Since nobody has talked about this on this forum, and because people are making public comments yay or nay on the issue as I write this, I would like to discuss the possibility of a new football stadium for Science Hill.

About two months ago when studies were released stating it would cost the same amount of money to refurbish Roosevelt Memorial Stadium as it would to build a new stadium on the Science Hill campus where the soccer field now sits.

I spoke to city commission at this time and reminded them there is more at stake than just Science Hill. If Roosevelt Memorial Stadium was razed, would it hamper the chances of ETSU reviving football, as it would eliminate a potential venue for the program?

On the other hand, in its current condition, Roosevelt Memorial Stadium is NOT suitable for college football. It's not even suitable for HIGH SCHOOL football- it has got to be one of the three worst facilities for high school football I've ever seen- and I've been to high school games in six states!

What's the board's thoughts? Either a remodeling of the old or a new stadium is going up- but which one is better for bringing back football to ETSU?

This is really a tough question. I read everything in the newspapers about it and the decsion makers are having a hard time with it. I have sentiments that go both ways. I do have a very important question that I would like to raise and it is "do they have to tear down the old stadium to build a new one on Science Hill's campus?" Cannot they keep the old stadium for other events(middle school, track, etc.)? It seems they are trying to make a zero sum game out of it unnecessarily.

The city wants to put the new arts center or something on the site of the old stadium. Personally I think they should do nothing at all and Science Hill continue to play in the current condition, but thats more because I think we should be spending more on downtown flooding, etc. than high school sports. Maybe that also has something to do with the fact that Im not a fan of the arts, and care nothing about seeing an arts center in that location.

If they were to do one or the other, I would prefer them renovate the old place. Science hill has practice fields on their campus, and the stadium is only 5 minutes away.

Science Hill should spend the money and convert Liberty Bell into a football stadium. The layout is PERFECT for it. Tear down that dump next to the ghetto and be done with it.
Science Hill has nothing to do with ETSU, it's a freaking high school. Let them do what they do.

Pitt,

First of all, great to see you posting again.

I am not in favor of city/University joint facilities. I believe a University should control its own, schedules, policies, etc. All it takes is one change in the make-up of any city council...

Another issue would be financing. Would it be legal or ethical to use student fees to build a football facility partially owned by Johnson City? Could the University raise private donations to fund a stadium that wasn't university owned and controlled?

I just see lots of issues.

The reason why I think this is important for football's revival to ETSU is because it is either $15 million (minimum) that DOESN'T have to be raised to revive the program for a new stadium or $15 million that can be raised IN TIME. I think it's much easier to raise that kind of money if there is a team already on the field than if there is only the hope of one.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Pitt, but it makes sense to me that the money should go to a stadium that could house both the high school and ETSU football. It wouldn't be as if state money were being spent for a "private" facility. The facility could be a high school facility, a city facility, a state facility, or a public authority facilty. Science Hill is closer to ETSU than the other place and it would draw both the high school crowd (frenzied at times) and the college crowd (anemic in the past) and maybe actually make ETSU football popular. Still not convinced that bringing Div II football is a workable idea, but I think building a pure "high school" stadium would very much limit the possibility of bringing football back.

By the way, thanks for the kind words Doc.

You can read the JC Press story HERE- http://johnsoncitypress.com/News/article.php?ID=70824

If you have a vested interest I would urge people to attend the Thursday meeting before Johnson City Commission.

Here are my thoughts-

Doc- I think ETSU should have their own facilities, too. But sometimes it is not practical or prudent to do so. Many colleges play at facilities they do not own- ETSU has played at Freedom Hall on occassion. In fact, I think there is more chance for conflicts between track and basketball at Memorial Center than there is with a paid lease at a facility owned by another entity.



The story indicates Science Hill wants this. Therefore, I can't see City Commission saying "Sorry, but we think we know what is better for your football team than you do. We're rebuilding the old yard."


The only way to save Roosevelt Memorial Stadium- and it will not have ANYTHING to do with historic status of the stadium (that's been tried before on many such venues all over the country. It NEVER works) but rather if it is more financially viable to do so. The proponents must PROVE- in two days- that it will cost more to build a new yard. And not with "come on, you know those reports aren't right"- but to SHOW where they are not right.

