(05-23-2016 08:33 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 06:12 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  We really need to stop expecting a brand new stadium out of a $3 million dollar renovation.

The area under these stands was horrible. They are trying to improve it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lights are hardly brand new, I think those and bathrooms was about all anyone was hoping for. Unless they actually change the concessions, anything they'd be doing to build new limestone coated booths would be lipstick on a pig. As for the opening, you're not curious what they're planning with it? A little speculation is fun. For 3 million, I'm sure they'll manage more than bathrooms and try.

Lights.... Not part of scope of work. Topic for another thread

Opening is better egress and visibility to the field. Something that the Glass Bowl does not currently have

What has been presented is much better than lipstick on a pig. Not a new stadium but an improvement




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(05-24-2016 12:12 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 08:33 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 06:12 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  We really need to stop expecting a brand new stadium out of a $3 million dollar renovation.

The area under these stands was horrible. They are trying to improve it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lights are hardly brand new, I think those and bathrooms was about all anyone was hoping for. Unless they actually change the concessions, anything they'd be doing to build new limestone coated booths would be lipstick on a pig. As for the opening, you're not curious what they're planning with it? A little speculation is fun. For 3 million, I'm sure they'll manage more than bathrooms and try.

Lights.... Not part of scope of work. Topic for another thread

Opening is better egress and visibility to the field. Something that the Glass Bowl does not currently have

What has been presented is much better than lipstick on a pig. Not a new stadium but an improvement




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gives the east stands an improved non-High School bleachers look. Very important for video broadcast because the game is usually shot west to east.

(05-24-2016 01:01 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 12:12 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 08:33 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 06:12 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  We really need to stop expecting a brand new stadium out of a $3 million dollar renovation.

The area under these stands was horrible. They are trying to improve it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lights are hardly brand new, I think those and bathrooms was about all anyone was hoping for. Unless they actually change the concessions, anything they'd be doing to build new limestone coated booths would be lipstick on a pig. As for the opening, you're not curious what they're planning with it? A little speculation is fun. For 3 million, I'm sure they'll manage more than bathrooms and try.

Lights.... Not part of scope of work. Topic for another thread

Opening is better egress and visibility to the field. Something that the Glass Bowl does not currently have

What has been presented is much better than lipstick on a pig. Not a new stadium but an improvement




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gives the east stands an improved non-High School bleachers look. Very important for video broadcast because the game is usually shot west to east.

I have no idea why in the world Toledo doesn't somehow, someway make it possible for ESPN and the like to shoot the games capturing the Press Box side...the side that's 20x better than the side they always show. I don't get it. Wouldn't it be almost too easy for the University to build a mini broadcast booth on that side for this to happen?

I'm excited to see the finished product of the open area they're planning. It will surely give that side a noticeably different look and feel.

(05-24-2016 12:12 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 08:33 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 06:12 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  We really need to stop expecting a brand new stadium out of a $3 million dollar renovation.

The area under these stands was horrible. They are trying to improve it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lights are hardly brand new, I think those and bathrooms was about

Lights.... Not part of scope of work. Topic for another thread

Opening is better egress and visibility to the field. Something that the Glass Bowl does not currently have

No, topic for this thread, specific response to your post "we need to stop expecting a new stadium." If you want to dictate the direction of threads, please apply for moderator.


As far as the opening, I don't recall seeing any back-up coming out from the underneath, no demands to put similar on the much more populated West stands. And why would people need better visibility from there? Seems you'd get better visibility from the seats, which are no longer there?

There may be a hundred reasons for that opening and the resultant loss of good seats but I don't think those are it.

(05-24-2016 01:59 PM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  I have no idea why in the world Toledo doesn't somehow, someway make it possible for ESPN and the like to shoot the games capturing the Press Box side...the side that's 20x better than the side they always show. I don't get it. Wouldn't it be almost too easy for the University to build a mini broadcast booth on that side for this to happen?

Wait, is that on topic?

or money making loges (sp?) like UM did but of course, much smaller scale. Not sure there's enough room and of course, they'd have to MOVE THE LIGHT STANDS. :) Just saying.

(05-24-2016 01:59 PM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 01:01 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 12:12 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 08:33 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 06:12 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  We really need to stop expecting a brand new stadium out of a $3 million dollar renovation.

The area under these stands was horrible. They are trying to improve it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lights are hardly brand new, I think those and bathrooms was about all anyone was hoping for. Unless they actually change the concessions, anything they'd be doing to build new limestone coated booths would be lipstick on a pig. As for the opening, you're not curious what they're planning with it? A little speculation is fun. For 3 million, I'm sure they'll manage more than bathrooms and try.

Lights.... Not part of scope of work. Topic for another thread

Opening is better egress and visibility to the field. Something that the Glass Bowl does not currently have

What has been presented is much better than lipstick on a pig. Not a new stadium but an improvement




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gives the east stands an improved non-High School bleachers look. Very important for video broadcast because the game is usually shot west to east.

I have no idea why in the world Toledo doesn't somehow, someway make it possible for ESPN and the like to shoot the games capturing the Press Box side...the side that's 20x better than the side they always show. I don't get it. Wouldn't it be almost too easy for the University to build a mini broadcast booth on that side for this to happen?

