Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

***Video Board Renderings Released***

cyclonedave25 said:
I don't see why we don't just use something like this... A lot cheaper!
resize
Click to expand...

********************************* ****** ********! TOOO MANNNNY DiGITs!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ONE PER TEAM. If A team scores more than that, you should be able to keep track in your head!!!!! ALSO, as I am SURE i mentioned before, that means the defense isn't working hard enough. Why even let them think letting the enemy score more than 9 points is even an option?????
 
jsmith86 said:
********************************* ****** ********! TOOO MANNNNY DiGITs!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ONE PER TEAM. If A team scores more than that, you should be able to keep track in your head!!!!! ALSO, as I am SURE i mentioned before, that means the defense isn't working hard enough. Why even let them think letting the enemy score more than 9 points is even an option?????
Click to expand...
I do like your thinking. Also, less number cards they have to buy is that much more money being saved!!
 
We could save even more money by having the entire crowd chant the score. This would kill two birds with one stone, saving money on the scoreboard and giving us "our own unique chant"
 
  • Like
Reactions: jsmith86
awd4cy said:
I do like your thinking. Also, less number cards they have to buy is that much more money being saved!!
Click to expand...

Exactly. By my calculations (and I am an engineer, so don't you dare argue with me!!!!) every additional digit will double the cost of the scoreboard!!! DOUBLE!!!!


I would much rather that money be put to use elsewhere, like leveling that hill that I have to walk uphill both ways on in the snow to get to football games.
 
clonedude said:
Just for the record, I never said I didn't like the new video board. In fact, I said we did the best we could with what we had to work with.

I still stand by the fact that the Jacobsen building was one of the worst designs we could have possibly come up with for the north endzone. It put us in a terrible situation where bowling in the north end became impossible. Not only that, but we put that stupid roof on it where now it became impossible to put the video board on top of the Jacobsen building, so we had to devise these huge structures to support it.

Anyone who thinks the Jacobsen building was a good idea doesn't know squat. It really tied our hands big time. But as people have mentioned, we can't go back and fix that screw up now. We have to do the best we can with what we do have. And I think this new video board is the best we could have done. It will be a HUGE improvement. It just isn't ideal. But basically anything that would have been ideal was ruined when we erected that hideous Jacobsen building in the north endzone. That's just my stupid opinion. I'm sure I'll get an earful once again, but it won't change my mind. Ask any reputable architect and they will laugh at that building.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on one thing: They did screw up with the Jacobson Building. It should have been bigger and more imposing in that endzone. The way it was built, they can't really add on or up. It should have spanned the current sidewalks and provided tunnels for the teams to come out of. But what's done is done.

As for the scoreboard, I think that people are going a little overboard. The renderings (especially the field level one) are poorly done. IMO it's going to look GOOD. And who's to say that what they do will look exactly like the renderings. It would be really dumb to just build those supports without any "coverings", at least part way up, because people will be climbing them. Who's to say that they don't build some walls going up the hill just inside those supports to make the structure blend into the endzone? I'll say that when ISU has built something under Pollard, they've usually done it right...maybe not with all the bells and whistles, but they seem to get good bang for the buck. The new concourses/restrooms/concessions are really nice. The club section and suites are top notch. The IPF is STILL one of the best out there even though it is probably 7 years old. The basketball practice facility is well done for the amount of money they put in. I have no doubt that there has been a lot of thought that went into tying things into the surrounding structures and making things look good, not piecemeal or half-a##. Just like I have no doubt that the track/softball/soccer facility and the new football-only facility will be well-planned, functional and look great.

They may be on a tight budget and have to wait longer than most to get what they want, but when the DO get it, you can be sure that a lot of planning has went in with an eye toward the future...unlike the Jacobson Building.
 
we agree the renderings are way below par, but it still draws the question why such a horrible set of renderings were presented to the public so close to construction. People don't want to see a sketch rendering of something going up in 100 days...they want to see how it actually looks and how it ties in. It took such a long time to see the idea, and the images we have to comment on don't even touch the visual details. I don't see how anyone could blame the fanbase for wanting to know more, or hoping that there are details left out that are key to pulling this off gracefully.
 
It obviously could be better... but for what we had to work with its a huge improvement. Major step in the right direction... honestly I'm more excited for the sound system. Now lets get the south endzone bowled in!
 
How long before some neighborhood association complains about the height of the structure or the increased noise from the new speaker system?
 
If I'm Jamie Pollard, I'm not releasing any more renderings. I mean, what's the point? Some people will dislike it, some will like it, and some will dislike it but in the end the conclusion is usually that it won't actually look like that. Just build it let people ***** then.
 
yaman3 said:
If I'm Jamie Pollard, I'm not releasing any more renderings. I mean, what's the point? Some people will dislike it, some will like it, and some will dislike it but in the end the conclusion is usually that it won't actually look like that. Just build it let people ***** then.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but the renderings were pretty poor quality. That's on the AD. If they dont have any quality renderings, then maybe you might be right, they should just hold onto the rough concepts and just release the specs, as poor renderings dont reflect that well on the AD. I think some of our resident photoshop experts mightve done a better job putting the board itself in there if they were given the general info (ie: video board is X by Y, speakers are X by Y, supports are X tall).

Honestly though, i was most excited to get the specs on the board. We've kinda known the gist of what it was gonna look like for awhile, though its cool to see that officially, and officially know we've got a top 15 quality board.

Definitely can understand why Jamie hates message boards though with some of the responses in this thread (namely the 'its too skinny' ones- as goshow would say: "write the check")
 
The Jacobson building isn't the best (it would be awesome if it closed that end of the stadium), but it is still better than many in our own conference.

Would you rather have this
112010_MUvISUFootball_01_t_w600_h600.jpg

or this
APTOPIX_UCF_Kansas_St_Footb_t607.JPG

Kansas_University_Football-420x281.jpg

I can only imagine how many of you would ***** if Hilton was in one endzone
aerial.jpg
 
Hilton in the endzone... thatd certainly be different. I have a hard time picturing it but damn itd be imposing on that end.
 
alarson said:
Hilton in the endzone... thatd certainly be different. I have a hard time picturing it but damn itd be imposing on that end.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't know.. It doesn't look too bad. :smile: (I don't have photoshop, so this will have to do. Don't be complaining.)
zjuxsl.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tre4ISU
alarson said:
I get what you're saying, but the renderings were pretty poor quality. That's on the AD. If they dont have any quality renderings, then maybe you might be right, they should just hold onto the rough concepts and just release the specs, as poor renderings dont reflect that well on the AD. I think some of our resident photoshop experts mightve done a better job putting the board itself in there if they were given the general info (ie: video board is X by Y, speakers are X by Y, supports are X tall).

Honestly though, i was most excited to get the specs on the board. We've kinda known the gist of what it was gonna look like for awhile, though its cool to see that officially, and officially know we've got a top 15 quality board.

Definitely can understand why Jamie hates message boards though with some of the responses in this thread (namely the 'its too skinny' ones- as goshow would say: "write the check")
Click to expand...

At the same time, the AD can only present the renderings they get from the designers. It's not like somebody was sitting in the Jacobson Building making these drawings, they came from Daktronics. If you click on the "larger version" link on Cyclones.com, the renderings have the Daktronics titleblock and are copyrightedto Daktronics.

I wonder if Daktronics will actually provide the support structure along with the AV equipment, of if they'll just provide drawings/specs for a local contractor? I'd have to assume that at some point Daktronics said "this is what you need to support it, feel free to decorate it further."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back