If they can't do that, then they should argue that having a football-baseball center just off of downtown Johnson City and in Keystone is best for the community. Where will downtown be if 20,000 people (rough estimate) over the course of the year don't go to the area for high school football events? What will that do for downtown's restaurants and merchants? I see a demise.

Let alone the idea that having a baseball park and football stadium within walking distance of a working class neighborhood provides an alternative to drugs, running with gangs, etc. to those people and lends to the community feel of these neighborhoods.

Alas, this is yet another example of why I think this is a bad sports town. Nobody uses that arguement, and it is VERY VIABLE. No, what will revive downtown is, in our community leaders' minds, an arts center there. Or a senior citizens center.

The idea of building around the most indentifiable entertainment entities to the city? Never even crossed our minds . . . .

The other thing is to present this not as an issue for what is best for Science Hill, but what is best for the community. I can tell you right now what is best for Science Hill- it's the new yard.

The arguement needs to be taken BEYOND Science Hill. Will a new stadium be open for the middle school games? Would Science Hill rent it out for semipro games should a team be formed? Will Science Hill be willing to share Fridays or Saturdays for a potential UH or ETSU football team? Those statements must be placed on the record NOW.

Pitt Who?

Welcome back, Pitt. It's been a long dry spell.

Now we can have some REAL discussions.

(09-02-2009 08:26 AM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Doc- I think ETSU should have their own facilities, too. But sometimes it is not practical or prudent to do so. Many colleges play at facilities they do not own- ETSU has played at Freedom Hall on occassion. In fact, I think there is more chance for conflicts between track and basketball at Memorial Center than there is with a paid lease at a facility owned by another entity.

If they can't do that, then they should argue that having a football-baseball center just off of downtown Johnson City and in Keystone is best for the community. Where will downtown be if 20,000 people (rough estimate) over the course of the year don't go to the area for high school football events? What will that do for downtown's restaurants and merchants? I see a demise.

Let alone the idea that having a baseball park and football stadium within walking distance of a working class neighborhood provides an alternative to drugs, running with gangs, etc. to those people and lends to the community feel of these neighborhoods.

Alas, this is yet another example of why I think this is a bad sports town. Nobody uses that arguement, and it is VERY VIABLE. No, what will revive downtown is, in our community leaders' minds, an arts center there. Or a senior citizens center.

The idea of building around the most indentifiable entertainment entities to the city? Never even crossed our minds . . . .

Pitt, I have no problem with ETSU or any other University occasionally using a facility owned by someone else, I have an issue with them not having control over the facility. Let's face it, does ETSU want to become Virginia Intermont and play few if any sports on their campus? (For others, VI plays basketball at Virginia High, softball at Sugar Hollow Park, etc.)

Regarding your comments about downtown revitalization, hasn't that model been proven? Didn't San Diego build a new stadium (baseball I believe) in a less than thriving neighborhood to revive it? I have no issue with saving the old stadium, I have an issue with ETSU trying to make it their home field. I'm okay with playing one game a year there, make it a throwback game.

As I've said city councils change, and mixing politics and Universities never turns out very well (at least in my opinion).

Well remember, the baseball team is currently playing at a city-owned facility.

I'm the first one to agree I think colleges should have their own yards. I still think it isn't best for the University of Pittsburgh to play at Heinz Field instead of have their own on campus stadium, as they did from 1925-99.

But, then again, as soon as the Panthers moved from Pitt Stadium they went to five straight bowl games, whereas it had previously taken them 17 years to go to five bowl games.

What I'm saying is in the hypothetical idea of ETSU football's revival- it would be easier to do it if they could shave $15 million off the price tag- or at the very least EXTEND the time period to raise the amount of money needed for a new football stadium.

I feel many in the BFFF remember when ETSU played at Memorial Stadium for four years in the '70s, so they think automatically it is the best place for the team to play. Bill Meade and Paul Overbay also used to lobby for a move from Memorial Center to Roosevelt Memorial Stadium, so- ERGO- because Memorial Center has a loser's image, football should no longer be played there.

