oleschoolaggie
Official BDF member
2009 Poster of the Year, 2009 Most Knowledgeable Poster
Posts: 24,164
|
Post by oleschoolaggie on Apr 27, 2016 14:02:47 GMT -5
i hear ya, ohsix. but ohsix, let me ask you a question and please give me an honest answer if you care to. if you’re a football player, would you rather play and practice tackle football on “dirt” (i.e., the spring game)? or would you rather play and practice tackle football on a well groomed grass surface or field turf? i mean, if you’ve played contact football before and you’re honest, clearly you would not want to play or practice on “dirt”. i mean, anybody who says they would prefer “dirt” is being a bit “disingenuous”. its not a matter of being resigned to the color of the field. instead its a matter of a very “basic” standard which 95% (my own estimate) of fcs schools conform to. virtually all fcs schools that i’ve seen either keep their grass green or use artificial turf. right now famu, norfolk, and us are the only meac schools who don’t have artificial turf. and our ad has already commented that the issue is not related to a lack of resources. so let’s not act like this is something that must take a back seat to other priorities. the upkeep of a grass surface is not terribly “expensive” or “complex”. my very own home lawn stays green virtually all year long, even through the winter because i personally treat it myself and i’ve never been trained to treat grass before in my entire born life. i seed my lawn, fertilize it, and water it. and it stays green virtually all year long. i only have to seed once per year and fertilize maybe 3 or 4 times per year at minimal cost. man, you act like the upkeep of a grass surface cost millions of dollars, but it doesn’t. now, as far as winning goes? it has absolutely “nothing” to do with the upkeep of facilities. you think if we won the meac championship “outright” every year, that it still wouldn’t matter how our facilities looked? nothing could be further from the truth. the upkeep of facilities isn’t just for recruiting purposes, but its also intended to present a&t to a very large public audience in a “positive” light. some people have “pride” in appearance (me), some people could care less about appearance (you). i think most people take “pride” in the appearance of themselves and their homes or even their cars. when a&t is on “international tv”, we most certainly should care how the rest of the world views our campus. if all they see is a beat up grass surface or sorely outdated hard azz medal eyesore bleachers, then it sends a negative message about the rest of the university. “first impressions” mean a lot, and not just to recruits... Sure, I'd want the best that I could get BUT and don't miss this point...the reason behind the choice of the institution should NOT be based on whether I'll have to practice on dirt as opposed to synthetic turf. Again, this is my opinion, I don't necessarily agree that a decision to attend a college/university be based on something that minute. I'm not saying it doesn't happen...but, that's what my stance is premised on. I believe it's our responsibility as parents to provide as much information about our colleges/universities (HBCUs) so it's not issue that we lose because of those reasons alone. Secondly, I don't think our facilities are that second rate when it comes to football or basketball. Sure we can improve but, to say we cannot compete with what we have, I don't believe that to be true. Most importantly, recruiting boils down to success on the field/court. And in our case, that statement alone speaks for itself...look at both football and basketball. again, ohsix. this is not just about “recruiting”. its also about the “image” of a&t, its about our “brand”. our “image” effects our enrollment as well as potential sponsorships. if dr. martin invited a potential sponsor to our spring game and they saw how poorly kept our grass is, what message do you think that may send to that potential corporate sponsor? it might say that a&t has no “pride” in the way that the public at large views its public facilities, or it might say that a&t is “poorly managed”, or it might say that a&t’s agriculture school ain’t jack, or it might say that a&t just doesn’t give a darn about how it is perceived by the general public. why would a sponsor want to place their money in the hands of an institution who doesn’t give a darn about how it is perceived by the general public? two weeks ago, my son brought his new girlfriend to my house to introduce her to me. can you imagine what impression of me she would’ve had if my lawn had been all “jacked up”, grass not cut with weeds all over the place, or my house wasn’t well kept? these things have meaning to folks, ohsix. the same principle applies to our public facilities that "literally" the whole world can see when we're on espn. a prospective student who sees a poorly kept grass surface on espn or jacked up bleachers in corbett gets a poor impression of a&t if that's all they've ever seen of a&t and a lot of the time, it is all they've seen if they're located in far away areas of the country or world. i think you’re a little too fixated on the idea of only recruiting, but it goes much further than that. there is a reason that 95% (again, my own personal estimate) of all fcs schools don’t have dead grass/dirt in their stadiums. they don’t do it “just because”. they do it because they realize that it reflects poorly on their “image” or their “brand” which directly impact things like enrollment. ohsix, usually i agree with almost all of your posts. but not this one. though i respect your opinion on this, i just don’t agree with it...
