New Memorial Stadium FieldTurf & surface design

[illinicb]

Originally Posted by Groundhogday

I guess that we are "facing" the field toward the TV cameras and press box. (Sorry East siders!)

In the OLD days things were geared to the "home" side which was the east side. With the advent of televising every game and the money folks being on the west side (primarily), the west side is more of the primary side I think.

BTW, having read through this thread, I realize why I don't like the state outline being used. Some have mentioned "symetry" and given my OCD like tendancies for order (my daughter kids me all the time), I think that is what is driving my lack of enthusiam for that use. This is coming from a guy that used to keep a level in his office in case he saw any photos/paintings in the office that I thought were hung in less than perfect order.

[pizzaman]

Originally Posted by illinicb

BTW, having read through this thread, I realize why I don't like the state outline being used. Some have mentioned "symetry" and given my OCD like tendancies for order (my daughter kids me all the time), I think that is what is driving my lack of enthusiam for that use. This is coming from a guy that used to keep a level in his office in case he saw any photos/paintings in the office that I thought were hung in less than perfect order.

I never knew so many people were addicted to symmetry. I'm not trying to be personal cb, but you can have fun with eccentricity and you can learn to like it but, you need to accept that imbalance is exciting. Personally, I don't care where the state outline sets on the field. If it was a hologram that spun in a circle like the hands on a clock it would be fine with me.

By the way, I admire you for using a level to make sure that objects hung level on a wall. I assume they weren't symmetrical on the wall, were they?

[Calvin]

Not liking this at first glance. An outline of the state is really bland IMHO. I understand the university has had a marketing/branding conundrum ever since the NCAA took out the Chief, but this doesn't do anything for me.

[illinicb]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

I'm not trying to be personal cb, but you can have fun with eccentricity and you can learn to like it but, you need to accept that imbalance is exciting.

Of the things that excite me, I'm not sure imbalance is involved with any of them.

[GilThorpe]

Originally Posted by illinicb

Of the things that excite me, I'm not sure imbalance is involved with any of them.

Just to bust yer ballz is allz :

Do you hang all your shirts & suits & coats in the same direction in the closet ?

Do you also part your hair in the middle like Alfalfa , or to the front like Moe, or to the back like Pat Riley ?

[bigtiny]

Originally Posted by Calvin

Not liking this at first glance. An outline of the state is really bland IMHO. I understand the university has had a marketing/branding conundrum ever since the NCAA took out the Chief, but this doesn't do anything for me.

Agree. I'd also suggest that a proud University institution in a way becomes bigger, so to say, that its state. "Michigan", "Wisconsin", are examples of two relative peers for whom their names obviously mean much more than the university that serves the area of the state boundaries. They are national institutions that provide a public good to the entire country, as I'd suggest we do.

The outline of the state seems to be constraining the block I.

[illinicb]

Originally Posted by GilThorpe

Just to bust yer ballz is allz :

Do you hang all your shirts & suits & coats in the same direction in the closet ?

Yes and my t-shirts too. Doesn't everybody?

[Hoppy2105]

Originally Posted by GilThorpe

we could do that, but the overall objecxtive is two fold
1. get more people closer to the field, but also
2. get more people overall into the stadium.

your idea may negate #2.

From what I've read, and maybe I misunderstood, but aren't these areas empty anyway? So I'd take 60% capacity over 0% right? Like I said, I'm not EXACTLY sure what the sight line problem is...so maybe if I saw a diagram or something it would make it clearer. Anyone on here good with auto cad?

Also, GHD, what do you think about taking out (for example) 40% of the seats in these low sections and spacing out the bleachers. If they are empty now, wouldn't 60% capacity be better than 0? In your response I would like a full layout of what you propose...with pictures, diagrams, and a step by step procedure of how this could be done...

Kidding of course...kinda.

[illini18]

looks sweet!

[Groundhogday]

Originally Posted by Hoppy2105

From what I've read, and maybe I misunderstood, but aren't these areas empty anyway? So I'd take 60% capacity over 0% right? Like I said, I'm not EXACTLY sure what the sight line problem is...so maybe if I saw a diagram or something it would make it clearer. Anyone on here good with auto cad?

Also, GHD, what do you think about taking out (for example) 40% of the seats in these low sections and spacing out the bleachers. If they are empty now, wouldn't 60% capacity be better than 0? In your response I would like a full layout of what you propose...with pictures, diagrams, and a step by step procedure of how this could be done...

Kidding of course...kinda.

Here is a quick and dirty analysis, referencing the attached diagram.

