OCS vs. IPF : The Facility Debate

The main discussion board for everything Tulane athletics related.
User avatar
NOLABigSteve
Riptide
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:00 am
Location: New Orleans, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

I walked on to the Tulane football team back in the Fall of '99. I wasn't recruited. That being said, most players who I befriended didn't choose Tulane because of playing in the Superdome. They were well aware of the gameday atmosphere (or lack thereof) well before they came to Tulane.

The thing that was missing was tradition. A connection to the school on gameday.

I know for a fact most none of us ever complained about having to practice outside in the heat or the rain. Hell, I 100% believe that practicing in the August heat was one hell of an advantage conditioning-wise over much of our competition. Sure, we weren't bigger or stronger than most teams we faced, but we could sure outlast them (minus the home opener vs. USM back in '99 when Scelfo has us doing 2-a-days right up to a week before the season opener). When the weather got really bad outside, we would even take our modified practice into the Reily basketball courts.

While an IPF does guarantee the practice time, there is a misconception that this practice time always equals a better team. Practicing in an air-conditioned building protected from the elements in no way equates to a better football team. Players make the team, not the facilities.

With what little space we do have on campus, I'm in favor of a stadium. HOWEVER, like many on here have said, it cannot be 25K. In my opinion, anything under 38K marks us permanently small time. If that is not doable, then yes an IPF facility would be the better option. But if we can get to a tolerable stadium capacity, the stadium is the much better option. If it can be done right, then we do it. A recruit walking on campus will respond much better to a stadium vs. a big square building over a field.

Yes, there are many, many other issues that need to be addressed before Tulane football can get back on the map. An OCS or IPF does not change anything. I'm talking strictly facilities here. Nothing else.

But maybe, just maybe, the on campus stadium can restore some semblance of tradition for Tulane Football.


Roll Wave!
Tulane University c/o 2003
Football Defensive End '99, '00, '01, '02
2002 Hawaii Bowl Champions
School of Engineering (Computer Science)
gbgreenie
Surge
Posts: 968
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:12 pm
Status: Offline

I strongly agree we need a oncampus stadium but it needs to hold at least 35,000 and I believe it will. We will never have full student participation without an campus stadium. The students are the heart of a fanbase in College Football. As the Student Population continues to grow this will be a bigger base for a fanbase. Other fans will come back into the fold once we get Sat. nite football on campus including the Neighborhoods around campus. This area also will be a base for new fans. When I park and walk to a baseball game I hear residents asking what time is the game. Because it is walking distance they go to the game. Wake up those against a OCS you are totally wrong.
RWR
Swell
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:18 pm
Status: Offline

As I said in the other thread they will build a 25,000 seat stadium w/out parking if given the funds. For arguments sake let's say they build a 35,000 seat one. It still brands us small time and we won't be able to play big time opponents there. so then people say we'll play those in the dome. Then what's the point. Also high schools complain of the cost of Gormley so they won't be willing to pay to play here. Benson is going to build a 5-6,000 seat stadium for HS games so that will hurt too.

As for the IPF if it's good enough for the Super Bowl Saints it's good enough for us. We'll only practice in it when needed. It will keep us from having dead legs in an opener or missing valuable practice time that htis staff has complained about so much.
User avatar
RobertM320
Green Wave
Posts: 9887
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Covington, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

RWR wrote:As I said in the other thread they will build a 25,000 seat stadium w/out parking if given the funds. For arguments sake let's say they build a 35,000 seat one. It still brands us small time and we won't be able to play big time opponents there.
I agree it needs to be more than 25,000. I also agree with your point of not being able to play big time opponents in a 35,000 seat stadium. But have a little more vision. Did old Tulane Stadium START as an 83,000 seat stadium? No. Was Tiger Stadium originally a 90,000+ stadium? No. Just because we start with 35K doesn't mean that's the largest it can ever be.

As long as we "build with vision", we can incorporate the capabilities of expansion into a 35K seat stadium. For instance, IIRC, isn't Zephyr Field designed in such a way that they could expand it from 12K to 35K if New Orleans were to ever get a MLB team? Same could apply here. It has to be 35K to start, but it doesn't have to end there.

