(08-09-2021 09:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-08-2021 09:47 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, chairs might be tough to do given the permanence of the stadium concrete. It would be an exorbitant expense to tear any of it up. The university could make chair backs available for free to anyone who wants them.
This, though is what makes me think they are potentially do-able using modern engineering.
If we could put those 'stadium seats' everywhere, there is no reason to think we couldn't design seats that fit in the current configuration.... or as others have suggested, pour new material (recycled plastic?) with a different stagger over the old.
I can't imagine its more expensive to tear up the seating deck between the end zones and re-pour it than it is to tear down the entire stadium. Maybe I'm wrong. Leave the upper decks as bench seating for now.
I'm sure it would be very expensive to tear up concrete and repour. I agree that the only places that need chairbacks are on the lower decks. I'd install seating on the
entire lower bowl, including the endzone. If the upper deck were ever removed, those seats would definitely be needed for big games.
(08-09-2021 09:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-08-2021 09:47 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, chairs might be tough to do given the permanence of the stadium concrete. It would be an exorbitant expense to tear any of it up. The university could make chair backs available for free to anyone who wants them.
This, though is what makes me think they are potentially do-able using modern engineering.
If we could put those 'stadium seats' everywhere, there is no reason to think we couldn't design seats that fit in the current configuration.... or as others have suggested, pour new material (recycled plastic?) with a different stagger over the old.
I can't imagine its more expensive to tear up the seating deck between the end zones and re-pour it than it is to tear down the entire stadium. Maybe I'm wrong. Leave the upper decks as bench seating for now.
Not sure that would pass muster with the admin's allegedly "green" stance. Maybe use bamboo instead.
![[Image: Tokyo-Olympics-Inside-Ariake.jpg]](https://easternwhitepine.org/wp-content/uploads/Tokyo-Olympics-Inside-Ariake.jpg)
Some of the venues designed for the just completed Tokyo Olympics were built out of wood - specifically for environmental or historical reasons. The gymnastics venue had all wooden seats. These would look great at Rice Stadium. Although I suppose the Houston climate would be tough on them.
It appeared that the Tokyo climate wasn't much different than Houston. It'll be interesting to see how the wood holds up.
(08-09-2021 11:04 AM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ] (08-09-2021 09:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-08-2021 09:47 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, chairs might be tough to do given the permanence of the stadium concrete. It would be an exorbitant expense to tear any of it up.
.... or as others have suggested, pour new material (recycled plastic?) with a different stagger over the old.
I'm sure it would be very expensive to tear up concrete and repour.
I offered the solution a few pages ago: the nation's first all-first-class stadium!
(08-04-2021 07:30 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2021 06:36 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2021 02:30 PM)Pimpa Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2021 11:52 AM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ] (08-04-2021 09:37 AM)Pimpa Wrote: [ -> ]So is NOW the appropriate time for the sandwich boards???
In all seriousness, I hope/pray/wish JK is working the phones/email/texts/instagram/tik tok or whatever else the power brokers use to communicate these days to advocate for Rice and better our conference position. We have wasted so much time languishing with our performances in the big money sports since the last round of massive realignment ('10-'11). If we had capitalized on our conference victory in 2013 and trip to the Liberty Bowl, we would be in a much stronger position now. But, instead, we kept DB on for too long, and after the 2014 Hawaii Bowl, we haven't sniffed the postseason or football relevance since. I guess we hope that someone throws us a lifeline and bets on the promise of Rice, and the academic prestige (whatever that is worth) the school brings to any conference.
Everyone already knows about Rice. They all know what it stands for, what it offers, and what it can't offer. There's nothing any sales pitch or sandwich board can do to change that. It's too late. Actions speak louder than words, and for 40 years Rice has taken no action.
I partly agree with you. If we had a massive renovation project for Rice Stadium that we've been holding close to the chest, NOW would be a really, really good time to release those. At least it could show fans/potential suitors/Joe Public that we are serious about our commitment to playing the right way at the highest levels.
