Tulsa Announces More Football Facility Upgrades by 2008

mrydel · Post by **mrydel** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:03 pm

Stallion, I think you are right but I also think there are so many factors against a mid major vs. a BCS school in recruiting that the stadium is just another in a long line of items that give the "big boys" an insurmountable advantage.

abezontar · Post by **abezontar** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:02 pm

I think what hurts us more than the size of the stadium is the lack of fans inside the stadium. Ford being small would be much less of a hindrance in recruiting if it was full of standing room only crowds every Saturday.

Cadillac · Post by **Cadillac** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:27 pm

abezontar wrote:I think what hurts us more than the size of the stadium is the lack of fans inside the stadium. Ford being small would be much less of a hindrance in recruiting if it was full of standing room only crowds every Saturday.

So we need fans to get recruits to field a winning product to get fans to get recruits to field a winning product to get fans to get recruits to field a winning product to get fans....

-CoS

abezontar · Post by **abezontar** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:59 pm

yup, or we could opt into the system by paying the first few rounds of players, and then stopping once we have established a winning program. It did work once before, we just to work on our ability to conduct clandestine operations. It might help if we hire a ninja or two to help keep it under wraps.

expony18 · Post by **expony18** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:57 pm

Stallions right... the zoning laws ofcourse played a factor, but if you want to be big time (and get big time players), you have to do what big time programs do... selling out a stadium of 36,000 won't get you the same type of players that selling out 75,000 will get you.

on another note...
I am not a big fan of the field turf. i didnt like it when my high school put it in, i didnt like it when smu put it in, and it was terrible for slow pitch softball on the TU field. sure it saves money, it's durable, etc. but the "turf" burns you get from it are terrible, not to mention it makes two-a-days a lot hotter. if a school has the money i think they should stick with grass...

PonyKai · Post by **PonyKai** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:24 am

Although of course if we consistently had 34,000-35,000 then we'd have more in the bank...then we could start planning construction on the next 10,000 seats. And a stadium with a full 45,000 certainly isn't the coliseum- but it's nothing to snub your nose at either.

SMUballboy · Post by **SMUballboy** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:17 pm

expony18 wrote:Stallions right... the zoning laws ofcourse played a factor, but if you want to be big time (and get big time players), you have to do what big time programs do... selling out a stadium of 36,000 won't get you the same type of players that selling out 75,000 will get you.

on another note...
I am not a big fan of the field turf. i didnt like it when my high school put it in, i didnt like it when smu put it in, and it was terrible for slow pitch softball on the TU field. sure it saves money, it's durable, etc. but the "turf" burns you get from it are terrible, not to mention it makes two-a-days a lot hotter. if a school has the money i think they should stick with grass...

The field turf we have isn't like the old astro turf, the turf burns aren't as bad from the field turf as they are from old turf.