I also think part of the problem regarding student attendance is the Univiersity itself. Even when I was there during the Larry Smith years and beyond, there was NOTHING done on campus to create a game day type environment. Don't you think that lack of interest on the part of the University trickles down to the students? I've been to Ole Miss, Alabama, Auburn and other places on game day. Its not JUST tailgating, like some argue. Gameday is an event that encompasses the entire campus. There are parties and tents and entertainment in all they open areas. If Tulane did the same, the students would follow. Its been a long time since Tulane could say they made that effort, if they ever have.
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
sader24
Tsunami
Posts: 5695
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:35 pm
Status: Offline

I agree wholeheartedly with the 38K number. I agree a 38-45K stadium on campus would be the better option as far as the IPF goes. Here's the problem as I see it regarding the stadium:
1)The number that has been thrown around is 25K, that is simply unacceptable on every level
2) When you talk about expanding this stadium you have to realize that Tulane moves at a pace slower than just about anyone. Tulane stadium was expanded all those times because of the Sugar Bowl Committee or whatever it was called back then so they could draw big opponents for the Sugar Bowl.
3) Where are they going to put this stadium? I don't see anywhere to put it personally unless its a shoebox
4) Where are people going to park?
5) Is 60 million for a 25K stadium?
6) If they have to find a site off-campus what's the difference and why are we doing it?
If they build a 38,000 person stadium on campus with room for expansion I'm in, otherwise it's wasting our time.
User avatar
JTLiuzza
Swell
Posts: 1264
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:10 pm
Status: Offline

You can build anything you want on campus. Once the new stadium smell wears off nobody, and I mean nobody save for the few who show up now are going to come out and watch 2-10, 3-9, 4-8 football complete with a few blow outs per year.

In this entire thread (and others on the subject) not one time is the phrase "winning games" used.

The "build it and they will come" approach doesn't work. Ask SMU.

A facility of our own would be great at some point. But the priority now should be doing what is necessary to build a respectable football program. Can you do both concurrently? Sure. But in reality they're not moving on either front. Just talking and distracting people in the process.

The "playbook" should be enough evidence that they are not going to substantially change their approach to running a football program so don't expect us to be perched at the top of the conference anytime soon, despite Cowen's malarkey. And the stadium talk is to keep everybody's mind off the first part.

It seems to be working.
The second commandment has not been abrogated.
IM42lane
Swell
Posts: 2134
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:36 pm
Location: Hammond, LA 70401-1519
Contact:
Status: Offline

Steve, I, too, would love to have another Tulane Stadium on campus. When I am at a baseball game and I sit in my usual spot on the left field line, I often look over my shoulder and remember when there once was an 85,000 seat Tulane/Sugar Bowl Stadium that is now occupied by the newer student dorms/apartments. I saw so many games (Tulane, Saints, Sugar Bowl, and others) at that old place when I was growing up. It was a part of my development into adulthood.

Right now, as every well-informed Tulane fan knows, there is a regulation artificial turf football field in back of the Wilson Center, and the logical thing to do would be to find a way to build a stadium structure around that field (with a minimum of field readjustment). But, realistically speaking, how can that be done? That general area is extremely land-locked. One of the sidelines is up against a local resident's back yard with only a retaining wall separating the resident's yard and the running track along the sideline near the 50-yard-line of the field. It is a very tight fit for any proposed seating along that sideline. This is concern # 1 which would have to be addressed.

The other problem that would have to be addressed is adequate parking areas for the football games. Even if Tulane only built a facility which held 30,000, the parking availability for games on or near campus would be a nightmare. This is concern # 2 which would have to be addressed.

If anyone can not supply a workable solution for each of these issues, then the talk of a new Tulane Stadium should not even come up. My emotions say go ahead with a new stadium, but my common sense tells me that it really is not workable because of what I state above.

