Latest stadium ideas.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:16 am

gtapp wrote:
iaafan wrote:What would speed this process up is having an administration that doesn't keep screwing things up and forcing the fans, players, and coaches to pay for it.
For instance, if MSU doesn't screw up its books and is forced to play a I-A every year. Or if the powers that be who pick the schedule would have MSU play 3 of its 4 non-conf. games vs. 1 quality I-AA and 2 avg. I-AA at home. MSU should be going 3-1 in the non-conf. and no worse than 5-2 in the conference. That way at 8-3 they are in the playoffs nearly every year. Being in the playoffs nearly every year equates to more fans, more happy fans, happy players, happy coaches.
This year the fans may end up paying for the administrations screw up by seeing the team go 7-4 and miss the playoffs. What a shame. Playing OSU, C-P, SFA and NDSU was asking for a 2-2 non-conf. mark, which means only one mulligan vs. conf. teams.
Next year with No. Colo. coming in will help. Play one I-A and two home games vs. good I-AA teams. But MSU is already playing at NDSU and at Colorado(?) and one non-conf. home game. So 1-2 coming into league and needing to 7-1 to get an at-large. MSU should really get out of the NDSU game and schedule SDSU or Cal-Davis or So. Utah at home.
Then you're 2-1 in non-conf. and can go 6-2 in the league and still make playoffs.
At some point play three I-AA games with no less than two at home. I actually think it'd be benificial in the long run to scrap the Colorado(?) game next year and schedule a home game vs. a I-A. Make the Admin. folks pay for their mistake out of their own pockets. Why do the players, fans, and coaches have to pay and the administration gets off scott free.

If we win against bad teams only, I hope we never go to the playoffs. I wish we would play USC ever year for our 1A game and the top three ranked teams in the nation for our non-conference games every year. If we win the BSC we go to the playoffs so it does not matter what our non-conf record is! It is a waste of a game (and we only have 11) to play anyone that is not close to being as good as we are or better. If we don't win the BSC we don't need to worry about the playoffs. Don't schedule cupcakes to get wins. That is what U of Minnesota does and coach Mason takes a terrible beating in the press every year for that and his team is never prepared for the regular season. I drive 1000 miles one way for every Bobcat game. Don't waste everyones time by scheduling Ft. Lewis, Adams State, So. Utah, etc. Schedule NH, Georgia Southern, Furman, Wollford, Delaware, Youngstown State, etc.

That's noble, but unrealistic. Minnesota is slowing growing into a strong Big Ten team under Mason and he has more admirers than detractors, but comparing MSU to Minnesota is apples to oranges. A good comparison is the Grizzlies, who have done the same thing and it looks like it has worked out pretty well for them. I didn't say schedule all crappy teams and I'm not sure if you're saying I said that. This year's team is very unlikely to make the playoffs with a 5-2 league record. Because 5-2 equals 7-4 and four losses almost always means no playoffs. MSU is 2-2 in non-conf. games because it scheduled games at C-P and at OSU. Had MSU replaced just one of those games with a mid-level team at home, MSU would be a near lock to go 8-3 and make the playoffs this year. I'd rather play home games against a mid-level I-AA team and a road game against a I-AA team, instead of a road game 1,500 miles away against both a I-A and top notch I-AA team. There's still room for two quality I-AAs at home with this scenario. Why set the fans up for a let down?

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:55 am

MaZooLaGriz wrote:
gtapp wrote:You have a following from Darby to Eureka.
Look at PSU, with a pull faaaaar in excess of Western Montana, but who often don't see more than 8,000 fans in their 30,000 seat downtown stadium. Somehow - and I really don't know how - an aura was created which expanded and remains vital, far beyond the five local valleys.

Nah... it's more than the local population.

You can not compare PSU with either MSU or UM. They have professional sports in Oregon and D-1A football. PSU has a lot more competition then either of our schools. The only 1-AA programs that would be a fair comparison would be South Dakota State and North Dakota State, no 1-A Universities or professional teams in their states to compete for potential fans.

I also wanted to reaffirm what BAC said, the Cats have sold out every home game this season. You never seem to have any facts in your posts, just assumptions.

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:43 am

One thing to consider with the OOC scheduling is that with the addition of UNC there will be 1 less OOC game every year. Now there will be 4 conference home games and 4 conference away games every year for each team. Schedule a I-A every year, and a home and home with a good I-AA every year, and you are down to 5 home games every year. That could be good for ticket sales, because there are fewer games to sell out, but also harder to keep up interest in the season when the team is home less than 1/2 the season.

With I-A teams getting the 12th game next year, along with a I-AA game counting towards bowl games every year, there will be a lot more I-AA teams playing I-A teams, I don't see any AD passing up those pay days. But also this means it will be harder to get a I-AA team to come on the road, especially without a home and home, so we will probably see and increase in the number of D-II teams I-AA schedule.