I will tell you I don't think that. As I said before, I've been to countless high school football stadiums, and Roosevelt Memorial Stadium is on my list of the three worst (if you must know, Orr Field in Cloudland with its broken concrete and press box one can't see the game from is one, and Graham Field in Wilkinsburg, Pa. is the other, the latter taking the cake for worst high school football stadium I've ever been to). You couldn't possibly get any recruits who would want to play there if they could go anywhere else- including D-II.

Sightlines notwithstanding, Memorial Center was a much better football stadium for ETSU than Roosevelt Memorial could ever have been. It had more bathrooms, a weight room, offices, locker rooms, concession stands, seats with backs, larger press box, better scoreboard, etc. The concrete wasn't broken and there weren't puddles all around it. It was on campus, as Doc states it was owned by the school, and the players didn't have to worry about the field being torn up by the high school game the night before.

And frankly, if you were in the front row of Roosevelt Memorial Stadium you didn't have a view as good as the front row in Memorial Center.

So personally, I think the best thing for ETSU football revival is to buy new carpet and play at Memorial Stadium for a few years in front of 6,000 empty seats while saying "THANKS DAVE!"

The second idea would be to play on a rotation basis to help promote the program- say two games at the Stone Castle, two at Dobyns-Bennett, and two at wherever Science Hill will call home. That will be a tough sell for recruits, but it would help establish ETSU as the "Tri-Cities team."

These ideas wouldn't necessarily be permanent. It would be like when the Mets played a couple of years at The Polo Grounds before Shea was built.

But I think it is the most practical idea, unless a new or renovated stadium for Science Hill is simply the Taj-Mahal.

In my opinion there are two options: (that's assuming ETSU football makes a return)

1. Science Hill builds a stadium at Liberty Bell or somewhere on the SH campus and ETSU uses it as a temporary fix while their own stadium is being built on campus (I would be happy to have ETSU football play anywhere but an outdoor stadium on campus would best suit the school).

or

2. ETSU gets very nice practice facilities of their own on campus and uses the new Science Hill stadium as its home on Thursdays and Saturdays.

In my personal opinion, I'm not sure we will see football at ETSU for a while. I hope I am wrong. I hope it comes back very soon.

I thought Science Hill played in Steve Spurrier field. Did I dream this up or is this town so Orange that they refuse to call it by that name?

I am probably in the vast minority here, but I would love to see ETSU Football back in the dome.

The facility has many faults as we all know, but I don't think it should be scrapped. The problems the Dome has such as sightlines, press box size, lack of suites, lighting, entrances, old seats, etc. can all be fixed with a retrofit. How awesome would be to renovate for football and basketball both, similar to what Idaho State has done? (See pics in other dome thread) Then we would have a nice, up-to-date facility for both sports, a great recruiting tool for both sports, and a great practice facility for both sports.

For an example, just look down the road. People in Knoxville talked about what an 'eyesore' Thompson-Boling Arena was, and how they should tear off the roof, remove the upper deck, or simply tear the whole place down...now look at it!

As to the new stadium/old stadium question...

If the powers that be are narrow-visioned (and we know that tends to happen around here), and look only at Science Hill Football then the new stadium is already a done deal.

If they consider the community as a whole, and the potential return of ETSU football, then they MUST explore renovation of Roosevelt Stadium...er, Spurrier Field...er, whatever that place is called behind Cardinal Park.

Pitt brings up TONS of great points (welcome back by the way), in looking at the downtown stadium as a community project. There is the potential at that site for a great facility. If the new baseball stadium is completed and Cardinal Park razed, there is even more room for expansion of the current venue.

ETSU could toss in some money on the renovation project as well in exchange for first rights on game day selection and/or minimal-lease occupation. It would then truly be a co-op facilty and could be used for the betterment of the community and as an anchor toward downtown revitalization.

But, again, my primary vote is to retrofit the Dome, put down some new field turf and KICKOFF!

Gold- In east TN they decide to name their stadia twice.

Just as it is Howard Johnson Field at Cardinal Park, it is Steve Spurrier Field at Roosevelt Memorial Stadium.

the dome is almost certainly not going to go. The floor isn't viable, the seating design doesn't work, and the capacity is limited by the fire marshal to a point that would work against us. The state has a ton of other priorities before they will get to redesigning the dome. Football goes nowhere without a new stadium and hitching the ETSU wagon to the Science Hill stadium project sounds like the only realistic way to make a case for football.