So, what do you and everyone think?
Regards,
"Pete" Madere
User avatar
NOLABigSteve
Riptide
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:00 am
Location: New Orleans, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

1ndabag wrote:In this entire thread (and others on the subject) not one time is the phrase "winning games" used.
I'm talking strictly one vs. the other in this thread. We all know the other problems with Tulane Football. I'm really just looking for thoughts and pros/cons for each option.

With regards to footprint, I don't think it's impossible. Of course, you'd need a creative architect.

With regards to parking, what did they do for parking back in the days of the old Tulane Stadium?

I would park off St. Charles or back by the fly, tailgate, BBQ, then walk over to the stadium.
Roll Wave!
Tulane University c/o 2003
Football Defensive End '99, '00, '01, '02
2002 Hawaii Bowl Champions
School of Engineering (Computer Science)
RWR
Swell
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:18 pm
Status: Offline

People are fond of saying just be creative and make it 35,000. Again I'll point out 35,000 is small time. Secondly they can be as creative as they want there is only space to cram in a 25,000 seat stadium and that is why they are aiming for that.

People used to park in the neighborhood. They won't do that anymore in this day and age. You can't build a stadium and then tell people to figure out the parking on their own. You can also rest assured people will not be allowed by the city to park on the fly and leave their cars. Many kids leagues operate there and they won't tolerate there spaces being used up for people not involved in those events. iIm not looking to argue I'm just asking that people be practical and honest w/their assesments.To me the topic should have been titled "Are you for the 25,000 seat stadium Tulane will build if given the funds" b/c that is the reality of the situation.
User avatar
JTLiuzza
Swell
Posts: 1264
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:10 pm
Status: Offline

NOLABigSteve wrote:
1ndabag wrote:In this entire thread (and others on the subject) not one time is the phrase "winning games" used.
I'm talking strictly one vs. the other in this thread. We all know the other problems with Tulane Football. I'm really just looking for thoughts and pros/cons for each option.

With regards to footprint, I don't think it's impossible. Of course, you'd need a creative architect.

With regards to parking, what did they do for parking back in the days of the old Tulane Stadium?

I would park off St. Charles or back by the fly, tailgate, BBQ, then walk over to the stadium.
Like RWR said, they used to park in the neighborhood. I don't think you can count on that anymore. In fact, and somebody who knows can jump in, I don't think it is even legal in the city anymore to build such a facility without first providing for parking, so that would be another huge issue especially where space is concerned.

It would be interesting if somebody who knows the law on that could chime in.
The second commandment has not been abrogated.
User avatar
RobertM320
Green Wave
Posts: 9887
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Covington, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

1ndabag wrote:You can build anything you want on campus. Once the new stadium smell wears off nobody, and I mean nobody save for the few who show up now are going to come out and watch 2-10, 3-9, 4-8 football complete with a few blow outs per year.

In this entire thread (and others on the subject) not one time is the phrase "winning games" used.

The "build it and they will come" approach doesn't work. Ask SMU.
I don't think the "winning games" aspect has ever been in question. I think we all agree that without the commitment to a consistently winning program, a stadium would be useless. The winning is first and foremost. BUT, with some VISION, we CAN build a stadium that would enhance the gameday experience NOW, help to redevelop our virtually non-existent fan base (i.e., students and locals), and STILL allow us the ability to not be confined to a 30-35K seat stadium in the future.

This is a one shot deal. Its imperative that, whatever gets done, its done right the FIRST time. There won't be a second chance.
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
User avatar
NOLABigSteve
Riptide
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:00 am
Location: New Orleans, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

RobertM320, I agree. That's kind of my point with this.

Like it or not, they (from what we've been told) are planning something. And if we are planning a facility, then we need to do it right, whichever way that is. Everyone bring up all your points here. They're reading. That's for sure.
Roll Wave!
Tulane University c/o 2003
Football Defensive End '99, '00, '01, '02
2002 Hawaii Bowl Champions
School of Engineering (Computer Science)
User avatar
JTLiuzza
Swell
Posts: 1264
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:10 pm
Status: Offline

RobertM320 wrote:This is a one shot deal. Its imperative that, whatever gets done, its done right the FIRST time. There won't be a second chance.
Right. So if they're out fund raising for this thing (which I doubt), they would have to have completed a feasibility study taking all issues into account. Otherwise they won't get a dime from anybody that has money to throw around.