|
|
|
Post by ohsixrain on Apr 27, 2016 14:19:11 GMT -5
Sure, I'd want the best that I could get BUT and don't miss this point...the reason behind the choice of the institution should NOT be based on whether I'll have to practice on dirt as opposed to synthetic turf. Again, this is my opinion, I don't necessarily agree that a decision to attend a college/university be based on something that minute. I'm not saying it doesn't happen...but, that's what my stance is premised on. I believe it's our responsibility as parents to provide as much information about our colleges/universities (HBCUs) so it's not issue that we lose because of those reasons alone. Secondly, I don't think our facilities are that second rate when it comes to football or basketball. Sure we can improve but, to say we cannot compete with what we have, I don't believe that to be true. Most importantly, recruiting boils down to success on the field/court. And in our case, that statement alone speaks for itself...look at both football and basketball. again, ohsix. this is not just about “recruiting”. its also about the “image” of a&t, its about our “brand”. our “image” effects our enrollment as well as potential sponsorships. if dr. martin invited a potential sponsor to our spring game and they saw how poorly kept our grass is, what message do you think that may send to that potential corporate sponsor? it might say that a&t has no “pride” in the way that the public at large views its public facilities, or it might say that a&t is “poorly managed”, or it might say that a&t’s agriculture school ain’t jack, or it might say that a&t just doesn’t give a darn about how it is perceived by the general public. why would a sponsor want to place their money in the hands of an institution who doesn’t give a darn about how it is perceived by the general public? two weeks ago, my son brought his new girlfriend to my house to introduce her to me. can you imagine what impression of me she would’ve had if my lawn had been all “jacked up”, grass not cut with weeds all over the place, or my house wasn’t well kept? these things have meaning to folks, ohsix. the same principle applies to our public facilities that "literally" the whole world can see when we're on espn. a prospective student who sees a poorly kept grass surface on espn or jacked up bleachers in corbett gets a poor impression of a&t if that's all they've ever seen of a&t and a lot of the time, it is all they've seen if they're located in far away areas of the country or world. i think you’re a little too fixated on the idea of only recruiting, but it goes much further than that. there is a reason that 95% (again, my own personal estimate) of all fcs schools don’t have dead grass/dirt in their stadiums. they don’t do it “just because”. they do it because they realize that it reflects poorly on their “image” or their “brand” which directly impact things like enrollment. ohsix, usually i agree with almost all of your posts. but not this one. though i respect your opinion on this, i just don’t agree with it... Let me just say, I'm all for keeping the facilities we DO have looking presentable and in tip-top shape...don't get me wrong. But, the impressiong we give off is that our facilities are so bad once a recruit, sponsor or casual spectator sees them, it's a black-eye on the university. While a few areas probably needs touching up or TLC but no major renovations are in need.
|
|
oleschoolaggie
Official BDF member
2009 Poster of the Year, 2009 Most Knowledgeable Poster
Posts: 24,164
|
Post by oleschoolaggie on Apr 27, 2016 14:23:42 GMT -5
that’s exactly what i had in mind, durham. i’ve never advocated “seatbacks” on the upper level and even if we could afford them, i would not want “seatbacks” on the upper level because it would “drastically” reduce our seating capacity. so by all means, definitely keep bleachers on the upper level. but like you said, replace them with more modern and more comfortable blue bleachers. i wouldn’t even be opposed to wooden bleachers as long as they’re of good quality. plus freshen up the paint job, throw in a new scoreboard, and “bingo”! corbett is again one of the top 5 basketball facilities in the meac. i’d also like to upgrade our basketball court with a new surface, but i won’t even ask for that... But guys are we in need of true renovation or are we splitting hairs here. Now, not long ago, I read that NCCU's gym is better than ours and the arguments made why. But what you guys describe as being needed is going to bring back to top 5 as far as basketball facilities in the conference...that tells me we were never that bad to begin with. And generally when you see comments like that, you begin to believe a major renovation project is needed or a band new construction project. Now all I hear is paint, dust off the trophy case and get some rest rooms...Come on Man!!! ohsix, you’ve never heard me say anything about a complete makeover. in fact, i’m the one who said that i don’t even think we need a new convocation center if we’d just renovate corbett like it ought to be. i actually like corbett, i like the “4 sided configuration”, i like the upper level platform where frats and soro's step during games, and i like how the crowd noise is funneled down to the center of the court. the acoustics for basketball games is “great” in corbett. no one is trying to turn corbett into a “luxury” facility with private suites and what not. i’m just talking about plain basic “common sense” kind of updates. man, look at what nc state is doing for their #2 basketball facility (reynolds coliseum)? now that’s a total makeover and i’d never advocate that for a&t because we simply can’t afford it. my suggestions for corbett certainly aren’t considered to be “cheap” in terms of cost. but its not earth shatteringly expensive either, i think it is within our means to pay for new bleachers, a new scoreboard, and a new paint job. might take some additonal fundraising and some additional football and basketball “money games”, but i think it is within our means. i compare corbett to the rest of the meac because that’s who we have to compete against and those are the schools who are on our level financially. i’d like to also challenge the fcs pwc’s, but i won’t even go there because they generally have more resources than we do. but we’re the largest hbcu in the country, there’s no reason whatsoever that any of our athletic facilities should rank in the bottom 25% of the meac...