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:09 pm

grizbeer wrote:One thing to consider with the OOC scheduling is that with the addition of UNC there will be 1 less OOC game every year. Now there will be 4 conference home games and 4 conference away games every year for each team. Schedule a I-A every year, and a home and home with a good I-AA every year, and you are down to 5 home games every year. That could be good for ticket sales, because there are fewer games to sell out, but also harder to keep up interest in the season when the team is home less than 1/2 the season.

With I-A teams getting the 12th game next year, along with a I-AA game counting towards bowl games every year, there will be a lot more I-AA teams playing I-A teams, I don't see any AD passing up those pay days. But also this means it will be harder to get a I-AA team to come on the road, especially without a home and home, so we will probably see and increase in the number of D-II teams I-AA schedule.

Good point. We need that 12th game!

MaZooLaGriz · Post by **MaZooLaGriz** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:27 pm

mquast53000 wrote:You never seem to have any facts in your posts, just assumptions.

The fact is that I assume that's not so.

theblackgecko · Post by **theblackgecko** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:54 pm

iaafan wrote:That's noble, but unrealistic. Minnesota is slowing growing into a strong Big Ten team under Mason and he has more admirers than detractors, but comparing MSU to Minnesota is apples to oranges. A good comparison is the Grizzlies, who have done the same thing and it looks like it has worked out pretty well for them. I didn't say schedule all crappy teams and I'm not sure if you're saying I said that. This year's team is very unlikely to make the playoffs with a 5-2 league record. Because 5-2 equals 7-4 and four losses almost always means no playoffs. MSU is 2-2 in non-conf. games because it scheduled games at C-P and at OSU. Had MSU replaced just one of those games with a mid-level team at home, MSU would be a near lock to go 8-3 and make the playoffs this year. I'd rather play home games against a mid-level I-AA team and a road game against a I-AA team, instead of a road game 1,500 miles away against both a I-A and top notch I-AA team. There's still room for two quality I-AAs at home with this scenario. Why set the fans up for a let down?

Considering Kramer's less than stellar non-conference record, the Cats could be starting at an unforgivable loss to a UC Davis type school unstead of the close loss at OSU. The two non-conference wins in 2005 look far better than the two non-conference wins of years part.

One more thing to consider about money. Adding UNC to the 'Sky is going to cost the Montana programs a lot of money, as both are locked into a perpetual series with a program that would have came to town for a mere 60k. Giving up games isn't a problem for programs that do not generate much gate revenue like Sac or EWU, but will be a major drain for the Montana schools.

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:20 pm

geck and zoo...let me assume you are both full of crap...wild assumption i know but no more than the assumptions you are ejaculating...something you should not do in public...

MaZooLaGriz · Post by **MaZooLaGriz** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:05 am

Anyway... back to the issue of stadium ideas, I've been wondering about the differences between our "programs", and how they may have impacted what's happened relative to facilities, which by the very nature of this topic, everyone concedes makes a difference.

Certainly the Griz tradition has much to do with it, but it could also be a failure by your recruiters. Don't you imagine that if Edwards was your QB, you'd have our field? Of course it helped that Denny Washington was a Missoula kid, but is it true that a little more emphasis on the full package of advantages a player can bring, and you'd have something akin to Wa-Griz?

An insane, stupid, even repugnant suggestion that economic advantages be considered when recruiting? A non-issue, because it was pure coincidence in Missoula? Ok... bring it on... I'm off base often enough that I sure could be here.

I like what you're thinking about your facility... it would mean more great football in Montana. But, absent someone dropping a s--t load of cash on your doorstep, it's a pipe dream.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:24 am

theblackgecko wrote:
iaafan wrote:That's noble, but unrealistic. Minnesota is slowing growing into a strong Big Ten team under Mason and he has more admirers than detractors, but comparing MSU to Minnesota is apples to oranges. A good comparison is the Grizzlies, who have done the same thing and it looks like it has worked out pretty well for them. I didn't say schedule all crappy teams and I'm not sure if you're saying I said that. This year's team is very unlikely to make the playoffs with a 5-2 league record. Because 5-2 equals 7-4 and four losses almost always means no playoffs. MSU is 2-2 in non-conf. games because it scheduled games at C-P and at OSU. Had MSU replaced just one of those games with a mid-level team at home, MSU would be a near lock to go 8-3 and make the playoffs this year. I'd rather play home games against a mid-level I-AA team and a road game against a I-AA team, instead of a road game 1,500 miles away against both a I-A and top notch I-AA team. There's still room for two quality I-AAs at home with this scenario. Why set the fans up for a let down?
Considering Kramer's less than stellar non-conference record, the Cats could be starting at an unforgivable loss to a UC Davis type school unstead of the close loss at OSU. The two non-conference wins in 2005 look far better than the two non-conference wins of years part.

