(04-27-2018 12:31 PM)brock20 Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 04:05 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  Back when a move to Freedom Hall was discussed, one of the alternatives being thrown around was to retro-fit the Dome by sort of building a "stadium-within-a-stadium". Obviously, as we all know, the ingress/egress issues would have to be solved. But it would be (much, much) cheaper to put an 8,000 seat facility *inside* the Dome than build one from scratch. Yes, the track might be lost, but most of the other uses of the Dome could still be had. And it would be on campus; in the perfect location; with practice courts and dressing rooms; parking in place; etc., etc. I'm not necessarily advocating this direction, but it should sure be looked at long before a decision is made. My memory is Sander kinda liked the idea before the (much) cheaper option of Freedom Hall was settled on. But don't quote me on that.

So were these renderings what was being talked about back then?

I'm not sure. I want to say there were two 'sets' of renderings, but don't at all quote me on that. One was this more 'formal' set with all the various angles, etc., and then it *seems* there was at least one sketch in which the same directional configuration of the court was kept, but the seating/infrastructure was built up around it. Not sure if that ever was published, or put online, or, to be clear, even existed. But I heard about it (second hand), and recall hearing that Sander vaguely liked it (again, second hand). Heck, maybe it was just an explained concept. But........if the ingress/egress/Ludicrous issues could have been solved (and supposedly they could have, but it would have cost quite a bit), then it was the 'leading contender' at that point - whatever weight that carried. As I recall, they even got a rough bid on solving the ingress/egress issue, and it was WAY more than they expected. Maybe those issues are broader than one would think. It not only involved adding more doors, but enlarging the hallways, changing the ramp configurations, etc. It was going to be much more extensive than one would imagine at first thought. Seems like someone else had confirmed hearing that info, too, way back at that time? I can't remember if the MSHA "naming rights" was part of that discussion, too, or not. Maybe? Someone 'explained' all this to me back at that time, but since I wasn't involved in any way, and had no say (duh), I didn't hard-wire it into my brain like I do some things.