Nobody is going to give them millions based on some vague, nebulous stadium concept.

What about all the code issues? Parking. Even building height. You guys might remember a number of years ago Tulane wanted to build dorms on the Uptown Square site but was shot down by the nimbys. Part of what Tulane capitulated on in order to silence the nimbys was the height of the building. They shaved off a few floors and still didn't get approval. And the height issue, as I recall, was not just some random complaint thrown up by obstructionist neighbors. I believe it is actually in the building code for uptown; nothing over a certain height. So much for "going vertical" with a stadium. Can code requirements be waived? Certainly, if you've got the political pull, if there is not a vocal opposition from local voters (fat chance), etc.

I'm not trying to simply sit back and cite all the reasons why we can't just for the sake of being contrarian. But any responsible organization must look at all these issues before anything else is done.

Has Tulane done that? Is there a study floating around somewhere? Does Mr. Schultz who was quoted in the paper and who is talking about fund raising have the specifics in his hand when he talks to people with deep pockets about supporting such a project? Did our crackerjack beat reporter ask about such things when she was preparing her story on the stadium issue?

If Tulane has not lifted a finger investigating these things, then I submit they are not serious and are, once again, simply throwing pablum out there for the hungry, restless natives to keep us occupied. Maybe Tammy, in her follow up story on the stadium, can ask the question, "how far along is Tulane in investigating the feasibility and requirements of the stadium project?"
The second commandment has not been abrogated.
User avatar
RobertM320
Green Wave
Posts: 9887
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Covington, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

1ndabag wrote:
RobertM320 wrote:This is a one shot deal. Its imperative that, whatever gets done, its done right the FIRST time. There won't be a second chance.
..... I'm not trying to simply sit back and cite all the reasons why we can't just for the sake of being contrarian. But any responsible organization must look at all these issues before anything else is done.

Has Tulane done that? Is there a study floating around somewhere? Does Mr. Schultz who was quoted in the paper and who is talking about fund raising have the specifics in his hand when he talks to people with deep pockets about supporting such a project? Did our crackerjack beat reporter ask about such things when she was preparing her story on the stadium issue?

If Tulane has not lifted a finger investigating these things, then I submit they are not serious and are, once again, simply throwing pablum out there for the hungry, restless natives to keep us occupied. Maybe Tammy, in her follow up story on the stadium, can ask the question, "how far along is Tulane in investigating the feasibility and requirements of the stadium project?"
100% agreed. So, maybe its time we push to find out the answer to this. Has there been a study, or not? There must be people in the city planning dept, neighbors, etc, who've been approached about this. Has anyone heard anything? My guess is no, which means they've probably done none of this.
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
User avatar
tumbuuh
Ripple
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:18 pm
Location: New Orleans
Status: Offline

I think it's pretty reasonable to assume they've already considered the issue of parking. There's the Rosen Lot for one - I'm pretty sure they could put a decent parking structure there. As for fitting the stadium, I've heard they'd demolish the tennis courts and put the entire thing at a bit of an angle to Ben Weiner, but I have trouble picturing that to be honest. But I think a big positive that's overlooked is revenue. Even if we keep just the scant amount of fans we're getting now, we've got to be projected to make more money (especially in the long run) just by concessions, not to mention the possibility of parking and advertising. As of now in the Superdome, we don't get any of that if I'm not mistaken.
jonathanjoseph
Green Wave
Posts: 9299
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Status: Offline

RobertM320 wrote:
This is a one shot deal. Its imperative that, whatever gets done, its done right the FIRST time. There won't be a second chance.
Yup. And this is why the Cowen/Dickson team CANNOT be allowed to move forward with this.

Does anyone trust their vision or ability to execute on this enormous and permanent investment?

I do not doubt that they are trying to get it done and if they get the funding they will forever stamp Tulane football as "small time" and thus unable to compete.
TURVS71
Swell
Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:01 am
Status: Offline

Funny, this time in 2003 we were fighting to SAVE the program. Today we are debating a stadium. How times have changed!!

