(10-02-2014 11:37 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote: (10-02-2014 09:13 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: That's not how it works, though. Some people expect the help to keep their seat unsullied until their arrival. Rice has season ticket holders who will glare at you and shush you for cheering too loudly. Imagine their ire at finding their seat occupied by riff-raff. Yet they are wealthy donors...
Completely agree and have had experiences where "fans" appear disgusted that you would insult the other team (as if you were talking about their own mother), or where standing up for a key third down play is a foreign concept. Parts of the west side of the stands usually resemble Wimbledon crowds as opposed to fans attending a football game.
I agree wholeheartedly, and why I think a new, smaller, more intimate Rice Stadium, rather than a refurbished HRS, is the answer. Part of the problem is that, as the fan base has atrophied over the past 60 years or so, the regular denizens at Rice have become used to the space at the games, the ability to sit wherever they want - essentially, a "frontier" type atmosphere at Rice Stadium. From a practical perspective, unless there is a big name coming into Rice, we won't see the upper decks filled to capacity again (and that is separate and apart from the accommodation issues and remediations needed at HRS to support such a crowd). By going smaller, it would create a more intimate atmosphere, i.e,, people would be forced to sit in assigned seating, in close quarters, where cheering and yelling and standing at a football game would be the norm. Those who don't want to be a part of that could find themselves in the luxury boxes that would surely be part of a smaller, newer, more intimate Rice Stadium. Yes, HRS is a great facility and an architectural wonder, but I don't think it is what we need moving forward. As it stands, the stadium is a patchwork of "cut and paste jobs" - the tarped endzones, the sections of the east upper deck partitioned out for the Roost. A smaller, more intimate Rice Stadium (with room for expansion) would be more in line with what we need, and more in line with our place in the overall landscape. I understand the tradition argument - I truly get it. But, Stanford, a Pac-10 school, went smaller when it razed Old Stanford Stadium (which held a Super Bowl, Olympic and World Cup Soccer matches) for its new stadium (and they can hardly fill that one, even for a conference championship game with a BCS bid on the line). They even tore down Old Yankee Stadium, which was replete with history and tradition, in favor of a new fancy stadium across the street. I understand the powers that be want to refurbish HRS, but I think a complete redo of the stadium could improve the gameday atmosphere, reignite interest in the program, give us a true homefield advantage, and eliminate those unsightly empty seats in the eastern bowl and upper deck you see on tv. You could still get big schools to play there - see just this past year where A&M and TCU played SMU at Ford Field. Just my two cents.
PS: And I apologize in advance for possibly derailing this thread.
PPS: And regardless, I think that anything that gets done at HRS should include a permanent marker on the field - be it a moon or a star - with the date and the initials "JFK" to commemorate the exact spot where the "Man to the Moon" speech was delivered. It would always be a source of discussion on every broadcast.
/
Fan "Improvements" at Rice Stadium -- e-mail from ticketing