But I disagree with the sentiment that we do nothing and rest on our laurels. To paraphrase Jack Burton from "Big Trouble in Little China", "Where has that gotten us? Nowhere....fast." In other words, resting on our academic reputation, our location, etc., hasn't moved the needle in the past, and is highly unlikely to move the needle now. We have had opportunity after opportunity to make things right to make sure we weren't left behind since the dissolution of the Southwest Conference, and, by resting on our reputation/location/etc., we've just slid down the food chain. I started my original post by making a backhanded joke about Greenspan, but what is the cost for JK/BOT/Leebron to come out HARD in selling Rice to anyone that will have us? It costs us nothing, it signals who we are and what we want, and if it works to improve our lot, all the better. We can't afford to do things the old way, we can't afford to just sit back and hope we get a lifeline from someone. We need to be proactive. If nothing else than to at least signal to the few of us who still care about Rice Athletics that we are serious and in it for the long haul.
Behind the scenes, I'm sure everyone from top to bottom is doing all it can to be sure Rice finds a lifeline. I'm not concerned about that. The problem is that there's nothing you can do now to suddenly change the image of the athletics program when all three of your biggest sports have been bad for several years.
If Rice gets into the AAC, it's going be because the private schools value academic pedigree, a shared history, and location over actual performance on the field. There's nothing we can show on the men's side that speaks of success. It's going to be for other reasons that we're invited.
Agree wholeheartedly with you final comment. However, there is president. Do tell what Rutgers brought to the Big10 in ANY sports for either men or women....and they're not exactly known for their academic prowess either. What they brought was the NY Metro area, and virtually nothing else. Maryland was pretty much the same situation, except they had a solid (but not elite) basketball program....but they brought the extended DC metro area. Similarly, at the time they joined the then Pac-10, what exactly did Utah or Colorado bring? Yes, Utah could be counted on to have a quality, post-season caliber basketball program, but their football program only improved after they joined the Pac-12.
The motivations for the realignment moves 10 years ago are different than the motivations now. 10 years ago, all of the large conferences were interested in creating their own conference linear TV network, particularly in light of the pending creation of the Longhorn Network. The push at that time was for the SEC, ACC, Big Ten and Pac 12 to create networks and open up potential TV markets that cable providers could then charge for as part of a Sports tier. Thus, while the SEC wanted entry into Texas for other reasons as well (see: recruiting), it allowed them to claim Texas and Missouri as potential "home" markets for their linear TV channel when selling it to cable providers. The BIG wanted to get into the NY/NJ and DMV markets, hence the addition of Rutgers and Maryland. Colorado and Utah crated a solid geographic footprint for the PAC12. The PAC 12 also did things differently - they create one "global" network for sporting events across the conference, then created six individual channels for a pair of schools that would then exclusively show programming and sporting events (track, volleyball, baseball, soccer) related only to those schools. Thus, there was PAC 12 LA (UCLA-USC), PAC 12 Washington (UW and WSU), PAC 12 Bay Area (Stanford and Cal), PAC 12 Arizona (AZ and AZ St.) and then PAC 12 Mountain (Utah and Colorado). The problem with the PAC 12 is they didn't partner with an established network with preexisting distributions (a la SEC and ESPN or the BIG and Fox), so no one felt obliged to pick up their networks. The PAC 12 networks has been a giant albatross in this media contract for the PAC12, while the SEC and BIG's respective networks have seen a good deal of success.
All of that being said, things are different now. Markets don't matter in this day and age of streaming and cord cutting - only brands do. Whereas Rice may have been attractive from a TV market standpoint during prior realignment cycles (i.e., the Houston TV market), now the conferences care about brands and how that will increase ad buys, ratings and marketing power. The SEC didn't need the state of Texas as a market anymore, but they could definitely prosper by adding the brand of the University of Texas and OU. Now, Rice's location in Houston may help in opening up (or keeping) recruiting bases for some schools in Houston and Texas, but the lack of a winning "brand" (which we had about 10 years to really develop) is what hurts Rice in this realignment cycle. That's why we should be proactive and willing to think outside the box.