One more thing to consider about money. Adding UNC to the 'Sky is going to cost the Montana programs a lot of money, as both are locked into a perpetual series with a program that would have came to town for a mere 60k. Giving up games isn't a problem for programs that do not generate much gate revenue like Sac or EWU, but will be a major drain for the Montana schools.

Well if you think that no matter who MSU plays in non-conf. games they will go 2-2, then, yeah, you may as well play all Top 10 I-A teams. This kind of logic explains a lot. Based on this, I have to agree with MaZooLaGriz...the stadium improvements are a pipe dream. I think w/o a playoff run this year, the fan base drops off considerably next year. If so, then the improvements would entail someone dropping off as MaZooLaGriz put it, a s--tload of cash. But if that was going to happen, it would've happened by now.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 5:16 pm

MaZooLaGriz wrote:
gtapp wrote:You have a following from Darby to Eureka.
Look at PSU, with a pull faaaaar in excess of Western Montana, but who often don't see more than 8,000 fans in their 30,000 seat downtown stadium. Somehow - and I really don't know how - an aura was created which expanded and remains vital, far beyond the five local valleys.

Nah... it's more than the local population.

Yes, but you must look at the state of Oregon. It has 2 I-A teams in U of O and OSU. PSU, as everyone knows, is not the biggest fish in the pond in Oregon (no one in the state cares much about PSU). However, MSU and UM are the biggest schools in MT, so they get all the attention, drawing the largest crowds.

You could compare PSU to UM - Western, or MSU - Billings, from the total in-state fan-base Point of View.

EDIT:

Didn't see the above post that was similar to mine before posting... oops

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:50 pm

Stage one: Why not bowl in both end zones, with sky boxes and a large gathering area to chat with you buds. This area would be open to all ticket holders. The staduim will look complete and the extra boxes will bring in more revenue.

Stage two: Replace the student side to look somethinkg like the booster side, but with more seating.

Stage three. Put a dome over the stadium.

I think a staduim of 20,000 would be large enough. It is better to have a sold out staduim and create a strong preseason demand for tickets, then to have the stadium half sold and hope the walk ins fill the place each week.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 8:07 pm

BobCatFan wrote:Stage one: Why not bowl in both end zones, with sky boxes and a large gathering area to chat with you buds. This area would be open to all ticket holders. The staduim will look complete and the extra boxes will bring in more revenue.

Stage two: Replace the student side to look somethinkg like the booster side, but with more seating.

Stage three. Put a dome over the stadium.

I think a staduim of 20,000 would be large enough. It is better to have a sold out staduim and create a strong preseason demand for tickets, then to have the stadium half sold and hope the walk ins fill the place each week.

A dome over our stadium would be dumb. This is Montana. We play football outside. There is almost no atmosphere when you play ina dome. Here at MSU we play outside and one of the positives is looking at the mountains and other scenery on the backdrop. I would rather go to a game with 14000 crazy fans than sitting in a stadium with 14000 fair-weather fans sitting on their asses.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 8:17 pm

My ideas:

1. Bowl in the North Endzone. (As stated earlier, it will cut down on wind and will obviously add more seating)

2. Replace the bleachers in the South Endzone with new ones. Leave that endzone with just the bleachers in the middle to leave a view of the mountains in the backdrop. (The mountains are an awesome visual at home games and replacing the bleachers would get rid of the cold air that blows up from under the bleachers)

3. Get a new, bigger, scoreboard. (The poeple sitting in the bowled in area would have a hard time seeing the borad if we don't replace it)

4. Don't dome the stadium. (Self explanatory)

5. Add more exits from the tailgate area. (It is ridiculous trying to get out of there at the end of the game)

vike_king · Post by **vike_king** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:49 am

longhorn_22 wrote:My ideas:

5. Add more exits from the tailgate area. (It is ridiculous trying to get out of there at the end of the game)

And in right before the start of the game.

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:05 am

Get rid of all of the stands (including the newer "booster" side stands). Bowl in the enire stadium with a 75 foot high mound of dirt (sloped at 30 degree's). Plant some nice grass and have everyone just sit on the hill. Cheap and will hold as many as you can pack in.

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:11 am

gtapp wrote:Get rid of all of the stands (including the newer "booster" side stands). Bowl in the enire stadium with a 75 foot high mound of dirt (sloped at 30 degree's). Plant some nice grass and have everyone just sit on the hill. Cheap and will hold as many as you can pack in.

Agreed, If they bowl in the North Endzone, then they should just bring in a mound of dirt for the south side and plant some grass. Colorado State did the same thing in the first phases of their stadium as well and it can hold temporary fans early in the year on the grass as well as you can build into later if you ever need to. The Sound impact would be enormous. I think we really need to get the stadium enclosed. This means either adding dirt on both sides first and then building (at minimum) as the louder we can get it, the better our home field advantage becomes, which means the more opportunity we have to win all our home games every year (6 wins) ===> PLAYOFFS if you win all those and split your road games. This is how the Griz do it every year.