And if/when we do it, it should have a 2nd deck. If it has taken this long to get it done, then it needs to prepare us for the next 30 years.
Jamie Pollard talks facilities/south endzone
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
And if/when we do it, it should have a 2nd deck. If it has taken this long to get it done, then it needs to prepare us for the next 30 years.
While OSU capacity is limited, the stadium itself is likely the most impressive as far as amenities. I'd put them in the top tier easily.
I don't think a second deck is realistic at this point. That would add another 5,000 - 7,500 seats, on top of the extra 5,000 - 7,5000 on the lower deck.
50,000-52,500 seated capacity is more realistic since the avg attendance was 45,500 in 2010.
If I had to guess, if ISU attendance averages above 46,000 and the team gets to a bowl this year, this project may jump ahead in the queue.
50,000-52,500 seated capacity is more realistic since the avg attendance was 45,500 in 2010.
If I had to guess, if ISU attendance averages above 46,000 and the team gets to a bowl this year, this project may jump ahead in the queue.
Capacity won't change much with a lower deck. We'd keep the 42,500 actual seats and lose hillsides. The upper level is what would push attendance closer to 50,000.
Imo, having hillsides drags down overall attendance in the colder months. Who would rather sit on a freezing cold hill vs. a physical seat? Sure the prices are cheaper but if you don't have that option, ie. a bowled endzone, I don't think attendance would suffer at all, even if ticket prices are higher.
I've been to KU, KSU and Baylor, and they all have the look and feel of a more big time program, especially Baylor, which is a beautiful stadium. I'd have to make a tier 4 and put ISU in it because of our temporary seating in the end zones. Even a lower level closed south end zone would vault us into upper tier 3 or even a tier 2 with the new scoreboard.
Current physical seats are 42,500 I believe (although it could be 45,000). The bottom bowl alone would add 5,000 to 7,500. Taking the total seats from the bottom bowl alone to apx. 50,000.
You aren't adding any seats that aren't already there. You lose the 3,500 already in the endzone, and you lose seats on the corner sections so they can round off the stadium and keep it close to the field. You're going to net a max of 1,000 seats or so, leaving you at 43,500.
We should be following the Clemson model. Bowl it in all across the ground/bottom deck, then add some luxury suites across the top deck.
EDIT: The IMG is so freaking big, I'll link it instead of post it. IMG
Between too many seats and too few, I'd take too few any day. We can always expand some more, and I would love to see every seat full on every game day at JTS.
Then, we move the visitor's locker room to the south endzone, move the students to the south endzone (all across the lower deck), move the visitor's section to the old student section on the NE side, and flip-flop sidelines for Home and Away.
EDIT: The IMG is so freaking big, I'll link it instead of post it. IMG
Between too many seats and too few, I'd take too few any day. We can always expand some more, and I would love to see every seat full on every game day at JTS.
Then, we move the visitor's locker room to the south endzone, move the students to the south endzone (all across the lower deck), move the visitor's section to the old student section on the NE side, and flip-flop sidelines for Home and Away.
Last edited:
You may not think a second deck is realistic, but there will be no SEZ expansion without a second deck. If Pollard says we need 30-50 mil to do the project, you think that is for one deck only? There would be no point in spending millions on one deck that only converts hillside seating into actual seats without any room to expand; and the cost of doing it all at once is going to be a lot less than trying to do the two separately. The goal is to eventually get the stadium to 60K+ in capacity, not 52.
I haven't been to KSU or Baylor, but I disagree about KU. That stadium is a craphole. It's got a track, for crying out loud. A track! And it's a dump. JTS may not have a bowl, and may not be the biggest, but it is so much nicer, especially after the new concourses and the scoreboard. I'd like to head down to Manhattan or Columbia this year so I can add to the list of stadiums and compare them in person.
5,000 in the lower level endzone (realistic I don't know) and 8,000 in the upper level would kick seats up to about 52,000 actual seats and another 4,000 or so in hillsides. I don't think they can really do much more than that without building a new stadium or knocking down the Jacobson Building and building around the video board.
I hope we bowl in the lower bowl and then have a club section for the second level.
Like Clemson.
Like Clemson.
I've also been to KU and KSU and would tend to agree with you. KU takes a hit with the track, but if that wasn't there it would no doubt have a more big time feel than JTS. KSU certainly is above us already, and they currently have plans in the works to put in a much larger press box spanning the length of the field and adding more suites. The gap will grow larger.
I've never been the Baylor, but from what I can see the only leg up we have on them is that we actually have people at our games. I think their stadium physically is probably above us as well.
With the fact that conference realignment rumors just won't die, this should concern everyone. Football is driving the bus in all of this, and we need to do everything we can to appear as if we belong at the table. Take a quick look through those pictures and it is pretty clear that we don't.
Maybe I'm missing something-
Why do you have to build both decks at the same time? Why not build the foundation and lower deck with plans to add in the future?
1 deck now is far better then 2 decks never.
Why do you have to build both decks at the same time? Why not build the foundation and lower deck with plans to add in the future?
1 deck now is far better then 2 decks never.
"both with previous success at their positions"... so are you saying experience at a pitt or auburn is comparable to experience at a bunch of podunk upper mid-west colleges? I'm not even sure you can say GMac had a lot of success (~.600??).. not comparable at all
I'll take an assistant coach who's coached in several BCS conferences over a coach with "success" at a North Dakota State any day
I don't think its a matter of what you think--and I'm not trying to be condescending. Based on what Pollard has said in the past and recently, it will be two decks, in some form or fashion. Maybe suites in between. If it's 30 million for a first deck, and we leave it at that, and come back some years down the road, and it's 40 million to do the second deck/suites, would that make more sense than spending 50 million total on 2 decks/suites all at once?
Rhoads wasn't the head man at any of those stops. We didn't know how he'd respond to being the head man. I'd say Coach Rhoads didn't have a lot of success either considering he ended up being fired. McDermott we knew had run a program before, but we didn't know how he'd respond to doing so at the highest level.
And in regards to your last sentence, Gene Chizik was an EXCELLENT hire then. DC in two huge conference who had a lot more success than Coach Rhoads has ever had.