(08-09-2021 12:27 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (08-09-2021 11:04 AM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ] (08-09-2021 09:53 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-08-2021 09:47 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, chairs might be tough to do given the permanence of the stadium concrete. It would be an exorbitant expense to tear any of it up.
.... or as others have suggested, pour new material (recycled plastic?) with a different stagger over the old.
I'm sure it would be very expensive to tear up concrete and repour.
I offered the solution a few pages ago: the nation's first all-first-class stadium!
I like it George, though I would change things up a little bit to incorporate some of the musings above.......
1) Turn the stadium 'green'. Solar, wind. You could even make the upper decks giant solar panels (Like Teslas solar roofs) or even just 'solar paint' that I understood we were working on years ago.... as they sit empty 300+ sunny days a year. Backfeed the University... Charge some batteries... have some engineering studies on wind and solar collection and also battery technology utilizing the stadium. Power was always an issue... problem solved. We could potentially power the entire University without additional footprint. There is potentially government funding and certainly University/research revenue potential here.
https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/solar-...olar-cells
2) Do the same with seat designs and materials. This could become a model for retrofitting thousands of high school and college stadiums globally. Put a recycled tire surfacing on all the walking treads... I don't know...
The idea is that we combine the Universities need to generate money and to engage in research with Athletics relatively large footprint and need to spend money.
The possibilities are literally endless here.
IMAGINE if we could create a 'concrete paint' that could generate electricity from thousands of mostly idle stadiums globally?? You might get a government subsidy or at least an energy cost savings by 'sprucing up' a drap concrete stadium.
(08-09-2021 12:13 PM)RiceBull Wrote: [ -> ]It appeared that the Tokyo climate wasn't much different than Houston. It'll be interesting to see how the wood holds up.
That's an indoor venue, so one would think it would be fine. The redesigned track stadium had some wood on the exterior though (but the seats were traditional plastic).
(08-09-2021 12:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I like it George, though I would change things up a little bit to incorporate some of the musings above.......
1) Turn the stadium 'green'. Solar, wind. You could even make the upper decks giant solar panels (Like Teslas solar roofs) or even just 'solar paint' that I understood we were working on years ago.... as they sit empty 300+ sunny days a year. Backfeed the University... Charge some batteries... have some engineering studies on wind and solar collection and also battery technology utilizing the stadium. Power was always an issue... problem solved. We could potentially power the entire University without additional footprint. There is potentially government funding and certainly University/research revenue potential here.
https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/solar-...olar-cells
2) Do the same with seat designs and materials. This could become a model for retrofitting thousands of high school and college stadiums globally. Put a recycled tire surfacing on all the walking treads... I don't know...
The idea is that we combine the Universities need to generate money and to engage in research with Athletics relatively large footprint and need to spend money.
The possibilities are literally endless here.
IMAGINE if we could create a 'concrete paint' that could generate electricity from thousands of mostly idle stadiums globally?? You might get a government subsidy or at least an energy cost savings by 'sprucing up' a drap concrete stadium.
Some brilliant ideas on this board here and in the past --- isn't there a way to introduce them to decision-makers on campus?
We absolutely should be innovative and as proactive as possible!
Agree. They don't know what the hell they are doing. Rice Stadium should have been the first of the athletics infrastructure to be renovated, not the last.
(08-09-2021 02:17 PM)Barney Wrote: [ -> ] (08-09-2021 12:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I like it George, though I would change things up a little bit to incorporate some of the musings above.......
1) Turn the stadium 'green'. Solar, wind. You could even make the upper decks giant solar panels (Like Teslas solar roofs) or even just 'solar paint' that I understood we were working on years ago.... as they sit empty 300+ sunny days a year. Backfeed the University... Charge some batteries... have some engineering studies on wind and solar collection and also battery technology utilizing the stadium. Power was always an issue... problem solved. We could potentially power the entire University without additional footprint. There is potentially government funding and certainly University/research revenue potential here.
https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/solar-...olar-cells
2) Do the same with seat designs and materials. This could become a model for retrofitting thousands of high school and college stadiums globally. Put a recycled tire surfacing on all the walking treads... I don't know...
