Stadium Lights: An Incomplete Analysis

by **couch 'em** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:00 pm

Let's Look at how the angle of our stadium lights compares to others. The red "X"'s represent the QB on the goal line throwing a bomb to a WR on the 40. Red line is where the ball is headed/where the WR could look, and the blue line is the line from the WR to the stadium lights. The closer the angle, the more blinding it would be.

SMU:

Hawaii:
Blue X should be at the top of hte stadium now the middle deck, although it changes little.

Texas Tech, another pass happy team:

And UT. If the lights were a problem they have the money to move them:

As you can see, while Tech and UT don't have quite as much angle, SMU matches up similarly to Hawaii on the angle.

The real difference is height of the lights. I bet all are much higher than the SMU lights, but I'll leave it up to someone with more time to figure out if that is the case.

by **couch 'em** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:02 pm

Also of note, all the stadiums above have many more light towers, meaning less lamps will be shining down field. Based on that, I think June may have a legit complaint. With only lights in the corners of the stadium, to illuminate the 50 yard line you are shining your lamps nearly straight down the field. Am I forgeting about lights mounted elsewhere?

by **abezontar** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:02 pm

Did June say specifically what was the problem with the lights?

by **SMU 86** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:03 pm

Good engineers prospective. Good visuals.

by **peruna11** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:04 pm

I'll bite.

This actually might be a good read:

http://www.mgnet.org/~douglas/Classes/cs521-s03/sports/lighting-report.pdf

by **Peruna88** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:09 pm

Now I know why SMU and MUSTANGS in our end zones are so much larger than the old ones - so they show up better on Google!

:lol:

by **Mestengo** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:18 pm

Look at the astrics

by **well travelled pony** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:45 pm

While I don't like a "lights in the eyes" excuse, there probably is some reality to the situation. Still no excuse. Our WRs need to concentrate. Dropped passes killed again. Hey, even KP had a number of passes dropped at the end of last season.

My experience is in lighting for film and TV. But I do understand lighting for stadiums. My main complaint with Ford was the lighting. Only 4 towers on the corners. And has been noted, they are low, especially compared to many other stadiums. Few major stadiums also rely on only having light towers in the corners. Most have the main light towers long the tops of the stadium along what would be the sidelines. As such, the angle is such that you don't have to look high to catch the towers in your view. The other thing is in how the light plays across the field. Some areas seem a bit dark, which could cause other distractions.

Go Ponies!

by **RyanSMU98** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:51 pm

My related question to this topic is, Coach Jones said he mentioned it as a problem when he got here three years ago. Assuming there is some validity to the complaint (and it sounds like there might be), why has nothing been done about it by now? Given the commitment he has gotten in just about every other area he has asked for, I would think this would be a relatively easy request to grant. I'm out of my element on this topic, so somebody please feel free to educate me, but is this not a generally easy fix during the offseason?

by **skyscraper** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:52 pm

I still think the lights thing is a cop out. Sorry.
If it's been such a big problem, why are we only hearing about it during year 4 of his tenure here??

by **Dukster** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:15 pm

E. Sanders never had a problem with it. In fact, his drops were during the daylight. Oh...sun glare. I call BS. If the lights are a problem why do we hear about it in year 4?

by **PonyKai** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:17 pm

RyanSMU98 wrote:My related question to this topic is, Coach Jones said he mentioned it as a problem when he got here three years ago. Assuming there is some validity to the complaint (and it sounds like there might be), why has nothing been done about it by now? Given the commitment he has gotten in just about every other area he has asked for, I would think this would be a relatively easy request to grant. I'm out of my element on this topic, so somebody please feel free to educate me, but is this not a generally easy fix during the offseason?

We got 3 million to pimp out our offices and turn the locker room in to an awesome Jaguar-esque experience, which is great, and I love it...but wouldn't there have been some change lying around to address what apparently is a legitimate complain that hampers on the field performance?

by **mrydel** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:30 pm

Why don't they just send the receiver down the other sideline or down the middle? Heck of a lot less expensive to move the people than to move the lights.

by **f4shionablecha0s** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:41 pm

Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:We got 3 million to pimp out our offices and turn the locker room in to an awesome Jaguar-esque experience, which is great, and I love it...but wouldn't there have been some change lying around to address what apparently is a legitimate complain that hampers on the field performance?

Probably because the idea that Ellerbe Becket didn't put any thought as to where the lights are placed is completely ridiculous.

by **couch 'em** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:36 pm

f4shionablecha0s wrote:
Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:We got 3 million to pimp out our offices and turn the locker room in to an awesome Jaguar-esque experience, which is great, and I love it...but wouldn't there have been some change lying around to address what apparently is a legitimate complain that hampers on the field performance?

Probably because the idea that Ellerbe Becket didn't put any thought as to where the lights are placed is completely ridiculous.

Thought could have easily been overruled by SMU not wanting 'ugly' light structures along the sides, or perhaps height restrictions preventing them on the sides