the most recent good discussion on the planning and construction of the Dome - there are others. Might take you 10-15 or so minutes to read this, but it'll enlighten you:

...

Does anyone else remember it being referred to as the "half astrodome?" *L*

(01-18-2013 04:05 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  etsudolfan --

I've taken the trouble (for you) to find only the most recent good discussion on the planning and construction of the Dome - there are others. Might take you 10-15 or so minutes to read this, but it'll enlighten you:

earlier Dome design and purpose discussion

Fact: the sightlines were screwed up to save ~$1 million, not because it wouldn't fit in the footprint. We've all seen pics of the Idaho State building, and it's served them very well, with great sightlines.

Fact: there *were* negotiations with Annheuser-Busch (sp?) to have the Dome painted like a half-buried beer can (the "half-Assed-tro Dome", as a play on the AstroDome, which at that time was still a big deal - and remember, the SuperDome was being built in this same time frame). I was there, peripherally associated with those discussions, and the number mentioned was $1 million - I think for keeping it that way for 10 years, but not sure on that time expiration. It was reasoned (correctly, probably) that the state of Tennessee would never go for that, so it never got very far.

Facts: despite it's shortcomings, the Dome has served ETSU extremely well, and continues to do so, although I think we all know it's been dated for a while. It was not a "mistake" at all; it's more that perceptions have changed, and the "multi-use" facility concept has faded in popularity. It was a great thing for a long time, and even if it was only "adequate" for some things, it was fantastic for many more. Back in the late '70s and early '80s, when 10-12,000 filled the place for BASKETBALL games, people didn't ***** about "the court is so far away". They just didn't, even when it was out in the middle of the big floor. It was a great product, and to say ETSU games were a "hot ticket" is a huge understatement. But at the same time, the criticism for poor sightlines for football (and of course even worse for track) was swift, and on-target. *That* was seen immediately as a significant negative, and I don't think the Dome (for football) could ever overcome that image that sort of resonated throughout the community. It was almost like discussing a restaurant: "Yeah, the food is good, but the service is terrible." That sort of feeling. At one time (long after opening - maybe late '80s?) a study (estimate?) was done on knocking out the first 5 or so rows of each side of the stands, to bring the sidelines back into view for football. I used to know that estimate, but have forgotten it. Seemed to me it was reasonable, but that idea never seemed to get much traction.

And I can't believe many people don't know about the building being "squeezed" to save money. Anyone with even a smattering of ETSU Athletics history I think knows that.

So Noland has made it clear that all that will go away. Now let's see how much money does how much talking....

First, thank you for posting this..it did enlighten me! Second, the half-buried beer can...hmm....that would make it a great venue to host Food City Family Race Night!! jk :) In regards to the knowing of ETSU history, honestly I've found it harder to find info on ETSU's athletic history than other schools. New fans and students probably wouldn't have a clue about ETSU football if not for the Buc Football and Friends Foundation. Great post!

on a side note, I had called into the Sports Animal yesterday during Sports Talk in Knoxville to at least get the ETSU Football news out there a little and to see what they had heard...and they actually asked me if we still had the Dome lol....its all about advertising and exposure and right now ETSU athletics doesn't have much of that. The good news is that Dr. Noland recognizes that and wants to improve the brand.

First of all, you are welcome. Second of all, you are also (unfortunately) right in that there is no "encyclopedia" of history of ETSU sports. Chip Kessler's book was a nice tidbit, but didn't really fill that bill at all, was almost all about hoops, and is now dated anyway.

I *would* suggest that that be a project of the new AD, but first, he/she would have to demonstrate that such a thing could be done without sugar-coating it - we don't need more of that....

I'm not surprised Knoxville doesn't know we "still" have the Dome - that is yet another indication of the irrelevance of ETSU to those Tennesseans who live "thataways" - on the west side of say, Morristown. But it is a good 'symbol' of that irrelevance.

(01-18-2013 11:48 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  First of all, you are welcome. Second of all, you are also (unfortunately) right in that there is no "encyclopedia" of history of ETSU sports. Chip Kessler's book was a nice tidbit, but didn't really fill that bill at all, was almost all about hoops, and is now dated anyway.

I *would* suggest that that be a project of the new AD, but first, he/she would have to demonstrate that such a thing could be done without sugar-coating it - we don't need more of that....

I'm not surprised Knoxville doesn't know we "still" have the Dome - that is yet another indication of the irrelevance of ETSU to those Tennesseans who live "thataways" - on the west side of say, Morristown. But it is a good 'symbol' of that irrelevance.

It would be awesome if ETSU established a complete and east-to-find History of ETSU Athletics webpage. I mean when you go to the athletic website and click on the "Football History" webpage..you get a blank page http://www.etsubucs.com/football/default/
With that being said, its going to take a complete/comprehensive effort through marketing, branding, social media, and the various media outlets.

(01-18-2013 10:32 AM)etsudolfan Wrote:  on a side note, I had called into the Sports Animal yesterday during Sports Talk in Knoxville to at least get the ETSU Football news out there a little and to see what they had heard...and they actually asked me if we still had the Dome lol....its all about advertising and exposure and right now ETSU athletics doesn't have much of that. The good news is that Dr. Noland recognizes that and wants to improve the brand.

I'm so sorry you have to listen to that. Heather Harrington is setting women in sports back 20 years. She might be the dumbest b$%ch on the planet.
And Doc isn't much better...
That should tell you all the state of where ETSU was under the previous watch, but that's over now. Now the focus moves to spreading a positive message, one of growth, and something to truly be proud of.

(01-18-2013 02:56 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  

(01-18-2013 10:32 AM)etsudolfan Wrote:  on a side note, I had called into the Sports Animal yesterday during Sports Talk in Knoxville to at least get the ETSU Football news out there a little and to see what they had heard...and they actually asked me if we still had the Dome lol....its all about advertising and exposure and right now ETSU athletics doesn't have much of that. The good news is that Dr. Noland recognizes that and wants to improve the brand.

I'm so sorry you have to listen to that. Heather Harrington is setting women in sports back 20 years. She might be the dumbest b$%ch on the planet.
And Doc isn't much better...
That should tell you all the state of where ETSU was under the previous watch, but that's over now. Now the focus moves to spreading a positive message, one of growth, and something to truly be proud of.

haha yeah they aren't the most informed on sports...outside of UT athletics of course. Its just a shame you can't find good athletics coverage of ETSU sports..even on a part-time basis

(01-16-2013 01:43 AM)One Of The Last Buc Linemen Wrote:  we are going into the big12. noland kept mentioning the big12 and quickly dismissing it. i think hes acting suspicious,,,,,,,,,,,,,,like hes covering something up, yet is so anxious to spill. yep, that proves it. we ll be the 11th school of the big12

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/...-is-wanted

all joking aside, i wonder what kind of trickle-down effect a big12 expansion will have for us. maybe worm its way down to free up an ovc spot?

Has there been a specific date mentioned in March for Nolan's presentation to the TBR?

(02-08-2013 02:10 PM)etsuBucsFan1988 Wrote:  Has there been a specific date mentioned in March for Nolan's presentation to the TBR?

The TBR meets in Nashville on March 29th, which I believe is the earliest the fee increase (and thus the program) could be approved.