IPF can be ANYWHERE and is NOT worth the money at this time and will not guaranty winning.

Getting out of that dome, recruiting and winning are what is important. Will a stadium guarantee winning, no it won't but it sure beats the hell out of going to that godforsaken place. I HATE IT!. My opinion is that all of these things will lead to consistent winning. We need to instill pride and tradition and it CAN'T be done at the dome. I don't want to leave the dome because it is keeping us from winning, I want to leave the dome TO BE A WINNER. We need to control us! EVERYTHING needs to be Tulane and ONLY an on campus stadium will do that. To me, playing at the dome sends the message that we are satisfied with just getting by and keeps us from committing to spending dollars. Facilities, Facilities, Facilities. That is the name of the game. In my opinion, leaving the dome does not hurt us and building our own stadium makes a statement that we want to be here!. If people think that we have to play in a 70K seat stadium to be successful, then we should just give up.

My happiest times watching Tulane have been outside. I actually enjoy sitting in USM stadium EVEN if we get the snot beat out of us. THAT is football! What is this loyalty to the dome? We have been there since 1975. If the dome is such a recruiting tool, then we should have all of those high powered recruits and should have been winning. Folks, its NOT the great recruiting tool that people think it is! Get out, build a DECENT stadium and move forward. The fight should be to have Tulane do it right. We have to accept certain limitations but it can be done right. That is where we need to focus our energy. We may not get a second chance!
'Here's a song for the Olive and the Blue"
RWR
Swell
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:18 pm
Status: Offline

That's your personal opinion about the dome . The great majority of the populace loves the dome. No one wants to sit in our oppressive heat. Every recruit has stated the dome was a big draw. They see the sterile atmosphere but believe they are the one who will change it. We recruited great players like Hontas, Terrance Jones, Stant, Lionel Washington, Rodney Holman, and on and on to play there. Our problem has been hiring horrific excuses for coaches. Tulane can make money at the dome, We don't b/c we don't draw. We don't draw b/c of the losing not the dome. Don't fall into their trap. They want to build a 25,000 seat stadium. That's it. No room for expansion. No parking so no parking revenue. Stay focused on what we really need-accept athletes at the NCAA standards, a PE major, much more money for salaries, recruiting and travel. Finally an IPF which is a facility. It's the one thing we don't have.

As for 2003 v. now. Nothing has changed. Cowen said then it was up to the fans to fund the program. Last week he said the school has put up as much as they are willing to and now it's up to the fans. SOS. So they have you talking about it but they aren't serious about it and more importantly they aren't serious about the real changes that need to be made. Call them on it.
sader24
Tsunami
Posts: 5695
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:35 pm
Status: Offline

Why are we arguing about a stadium that has no plans, no site, no parking, no funding, no plans for funding, no nothing? Where is Ray Nagin's Jazz Park? He promised it, where is it? Where are the Trump Towers? He said he was going to build it, he didnt. Tom Benson had actual plans for a stadium outside the Quarter and on the river, neither of those happened. If they are serious about it why isn't there a stadium fund that you can donate to? I listened to Cowen and he sounded like they are going to NOW start looking around at a very slow pace at different options. Personally, I don't see it happening. Personally, I don't think they are serious about anything other than a 25,000 seat stadium.....MAYBE. There really isn't anything to even debate because there are no plans.
gbgreenie
Surge
Posts: 968
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:12 pm
Status: Offline

Excuses, Excuses why not to build a stadium on campus. Why would parking be an issue. Was Parking a issue when we had 85,000 for the 73 game against LSU. We had no parking garage, and No Rosen Parking then. When is parking 35,000 plus an issue? Some have touched on it we get no revenue from Parking or Consessions at the Dome. This is a big plus for an on Campus Stadium. The student enrollment is growing. Another plus for a on campus stadium. It is hard to get them to travel downtown when they will be able to go straight from their dorms. Then party at the local taverns after the game. Neighborhood fans, many fans at old Tulane Stadium came from the neighborhoods surrounding the campus they walked five sometimes ten blocks just to attend the game. No Parking issue here. It would bring money into the neighbor hoods around campus that may spur more restaurants and taverns.
jonathanjoseph
Green Wave
Posts: 9299
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Status: Offline

Good discussion here, but still firmly on the side of no new stadium.