In a nutshell, if the field is dropped too much almost all of the fans in the main stands will not be able to see all of the field. If
theta = angle of main stands
X = distance from stands to sideline (white border for some margin of error)
d = distance field is dropped

Then the absolutely maximum distance the field could be dropped would be given by: d = X * tan(theta). However, this assumes that you can see through the head of the guy sitting one row ahead, and to see over that guy's head, you probably need to look up about 10 degrees (relative to the angle of the main stands).

So... IF the distance from sideline to stands is 50 feet (estimated from google image) and the angle is 25 degrees (very rough eyeball estimate), then the maximum distance the field could be dropped would be:

d = 50 feet * tan(25-10) = 13 feet

If the field were dropped 13 feet, the main stands could probably be extended into the field another 13 feet resulting in a 6 foot drop overall, leaving a 6-7 foot wall that would allow all seats to have an unobstructed view of the field.

It would be nice to know the actual angle of repose and distance to the sideline, but it might be that dropping the field 13 feet didn't gain that much (the main stands are still a long way from the sideline, we add maybe 10-12 more rows of seating altogether, including the use of currently unusable seats). For comparison, if the angle of the main stands was 30 degrees instead of 25 degrees, we would be able to drop the field an additional 5 feet (and move the stands inward an additional 10 feet). With an angle of 35 degrees, we could drop the field over 20 feet and bring the main stands right up behind the team box.

[Groundhogday]

FWIW, a decade ago OSU removed the track at the "Shoe" and dropped their field 14 feet. Their main stands look steeper than ours, so perhaps the 13 foot estimate above was a bit generous.



http://www.collegegridirons.com/bigten/OhioStadium.htm

[GilThorpe]

who really knows exactly, but safe to say it could easily be dropped from 10-15 feet or so without effecting "sightlines"

no matter what sporting event you go to anywhere, you always have to deal with people ahead of you. tall people, people with hats, people standing alot, whatever.

dropping the field gives you a chance to get some seats back and create a more "close" environment. do something unusal on the sidelines near the stands. landscape it, hedges, prarire grass, fall flowers. think out of the box and have something that grabs your attention . make a statement. there is a opportunity to have something classy and yet different.

[Holdemall]

Anybody else really dislike the leaning Illinois in the end zones? I know we've had it for a while, but just looks really dated and goofy.

[carmelillini]

Originally Posted by Holdemall

Anybody else really dislike the leaning Illinois in the end zones? I know we've had it for a while, but just looks really dated and goofy.

Agree. We're sorely in need of a logo makeover. Paging Nate Berkus...

[Groundhogday]

Originally Posted by GilThorpe

who really knows exactly, but safe to say it could easily be dropped from 10-15 feet or so without effecting "sightlines"

no matter what sporting event you go to anywhere, you always have to deal with people ahead of you. tall people, people with hats, people standing alot, whatever.

dropping the field gives you a chance to get some seats back and create a more "close" environment. do something unusal on the sidelines near the stands. landscape it, hedges, prarire grass, fall flowers. think out of the box and have something that grabs your attention . make a statement. there is a opportunity to have something classy and yet different.

I did a bit of research on minimum slopes for lecture halls and movie theaters. It seems that most consider 15 degrees to be the bare minimum to insure that an audience can usually (but not always) see over the heads of the next row forward and most modern theaters are tiered at a much greater angle to ensure an unobstructed view (home theater guidelines recommend 30 degrees). Taking this into account:

d = 50 feet * tan(25-15) = 8.8 feet

Of course, the angle of the main stands might not be 25 degrees, but we are potentially getting into a drop that adds a small number of seats at a fairly large cost. And there are likely to be substantially more issues with hats, etc... if the field were dropped 9 feet. I would really be interested to know the actual angle of the main stands and actual distance from stands to sideline.

[KBLEE]

You also have to take into account the upper deck which is at a different angle and would be affected by any drop. IIRC, the upper deck sight lines are actually a bigger issue than the lower level when factoring in a proposed drop.

[Fighting Billini]

Originally Posted by KBLEE

You also have to take into account the upper deck which is at a different angle and would be affected by any drop. IIRC, the upper deck sight lines are actually a bigger issue than the lower level when factoring in a proposed drop.

That can't be true. You can see the entire stadium from the upper deck. You are up higher, so the lower bowl is below you instead of in front of you. None of the field is blocked.

[Ransom Stoddard]

Originally Posted by Fighting Billini

That can't be true. You can see the entire stadium from the upper deck. You are up higher, so the lower bowl is below you instead of in front of you. None of the field is blocked.