|
|
|
Post by A&T AGGIE 96 on Apr 27, 2016 14:54:03 GMT -5
Artificial turf in Aggie stadium is almost unavoidable in my opinion. It would be the finishing touch on a great facility. The fencing around the stadium could use an upgrade as well. Making that change would improve that entire part of campus. Truth is, we are not that far off. We have some great facilities. Attention to the details however would go a long way. I agree and I'm really confused as to why we haven't already done both or have a date to do them. Schools with far less resources and budget got it done. NCCU put that stone column wrought iron fence all the way down Austin Ave and it looks great. Theirs is only 6 feet, where ours would probably have to be 8 feet because it's for a stadium. Glad I'm not the only one thinking that way. I passed NCCU a couple months back and noticed that upgrade. My first thought was..."that's really nice". Now multiply that by everyone that passes by NCCU everyday. I don't know how much it cost, but if it gives people a favorable impression before you step foot on campus it was well worth it. The same can be said about the turf on their football field. Their stadium is no where near as nice as ours, but I haven't met a person that didn't think their turf looked great...same can be said about Morgan or Hampton. No, these things aren't required...but if I notice I'm sure others do as well.
|
|
|
Post by durhamgsoaggie on Apr 27, 2016 15:11:29 GMT -5
again, ohsix. this is not just about “recruiting”. its also about the “image” of a&t, its about our “brand”. our “image” effects our enrollment as well as potential sponsorships. if dr. martin invited a potential sponsor to our spring game and they saw how poorly kept our grass is, what message do you think that may send to that potential corporate sponsor? it might say that a&t has no “pride” in the way that the public at large views its public facilities, or it might say that a&t is “poorly managed”, or it might say that a&t’s agriculture school ain’t jack, or it might say that a&t just doesn’t give a darn about how it is perceived by the general public. why would a sponsor want to place their money in the hands of an institution who doesn’t give a darn about how it is perceived by the general public? two weeks ago, my son brought his new girlfriend to my house to introduce her to me. can you imagine what impression of me she would’ve had if my lawn had been all “jacked up”, grass not cut with weeds all over the place, or my house wasn’t well kept? these things have meaning to folks, ohsix. the same principle applies to our public facilities that "literally" the whole world can see when we're on espn. a prospective student who sees a poorly kept grass surface on espn or jacked up bleachers in corbett gets a poor impression of a&t if that's all they've ever seen of a&t and a lot of the time, it is all they've seen if they're located in far away areas of the country or world. i think you’re a little too fixated on the idea of only recruiting, but it goes much further than that. there is a reason that 95% (again, my own personal estimate) of all fcs schools don’t have dead grass/dirt in their stadiums. they don’t do it “just because”. they do it because they realize that it reflects poorly on their “image” or their “brand” which directly impact things like enrollment. ohsix, usually i agree with almost all of your posts. but not this one. though i respect your opinion on this, i just don’t agree with it... Let me just say, I'm all for keeping the facilities we DO have looking presentable and in tip-top shape...don't get me wrong. But, the impressiong we give off is that our facilities are so bad once a recruit, sponsor or casual spectator sees them, it's a black-eye on the university. While a few areas probably needs touching up or TLC but no major renovations are in need. It's not that our facilities are bad or unusable. But if all things are equal with academics and satisfaction with the coaching staff, a school with more upgraded facilities is more likely to make a better impression on the recruits and get the higher quality recruits we seek. The only caveat to that right now is FCOA... because that's extra $ directly into the student-athlete's pocket, not in support of them.
|
|
oleschoolaggie
Official BDF member
2009 Poster of the Year, 2009 Most Knowledgeable Poster
Posts: 24,164
|
Post by oleschoolaggie on Apr 27, 2016 15:37:28 GMT -5
last i recall, i believe hilton told us that the reason we haven’t put down field turf was because of the “javelin throw” for track and field, if i remember correctly. i’m “assuming” that’s relative to the practice field because i don’t think they’d throw the javelin in the stadium where athletes are all over the place, but i could be wrong...
