Jamie Pollard talks facilities/south endzone

**ribsnwhiskey** · 07-27-2011, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by delt4cy

I don't think a second deck is realistic at this point. That would add another 5,000 - 7,500 seats, on top of the extra 5,000 - 7,5000 on the lower deck.

50,000-52,500 seated capacity is more realistic since the avg attendance was 45,500 in 2010.

If I had to guess, if ISU attendance averages above 46,000 and the team gets to a bowl this year, this project may jump ahead in the queue.

You may not think a second deck is realistic, but there will be no SEZ expansion without a second deck. If Pollard says we need 30-50 mil to do the project, you think that is for one deck only? There would be no point in spending millions on one deck that only converts hillside seating into actual seats without any room to expand; and the cost of doing it all at once is going to be a lot less than trying to do the two separately. The goal is to eventually get the stadium to 60K+ in capacity, not 52.

**ribsnwhiskey** · 07-27-2011, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by CYKOFAN

I've been to KU, KSU and Baylor, and they all have the look and feel of a more big time program, especially Baylor, which is a beautiful stadium. I'd have to make a tier 4 and put ISU in it because of our temporary seating in the end zones. Even a lower level closed south end zone would vault us into upper tier 3 or even a tier 2 with the new scoreboard.

I haven't been to KSU or Baylor, but I disagree about KU. That stadium is a craphole. It's got a track, for crying out loud. A track! And it's a dump. JTS may not have a bowl, and may not be the biggest, but it is so much nicer, especially after the new concourses and the scoreboard. I'd like to head down to Manhattan or Columbia this year so I can add to the list of stadiums and compare them in person.

**IcSyU** · 07-27-2011, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by ribsnwhiskey

You may not think a second deck is realistic, but there will be no SEZ expansion without a second deck. If Pollard says we need 30-50 mil to do the project, you think that is for one deck only? There would be no point in spending millions on one deck that only converts hillside seating into actual seats without any room to expand; and the cost of doing it all at once is going to be a lot less than trying to do the two separately. The goal is to eventually get the stadium to 60K+ in capacity, not 52.

5,000 in the lower level endzone (realistic I don't know) and 8,000 in the upper level would kick seats up to about 52,000 actual seats and another 4,000 or so in hillsides. I don't think they can really do much more than that without building a new stadium or knocking down the Jacobson Building and building around the video board.

**cyclonedave25** · 07-27-2011, 10:42 AM

I hope we bowl in the lower bowl and then have a club section for the second level.
Like Clemson.

**aeroclone** · 07-27-2011, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by CYKOFAN

I've been to KU, KSU and Baylor, and they all have the look and feel of a more big time program, especially Baylor, which is a beautiful stadium. I'd have to make a tier 4 and put ISU in it because of our temporary seating in the end zones. Even a lower level closed south end zone would vault us into upper tier 3 or even a tier 2 with the new scoreboard.

I've also been to KU and KSU and would tend to agree with you. KU takes a hit with the track, but if that wasn't there it would no doubt have a more big time feel than JTS. KSU certainly is above us already, and they currently have plans in the works to put in a much larger press box spanning the length of the field and adding more suites. The gap will grow larger.

I've never been the Baylor, but from what I can see the only leg up we have on them is that we actually have people at our games. I think their stadium physically is probably above us as well.

With the fact that conference realignment rumors just won't die, this should concern everyone. Football is driving the bus in all of this, and we need to do everything we can to appear as if we belong at the table. Take a quick look through those pictures and it is pretty clear that we don't.

**CYphyllis** · 07-27-2011, 10:56 AM

People seem to get really worked up over some extra bleachers. Never understood how some people have it in their head that a few extra seats is going to be the end all savior.

**delt4cy** · 07-27-2011, 11:00 AM

Maybe I'm missing something-

Why do you have to build both decks at the same time? Why not build the foundation and lower deck with plans to add in the future?

1 deck now is far better then 2 decks never.

**JY07** · 07-27-2011, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by IcSyU

How people can call CPR a good thing and GMac a bad thing is beyond me.