The idea is that we combine the Universities need to generate money and to engage in research with Athletics relatively large footprint and need to spend money.
The possibilities are literally endless here.
IMAGINE if we could create a 'concrete paint' that could generate electricity from thousands of mostly idle stadiums globally?? You might get a government subsidy or at least an energy cost savings by 'sprucing up' a drap concrete stadium.
Some brilliant ideas on this board here and in the past --- isn't there a way to introduce them to decision-makers on campus?
We absolutely should be innovative and as proactive as possible!
You are assuming these "decision-makers" want to do something.
I do agree there have been some interesting ideas presented here.
Strange alliance for a total of 34 teams. The Big 10 and ACC would make more sense. Probably depends if Notre Dame would join too.
(08-14-2021 08:15 AM)ausowl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-13-2021 10:02 PM)texowl2 Wrote: [ -> ]This may have been posted before, but a good (and sad) read
https://www.texasmonthly.com/arts-entert...onference/
Thanks for posting. Great to read Burka again.
It’s an interesting article, but ultimately irrelevant. Burka couldn’t foresee the monumental change that started with the demise of the Southwest Conference, and the eventual demarcation of the haves and have-nots by the unimagined windfall of big television money. Rice has now been among the left-behinds three times over the past 25 years. The will of the board and administration to reverse that trend has never been needed more than it is now. Without that will, Rice athletics is being left for dead, no matter who the AD is.
(08-14-2021 01:07 PM)Uncle Benjamin Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2021 08:15 AM)ausowl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-13-2021 10:02 PM)texowl2 Wrote: [ -> ]This may have been posted before, but a good (and sad) read
https://www.texasmonthly.com/arts-entert...onference/
Thanks for posting. Great to read Burka again.
It’s an interesting article, but ultimately irrelevant. Burka couldn’t foresee the monumental change that started with the demise of the Southwest Conference, and the eventual demarcation of the haves and have-nots by the unimagined windfall of big television money. Rice has now been among the left-behinds three times over the past 25 years. The will of the board and administration to reverse that trend has never been needed more than it is now. Without that will, Rice athletics is being left for dead, no matter who the AD is.
sadly right on point and I doubt that will exists as neglect is the least bloody way to kill something....
(08-14-2021 03:12 PM)texowl2 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2021 01:07 PM)Uncle Benjamin Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2021 08:15 AM)ausowl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-13-2021 10:02 PM)texowl2 Wrote: [ -> ]This may have been posted before, but a good (and sad) read
https://www.texasmonthly.com/arts-entert...onference/
Thanks for posting. Great to read Burka again.
It’s an interesting article, but ultimately irrelevant. Burka couldn’t foresee the monumental change that started with the demise of the Southwest Conference, and the eventual demarcation of the haves and have-nots by the unimagined windfall of big television money. Rice has now been among the left-behinds three times over the past 25 years. The will of the board and administration to reverse that trend has never been needed more than it is now. Without that will, Rice athletics is being left for dead, no matter who the AD is.
sadly right on point and I doubt that will exists as neglect is the least bloody way to kill something....
Wild that Burka wrote this in 1974,
"
The search for more money, not a desire to play stronger opposition, is behind the occasional talk of a Super Conference that would see Texas pulling out of the SWC to join an elite organization of the nation’s traditional football powers."
(08-14-2021 03:12 PM)texowl2 Wrote: [ -> ]sadly right on point and I doubt that will exists as neglect is the least bloody way to kill something....
But make no mistake, the neglect started with Rice's own neglect of athletics, starting at least as early as the late 1960s (I can't really speak of earlier times, because I didn't get here until 1965, but by 1967 the not-so-benign neglect of Rice athletics was well underway).
Blame TexasU, blame aTm, blame Baylor, blame TT, blame Arkansas, blame UH, blame Ann Richards, blame Bob Bullock, blame the Denver airport gang, blame whomever you want, but the bottom line is that we did this to ourselves.
I still want to be a fly on the wall in the first SEC meeting when TexasU starts telling Bama and Florida and Georgia and LSU that they don't know how to run a conference. TexasU arrogance versus SEC pride will be a fascinating matchup.