|
|
|
Post by bigpeete1 on Apr 27, 2016 17:24:29 GMT -5
THE AGGIES NEED BETTER FAN SUPPORT BEFORE WE SEE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!
|
|
|
Post by durhamgsoaggie on Apr 27, 2016 17:58:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by numberonebrave on Apr 27, 2016 18:23:20 GMT -5
Put in Javelin area by practice field but the football field is still used at all meets
|
|
Maxell
Official BDF member
Director of BDF Marketing
Posts: 12,431
|
Post by Maxell on Apr 27, 2016 18:53:34 GMT -5
last i recall, i believe hilton told us that the reason we haven’t put down field turf was because of the “javelin throw” for track and field, if i remember correctly. i’m “assuming” that’s relative to the practice field because i don’t think they’d throw the javelin in the stadium where athletes are all over the place, but i could be wrong... Yes, that was discussed but not a show stopper. It's just a matter of two things at this point according to our AD: 1. Turf practice field or turf stadium. 2. When to do it. (as it relates to soccer coming onboard in I think 2018)
|
|
Maxell
Official BDF member
Director of BDF Marketing
Posts: 12,431
|
Post by Maxell on Apr 27, 2016 19:48:25 GMT -5
THE AGGIES NEED BETTER FAN SUPPORT BEFORE WE SEE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! You are right, the program always needs more money. But that's not a barrier to the kinds of improvements we're discussing right now. Remember, the program made close to $800,000 from UNC and the CB last year. If you add in AAF that's more than $1 million last year. The financing for a turf field is not cost prohibitive for example: Field Cost: $750,000 Money Game Contribution: $200,000 Naming Rights: $150,000 AAF Contribution: $100,000 Total Down Payment: $450,000 Remaining Amount: $300,000
Financed over 8-year Plan @4%: $50,000 per year or Financed over 5-year Plan @4%: $70,000 per yearThe Athletic Department can afford that now. It's just a matter of deciding when to do it. Construction Time: 10 weeks
|
|
oleschoolaggie
Official BDF member
2009 Poster of the Year, 2009 Most Knowledgeable Poster
Posts: 24,164
|
Post by oleschoolaggie on Apr 27, 2016 20:57:30 GMT -5
It's just a matter of two things at this point according to our AD: 1. Turf practice field or turf stadium. 2. When to do it. (as it relates to soccer coming onboard in I think 2018) in my opinion, i think turf for the stadium would serve us better than turf for the practice field because we'd never have to worry about the stadium turf being in bad shape or the grass turning brown if the stadium surface was turf. also, when women's soccer comes on board, they'd be able to play their games in aggie stadium. also, field turf looks extremely good on tv...
|
|
|
Post by oldschool on Apr 27, 2016 21:44:08 GMT -5
Turf inside the stadium : 1) football field never looks bad 2) when we go off of daylight savings time in the fall ,the football team practices in the stadium because it gets dark around 5 pm , so putting turf on practice field only serves a purpose for half of football season . We would have to install lighting on the practice field also, but then we couldn't use it for track ,the poles would be in the way .
Somebody help me out ,but I think the dimensions of a soccer field ,are bigger than a football field . We would need to either build a soccer facility or use one of the many stadiums in the area .
|
|
|
Post by The Professor on Apr 28, 2016 7:55:44 GMT -5
I've never seen so much conversation about brown grass. lol.
|
|
saabman
Official BDF member
Posts: 11,768
|
Post by saabman on Apr 28, 2016 8:21:10 GMT -5
Turf inside the stadium : 1) football field never looks bad 2) when we go off of daylight savings time in the fall ,the football team practices in the stadium because it gets dark around 5 pm , so putting turf on practice field only serves a purpose for half of football season . We would have to install lighting on the practice field also, but then we couldn't use it for track ,the poles would be in the way . Somebody help me out ,but I think the dimensions of a soccer field ,are bigger than a football field . We would need to either build a soccer facility or use one of the many stadiums in the area . The field dimensions are within the range found optimal by FIFA: 110–120 yards (100–110 m) long by 70–80 yards (64–73 m) wide. These soccer field dimensions are wider than the regulation American football field width of 53 1⁄3 yards (48.8 m), or the 65-yard (59 m) width of a Canadian football field. The playing surface should also consist of grass as opposed to artificial turf, since the latter makes players more susceptible to injuries.
|
|