Tulane has 2 problems with the Superdome:
1) a lack of winning, which is the cause of a bad atmosphere
2) a bad business arrangement, which prevents Tulane from making any money off of the arrangement

Problem #1 is in Tulane's hands, and goodness knows that we have a big big problem with Scott Cowen and Rick Dickson in charge of making us win.

Problem #2 is much easier solved by renegotiating than making a $60M investment that ties up limited real estate. Many people have expressed concern that the Dome/Benson are not interested in renegotiating, but I don't buy it. Of course they aren't interested in renegotiating when the party that wants to renegotiate shows no interest in an arrangement that makes money. But if Tulane were to make a real commitment to winning and put a few winning seasons on the board, then a renegotiation would certainly be feasible and a better outcome.

If Tulane were a top 25 program with a nice schedule and able to share parking and concession revenue at a renovated Superdome would that be better than a $60M 25K seat stadium? 100% yes.

The simple fact is that if Tulane is committed to winning, a renegotiation is in both parties interests. You can't convince me that Tom Benson and everyone that works for him have an agenda of screwing the only major university in NOLA.

Until the scenario of a renegotiation has been discussed ANY talk of a stadium is foolish at best, no matter how much anyone yearns for the experience of on campus football. And that's beyond debate.

A 65K+ seat NFL stadium that is getting $100M renovation plus another $100M+ invested in the surrounding area for free or a 25K (heck even 35K) seat stadium that costs $60M? Common sense needs to win out over nostalgia.
sader24
Tsunami
Posts: 5695
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:35 pm
Status: Offline

If you look at the attendance numbers from Tulane Stadium in the Media Guide you will see that when we were losing attendance was no better there than at the Dome. When we were winning attendance was no better there than at the Dome. I want people to realize that where we play has zero effect on attendance. It never has and it never will. Winning has been the only thing that has ever mattered when it has come to attendance. Period. If you want to build a stadium so we can tailgate and be outside that's fine. If you want to build a stadium so we can increase our revenue that's fine. Just don't give me this total lie that we're going to build a stadium and attendance is going to skyrocket because it isn't. Also remember that with those increased revenues from the stadium come increased maintenance costs. Make the stadium decision based on facts and not fiction. Attendance will not increase over time from a stadium. Attendance will be the same at both places. Only winning increases attendance.
User avatar
RobertM320
Green Wave
Posts: 9887
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Covington, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

sader24 wrote:... I want people to realize that where we play has zero effect on attendance. It never has and it never will. Winning has been the only thing that has ever mattered when it has come to attendance. Period. If you want to build a stadium so we can tailgate and be outside that's fine. If you want to build a stadium so we can increase our revenue that's fine. Just don't give me this total lie that we're going to build a stadium and attendance is going to skyrocket because it isn't. Also remember that with those increased revenues from the stadium come increased maintenance costs. Make the stadium decision based on facts and not fiction. Attendance will not increase over time from a stadium. Attendance will be the same at both places. Only winning increases attendance.
Sader24 -- I can't argue with anything you say here. This pretty much sums its up. Its all about .... WINNING. Nothing more.
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
gbgreenie
Surge
Posts: 968
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:12 pm
Status: Offline

To those in love with the Superdome. You can debate all you want. No where in the country does successful College Programs have large attendance in off Campus Stadiums. The on campus stadium experience is second to non. So you will always lose your augument with the dome so forget it. The days Tulane plays in the dome are numbered for too many positive reasons. So take you negativity of a on campus stadium elsewhere.
User avatar
RobertM320
Green Wave
Posts: 9887
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Covington, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

gbgreenie wrote: ... So take you negativity of a on campus stadium elsewhere.

gbgreenie, I'm not sure if you're referring to my comment or not. I don't think its negative to state fact. Winning = attendance. I agree with sader24, whether in the dome or an OCS, only winning will create attendance.
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
Post Reply