Both in their first stint in charge of a major program (GMac at a Big 12 school as the head coach, Rhoads making the jump from DC to head coach). Both with Iowa ties (one to Cascade, one to Ankeny). Both with previous success at their positions (GMac at UNI, Rhoads at Pitt/Auburn). If there was a mistake, it was the contract GMac got, not the hire.

"both with previous success at their positions"... so are you saying experience at a pitt or auburn is comparable to experience at a bunch of podunk upper mid-west colleges? I'm not even sure you can say GMac had a lot of success (~.600??).. not comparable at all

I'll take an assistant coach who's coached in several BCS conferences over a coach with "success" at a North Dakota State any day

**ribsnwhiskey** · 07-27-2011, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by delt4cy

Maybe I'm missing something-

Why do you have to build both decks at the same time? Why not build the foundation and lower deck with plans to add in the future?

1 deck now is far better then 2 decks never.

I don't think its a matter of what you think--and I'm not trying to be condescending. Based on what Pollard has said in the past and recently, it will be two decks, in some form or fashion. Maybe suites in between. If it's 30 million for a first deck, and we leave it at that, and come back some years down the road, and it's 40 million to do the second deck/suites, would that make more sense than spending 50 million total on 2 decks/suites all at once?

**IcSyU** · 07-27-2011, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by JY07

"both with previous success at their positions"... so are you saying experience at a pitt or auburn is comparable to experience at a bunch of podunk upper mid-west colleges? I'm not even sure you can say GMac had a lot of success (~.600??).. not comparable at all

I'll take an assistant coach who's coached in several BCS conferences over a coach with "success" at a North Dakota State any day

Rhoads wasn't the head man at any of those stops. We didn't know how he'd respond to being the head man. I'd say Coach Rhoads didn't have a lot of success either considering he ended up being fired. McDermott we knew had run a program before, but we didn't know how he'd respond to doing so at the highest level.

And in regards to your last sentence, Gene Chizik was an EXCELLENT hire then. DC in two huge conference who had a lot more success than Coach Rhoads has ever had.

**tazclone** · 07-27-2011, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by ribsnwhiskey

I don't think its a matter of what you think--and I'm not trying to be condescending. Based on what Pollard has said in the past and recently, it will be two decks, in some form or fashion. Maybe suites in between. If it's 30 million for a first deck, and we leave it at that, and come back some years down the road, and it's 40 million to do the second deck/suites, would that make more sense than spending 50 million total on 2 decks/suites all at once?

From what I have read, the second deck is substantially less than the lower deck. The lower deck could be built first with suites and all the infrastructure to hold the second deck. I think that is why you see Pollard make a estimate at $30-50 million. I think the lower deck is in the $30-40 million range and the upper deck is half of that. When Pollard makes an esimate that has a $20 million range, I think he is leaving wiggle room as to go one or two levels.

**tazclone** · 07-27-2011, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by delt4cy

Maybe I'm missing something-

Why do you have to build both decks at the same time? Why not build the foundation and lower deck with plans to add in the future?

1 deck now is far better then 2 decks never.

You don't have to do both levels but it will ultimately cost more if you split the project up.

**snowcraig2.0** · 07-27-2011, 11:47 AM

All I can say is that, if we do the south end zone, let's do it right, and do it in a way the doesn't just add a bunch of seats, but vastly improves the aesthetics of the stadium.

IMO, the Clemson Model is perfect for what we should do.

**capitalcityguy** · 07-27-2011, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by CYphyllis

People seem to get really worked up over some extra bleachers. Never understood how some people have it in their head that a few extra seats is going to be the end all savior.

...and I find it hard to understand how a topic like this has been discussed, debated, beaten-to-death over the last few years and this is all you take from it? (and that is not to say you have to agree with the concept).

**delt4cy** · 07-27-2011, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by tazclone

You don't have to do both levels but it will ultimately cost more if you split the project up.

That's the answer I'm looking for. Which then makes sense why you would hold off building just the lower bowl.

This is where I agree with JP. Adding 15,000 seats at this point in time is 100%pointless. Especially when you average 45,500 attendance.

If you could work it out cost-wise to build the lower deck first, this would be the ideal situation. Asking for a 10% increase in attendance is much more reasonable than asking for a 33% increase. (50,000 seats vs. 60,000)