When we had a fraternity block in the top 10 rows of the East balcony we couldn't see the east sideline, IIRC. But that was 25 years ago...

[KBLEE]

Originally Posted by Fighting Billini

That can't be true. You can see the entire stadium from the upper deck. You are up higher, so the lower bowl is below you instead of in front of you. None of the field is blocked.

Originally Posted by Ransom Stoddard

When we had a fraternity block in the top 10 rows of the East balcony we couldn't see the east sideline, IIRC. But that was 25 years ago...

Right - the issue is the sideline closest to where you are sitting. Lowering the field could make it like sitting in the bleachers at Wrigley and not being able to see the warning track.

[Fighting Billini]

Originally Posted by KBLEE

Right - the issue is the sideline closest to where you are sitting. Lowering the field could make it like sitting in the bleachers at Wrigley and not being able to see the warning track.

Hmm, maybe it is a little different at the top of the balconies. I am looking at a picture now I took from the east balcony, and I can fully see the sideline as well as a few rows of the lower deck

Anyway, while you need to see the warning track and even all of foul territory at a baseball park where balls could be caught even when not "in play", it wouldn't be a problem not being able to see the sideline as long as you could see the entire area which is in the field of play. However, looking at the picture on my desk, it might be less room to work with than I remember, unless I took it at a weird angle.

[Groundhogday]

FWIW, Oklahoma removed their track and lowered the football field by 6 feet back in 1949. This allowed them to add 10 rows of additional seating. Their main stands appear to have a angle similar to ours, but I'm guessing the didn't have as much space between the field and stands as at our Memorial Stadium.



http://www.soonerstats.com/football/stadium/index.cfm

[GilThorpe]

my youngest boy is a senior in high school. Thinking about a petrol engineering major. OU is an excellent school for that. right behind aTm.
we toured that OU stadium (Gaylord Family Stadium) and it is pretty awesome. it must be 120ft high. (about as high as PSU's Beaver Stadium)

I guess I have no point , other than , lowering our field can be done. not dramatically, but a little. enough to make a difference with capacity. if you can get 6, 7 8 more rows, just on the sidelines, you might be talking about 4000 new seats, plus using those seat that are tarped over, which most be another 2000

Thats significant if you are talking about $80 tickets. AT 6000 seats, thats a $500,000 per game.

[GilThorpe]

Originally Posted by KBLEE

You also have to take into account the upper deck which is at a different angle and would be affected by any drop. IIRC, the upper deck sight lines are actually a bigger issue than the lower level when factoring in a proposed drop.

this statement makes just no sense whatsoever. sorry , but you are not correct.

edit: I will walk this back a little, but not much. our field is so far away from the sides of the stands due to the track, I have a hard time believing this. It maybe that when people are standing in the first rows of the balcony, sight lines are obscured at the sidelines, but big deal.

And not being able to see the warning track at Wrigley has not hurt sales nor value of those seats whatsover. Intimacy and fan experience trumps sight lines, imo.

[KBLEE]

Originally Posted by GilThorpe

Thats significant if you are talking about $80 tickets. AT 6000 seats, thats a $500,000 per game.

Seeing as we are unable to sell out with the current capacity, that's a lot of hypothetical $$.

Originally Posted by GilThorpe

And not being able to see the warning track at Wrigley has not hurt sales nor value of those seats whatsover. Intimacy and fan experience trumps sight lines, imo.

Which is why there is no reason the lower the field. The only time that the first 5 rows are ever used is during "big games" with tOsu or scUM. Fans that buy those tickets (mostly visitors) can look around the teams on the sidelines.

[GilThorpe]

Originally Posted by KBLEE

Seeing as we are unable to sell out with the current capacity, that's a lot of hypothetical $$.




Which is why there is no reason the lower the field. The only time that the first 5 rows are ever used is during "big games" with tOsu or scUM. Fans that buy those tickets (mostly visitors) can look around the teams on the sidelines.

I totally agree there is absolutely no reason to do this given present day ticket sales. My comments about this are purely from a stance IF we ever get back to the excitement of the mid 80's , Mike white era when we were selling 78,000 seats.

I have hope and faith that within 5 years, we will have sellouts again. after 3 years of sellouts, we should put this back on the agenda. By then, we will need new turf again. Thats how this whole discussion started, someone wondered if it was silly to replace the turf today if we were going to lower the field . my response was that the turf has a 6-10 year life, and we probably can get a normal lifespan out of this turf .

GHD queried that lowering the field was a non starter due to sight lines, and I countered that I didnt buy it and it was RG's way to say they couldnt afford it.