If ETSU did return to playing in the Dome, would it cost more to make a big renovation to the Dome or to just build a new stadium?

Good points by everyone. I would just like a return to football period. The talk about leaving the Dome in recent years was due to the fact that it was "sub-standard" and had to be torn down. That obviously is not true and the Dome will be used for years and years to come. They could put the old turf down and start playing again if the powers wanted it. When I was in college we played mostly at the downtown field and I remember it then as awful. Even if you were in the first row you seemed to be a long, long way off the field and had to squint to see the numbers of the players. Ideally the old field should be kept and a new one built at Science Hill and a new one built on campus at ETSU. If the University goes into a split deal witha a high school it will always be known as the school that used a high school field to play on. Now playing occasional games at the Stone Castle and F. Johnson field sounds like a wonderful idea. I would love to go to the Stone Castle to see the Bucs play but if they do not have their own stadium I am afraid they will be a point of ridicule by other schools. Also, if the Bucs share a field with a high school I think the high school will have the priority and call all the shots and that to me would be unacceptable.

81- Here's a rundown of college football teams I know of who played at high school stadiums and what happened to them.

A- Obviously ETSU from 1974-76.

B- Robert Morris (Pa). Division I-AA. Played at the Moon High School Stadium for about the first 10 years of their program, which began as a non-scholarship affair around 1993 or so. They now have their own stadium and give scholarships.

C- Duquense. Division I-AA. This was a school that dropped football after some great success (once played in the Orange Bowl), then brought it back as a club program. They played at South (now Cupples) Stadium on the South Side of Pittsburgh- where all of Pittsburgh's high schools play- before moving into on campus "Rooney Field" some 20 years ago. The program then became a powerhouse non-scholarship program before recently becoming a scholarship program.

D- Malone. Division II school out of Canton, Ohio. Admittedly they played at Fawcett Stadium, home of the NFL's Hall of Fame Game, which is a bit nicer than your average high school stadium. But officially, Fawcett Stadium IS a high school field.

E- Geneva. This is a NAIA school that shares its on-campus football stadium with Beaver Falls High, but all you can ever think of when you go to a game there is JOE NAMATH PLAYED HERE!

F- Brevard. This is where Paul Hamilton is now.

I know what you're saying about how it could be embarassing for a college program to play at a high school field. But certainly in the case of Robert Morris, it succeeded.

What would be embarassing about playing at Roosevelt Memorial Stadium right now is it is such a dump. I have learned when ETSU officials stated it didn't meet Division I-AA standards, it was a nice way of saying the place was run down and didn't have the amenities of Memorial Center. The only requirement the NCAA has regarding a football stadium is a Division I-A program has to have enough seats where they can average 15,000 fans a game.

In hindsight, it was lousy marketing by ETSU not to just say that they weren't going to move their games off campus to a field that had to use the locker rooms in the minor league baseball stadium. It would have done the world to speak of the amentities Memorial Center had and to shut up the media types clamoring for the Bucs to move there.

Now, if you want to know how to make a local high school field the temporary home of the Bucs- what you have to do is have a sizeable press box (which Roosevelt Memorial does not have) and quality locker rooms. I said above a new Science Hill football facility should be built with four locker rooms. That was so both the high school and another potential tenant would have their own locker rooms.

Incidentily, this isn't a novel concept. The Mellon Arena in Pittsburgh actually has four locker rooms, though the spare ones aren't much. It was built in 1961 and is the oldest barn in the NHL.

But it means the world to a team when they don't have to collect their gear and vacate a locker room. If a field is shared with a high school and everybody gets their own space- there's no embarassment.

Yes I would have no problem with the Bucs playing at the old field for however long it took to get everything re-established and going again. I feet that if the administration got funding for a soccer stadium, a softball stadium and now a baseball stadium, then they could get together and get the funding for football. I still like the idea of playing some of these games at the Stone Castle, etc. I am starting to get pumped up again about football and am enjoying this discussion.