Put a small static HD camera on a pole (under $1,000) attached to the back of the east deck and hook it into the press box video cable. Permanent West/press box view.

If they were to move the center light mast to the back it would do a world of good. Seems like it would be appropriate in an upgrade like this.

Make it a double mast, hang a ribbon board between the masts and sell advertising that will be seen on national TV.

You're welcome.

(05-24-2016 07:50 PM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote:  If they were to move the center light mast to the back it would do a world of good. Seems like it would be appropriate in an upgrade like this.

Make it a double mast, hang a ribbon board between the masts and sell advertising that will be seen on national TV.

You're welcome.

This is a really good idea. Send to MOB

michael.obrien6@utoledo.edu


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cut out the middle man, if O'B would just read the board he could get ALL his good ideas. :D

Still not sure why we are removing prime 50 yd line seats? In the few pics I have seen, I am not seeing the net gain on this.

(05-24-2016 11:10 PM)emanoh Wrote:  Still not sure why we are removing prime 50 yd line seats? In the few pics I have seen, I am not seeing the net gain on this.

Maybe they are lower the bleachers to make it more open and higher ceilings. Plus this will allow for a bigger cat walk area which will create more flow.

(05-25-2016 08:12 AM)Stpetebeachrocketfan Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 11:10 PM)emanoh Wrote:  Still not sure why we are removing prime 50 yd line seats? In the few pics I have seen, I am not seeing the net gain on this.

Maybe they are lower the bleachers to make it more open and higher ceilings. Plus this will allow for a bigger cat walk area which will create more flow.

Flow to where? I've never noticed a problem with people movement over there and now that they can stand there and watch the game....

Time will tell.

I agree. Only problem I see is less prime seats.

If seeing the game while getting a coke was the issue, then installing a few screens would have been more cost effective. I see this as net loss of ticket revenue.

Instead of ripping up the field side of the bleachers, could the existing under structure be reconfigured better to accomplish the same thing? I am not an architect.

Prime seats? The 30-30 on the East side is usually the least filled section per game. UT is never selling those out...unless people aren't going to games.

(05-25-2016 09:04 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Prime seats? The 30-30 on the East side is usually the least filled section per game. UT is never selling those out...unless people aren't going to games.

I agree. I have no idea why people are b!tching about losing ~100 seats, when we've had maybe 1-2 sell outs the past 5 years?

(05-25-2016 09:51 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 09:04 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Prime seats? The 30-30 on the East side is usually the least filled section per game. UT is never selling those out...unless people aren't going to games.

I agree. I have no idea why people are b!tching about losing ~100 seats, when we've had maybe 1-2 sell outs the past 5 years?

Well then let's take the EMU approach and cover seats until we get a sell-out!

It's not "b!itching." It's speculating the trade-offs. Losing 100 (probably more) nice low-midfield (called "prime" by most venues), not blocked by light standards seats versus what has so far only been supported as a cosmetic use of the $3 million. If it leads to better concessions, I'm all for it! If it leads to traffic problems, people hanging around close to the beer taps, well....


I generally seem to think these seats had been occupied. Several posters have noted so. Yes there are open spots over there, perhaps season ticket holders that can't make night games? I know my seat on the Westside sometimes goes unoccupied. Does that lend reason to removing it and replacing it with space?

I've not read any reasonable from personal experience suggestions as to why it was done. I've not seen traffic problems in that area, not implying they didn't exist. GB most certainly doesn't want people congregating there, something not possible previously. So, benefits of the change if anything are TBD. Reasons from architects or AD's, non-existent. Doesn't imply, they don't exist. Just implies a vacuum. Vacuum's get filled with speculation.


Speculation: it is a normal thing done by normal people. Now if in the longer run opinion turns out no benefits or they are out-weighed by losses, THEN it will be b!itching.

(05-26-2016 06:06 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 09:51 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 09:04 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Prime seats? The 30-30 on the East side is usually the least filled section per game. UT is never selling those out...unless people aren't going to games.

I agree. I have no idea why people are b!tching about losing ~100 seats, when we've had maybe 1-2 sell outs the past 5 years?

Well then let's take the EMU approach and cover seats until we get a sell-out!

It's not "b!itching." It's speculating the trade-offs. Losing 100 (probably more) nice low-midfield (called "prime" by most venues), not blocked by light standards seats versus what has so far only been supported as a cosmetic use of the $3 million. If it leads to better concessions, I'm all for it! If it leads to traffic problems, people hanging around close to the beer taps, well....


I generally seem to think these seats had been occupied. Several posters have noted so. Yes there are open spots over there, perhaps season ticket holders that can't make night games? I know my seat on the Westside sometimes goes unoccupied. Does that lend reason to removing it and replacing it with space?

I've not read any reasonable from personal experience suggestions as to why it was done. I've not seen traffic problems in that area, not implying they didn't exist. GB most certainly doesn't want people congregating there, something not possible previously. So, benefits of the change if anything are TBD. Reasons from architects or AD's, non-existent. Doesn't imply, they don't exist. Just implies a vacuum. Vacuum's get filled with speculation.


Speculation: it is a normal thing done by normal people. Now if in the longer run opinion turns out no benefits or they are out-weighed by losses, THEN it will be b!itching.

Jumping in here at the end, and didn't read all of the previous posts, but weren't some areas reconfigured to allow handicapped people to see better?