DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:It's good the addition appears to be designed in a way we can keep it intact and still implode Ford since it desperately needs it.
This is utterly ridiculous.
However - achievable fixes could be create a euro style canopy for east side, fix some concourse widths and replace benchΓÇÖs with actual seats.
If IΓÇÖm into mistaken i see a bit of grass lawn on the east side - Hope that is for students and a nod to our tradition.
DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:It's good the addition appears to be designed in a way we can keep it intact and still implode Ford since it desperately needs it.
This is utterly ridiculous.
However - achievable fixes could be create a euro style canopy for east side, fix some concourse widths and replace benchΓÇÖs with actual seats.
If IΓÇÖm into mistaken i see a bit of grass lawn on the east side - Hope that is for students and a nod to our tradition.
That little bit of grass won't hold all the students currently using the grassed area. Evidently we need to take out all the benches in the student section and replace with grass.
What we really need is to be in a conference that allows the students to sit behind the visiting team like the Big 12 does. They seem to really like that.
SMU's first president, Robert S. Hyer, selected Harvard Crimson and Yale Blue as SMU's colors to symbolize SMU's high academic standards. We are one of the few Universities to have school colors with real meaning...and we just blow them off.
DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:It's good the addition appears to be designed in a way we can keep it intact and still implode Ford since it desperately needs it.
This is utterly ridiculous.
However - achievable fixes could be create a euro style canopy for east side, fix some concourse widths and replace benchΓÇÖs with actual seats.
If IΓÇÖm into mistaken i see a bit of grass lawn on the east side - Hope that is for students and a nod to our tradition.
This, PLUS the New FB Operations Bldg and Seats in the South End Zone!
DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:It's good the addition appears to be designed in a way we can keep it intact and still implode Ford since it desperately needs it.
This is utterly ridiculous.
However - achievable fixes could be create a euro style canopy for east side, fix some concourse widths and replace benchΓÇÖs with actual seats.
If IΓÇÖm into mistaken i see a bit of grass lawn on the east side - Hope that is for students and a nod to our tradition.
I prefer the benches over seats. Comfort level is night and day.
DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:It's good the addition appears to be designed in a way we can keep it intact and still implode Ford since it desperately needs it.
This is utterly ridiculous.
However - achievable fixes could be create a euro style canopy for east side, fix some concourse widths and replace benchΓÇÖs with actual seats.
If IΓÇÖm into mistaken i see a bit of grass lawn on the east side - Hope that is for students and a nod to our tradition.
I prefer the benches over seats. Comfort level is night and day.
Wow i disagree - note having a back to the seat is an issue for most. Seats are way more comfortable.
In my opinion Ford Stadium is the best value of any stadium in the USA. And any talk of tearing it down is unthinkable. Improvements can and should be made. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
AusTxPony wrote:Will they negotiate money now for possible expansion of 2-4 teams?
During the negotiations, the networks and streaming entities will indicate if they want the Pac 12 to expand or not, and different contract values will be negotiated based on the potential expansion candidates.
DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:It's good the addition appears to be designed in a way we can keep it intact and still implode Ford since it desperately needs it.
This is utterly ridiculous.
However - achievable fixes could be create a euro style canopy for east side, fix some concourse widths and replace benchΓÇÖs with actual seats.
If IΓÇÖm into mistaken i see a bit of grass lawn on the east side - Hope that is for students and a nod to our tradition.
when i read this I because there is an element of truth to what DF is saying, although I doubt he meant it literally….
I do like your canopy and concourse proposals. I would also consider more suites on the North End.
And FWIW, Oregon St is also in the middle of a stadium remodel that will reduce seating from ~43k to ~36k while making it more fan-friendly
I know there have been rumblings in the PAC 12 to stay at 10, or just add SDSU. But at one time there was a rule that you had to have 12 teams to have a championship game. There may be other restrictions as well. Is that still in place? Would that help SMUs chance of being #12?
"Once the number 3, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
crazy horse wrote:I know there have been rumblings in the PAC 12 to stay at 10, or just add SDSU. But at one time there was a rule that you had to have 12 teams to have a championship game. There may be other restrictions as well. Is that still in place? Would that help SMUs chance of being #12?
No longer required.
On the other thread there was a long post about playoff expansion affecting PAC-12 expansion. Those two are entirely unrelated. If PAC wants to keep a presence in So-Cal (they do) they need SDSU - thus they'll be added. If they want to maintain a 9 game conference schedule AND add SDSU they need 12 teams (can't do it with 11). They could play 8 games with 12 teams if they really want to (but many of the schools don't since it'd require another buy game.) and still have more inventory for TV as the conference gets home game non-con. think- ACC matchups
I find it very, very hard to believe the pac is really just focusing on a TV deal before ANY consideration of expansion - makes no sense whatsoever. Probably just a CYA statement.
crazy horse wrote:I know there have been rumblings in the PAC 12 to stay at 10, or just add SDSU. But at one time there was a rule that you had to have 12 teams to have a championship game. There may be other restrictions as well. Is that still in place? Would that help SMUs chance of being #12?
No longer required.
On the other thread there was a long post about playoff expansion affecting PAC-12 expansion. Those two are entirely unrelated. If PAC wants to keep a presence in So-Cal (they do) they need SDSU - thus they'll be added. If they want to maintain a 9 game conference schedule AND add SDSU they need 12 teams (can't do it with 11). They could play 8 games with 12 teams if they really want to (but many of the schools don't since it'd require another buy game.) and still have more inventory for TV as the conference gets home game non-con. think- ACC matchups
I find it very, very hard to believe the pac is really just focusing on a TV deal before ANY consideration of expansion - makes no sense whatsoever. Probably just a CYA statement.
Thanks for the reply. I would think 12 would be the ideal number for a variety of reasons, and that certainly helps SMUs chances. I just wish we could get a decision and stop this speculation.
"Once the number 3, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
