NFL Chargers will move to a "high school" stadium. How can that be?

[DfromCT]

Didn't know SC/RD bought th chargers.

As far as recruiting Yulman is as big a team problem as any.

Well, there are many examples of teams that have had great runs with Tulane level or worse stadiums (Boise State, Georgia Southern, San Jose State, Toledo, etc.), and those teams have had various spikes in recruiting, so it seems a little unreasonable to lay Tulane's recruiting (and on the field) failures on the size of the stadium.

I agree 1000%. Winning is a much bigger problem than our stadium.

[DfromCT]

Didn't know SC/RD bought th chargers.

Enough whining about Yulman. It is here and staying here unless someone has $100 million to build something bigger and better somewhere. My aspiration for Tulane football is winning seasons to start. I will worry about G5 crap way down the road. Let's leverage what we already have and raise additional $ to improve other facilities that attract student athletes.

As far as recruiting Yulman is as big a team problem as any.

Well, there are many examples of teams that have had great runs with Tulane level or worse stadiums (Boise State, Georgia Southern, San Jose State, Toledo, etc.), and those teams have had various spikes in recruiting, so it seems a little unreasonable to lay Tulane's recruiting (and on the field) failures on the size of the stadium.

Yea we want to be Toledo. The facilities are a joke. To not recognize it is to be part of the problem.

No one said Toledo has good facilities. All that was said is that there are many G5 programs with Tulane level facilities that have had pretty good recruiting classes by G5 standards -and- good on the field success. Toledo's 2017 class is ranked #70, 2013 was #75, 2012 was #78, and 2011 was #74. If Toledo's facilities are as bad as you say they are, then Tulane's facilities are not an excuse for poor recruiting.

I was talking about success level. Sure hope we aspire to more.

Enough burying your head in the sand. Winning won't start till we get better players. We won't attract said players to a HS stadium. It's Tulane's job to raise the money to fix the facilities issues. It's why TD gets paid the big bucks.

BULL S#(T. Plain and simple. There's at least a dozen teams that play in stadiums worse than Yulman. BTW: Which side seats more, the "high school" side or the "Glazer" side? I think you'd be surprised if you counted the seats. Despite the looks of it the short side seats more, and has more people in the seats.

I'm not making apologies for Yulman. I am saying, flat out, that our track record has ZERO to do with the stadium. Win and they will come. Lose regularly and they won't come. How has Tulsa done the past two years with an inferior stadium? A whole lot better than Tulane has with a brand new stadium.

[tpstulane]

Going strictly on the stadium size we should have had Top 25 recruiting classes every year we played in the Superdome.

[winwave]

Well, the issue here is that some posters argue that the stadium is the issue, but, as I indicated earlier, there are many examples of G5 teams with Tulane level facilities or worse that have had great recruiting classes (by G5 standards) over the last few years so the facilities argument doesn't seem to hold too much weight.

If some posters are now arguing that Tulane should aspire for more than what it has, that's a separate and distinct argument than the argument that facilities are the cause of poor recruiting. I agree that Tulane should aspire for more, but whether Tulane should or should not aspire for more has no bearing on the issue of the stadium's impact on recruiting.

No one said it is THE issue. No one. But there is no doubt it is a major issue. As a former player just posted in another thread on this topic he said he wouldn't even give Tulane the time of day now due to the facilities issue. More importantly the people whose opinion counts, quality HS football players, is clear. As for what you posted none of it proved anything about facilities not being an issue.

[winwave]

Blaming the stadium is just flat out wrong. Willie Fritz took the job knowing full well about Yulman. And he even thought the on campus stadium was an asset. CJ said the same thing. Dannen said the same thing. By using that for every excuse we may as well quit trying to compete because the stadium is not going away. Lack of winning and being a G5 are the real reasons why we struggle with recruitment.

Thank you Rick Dickson. It's not an excuse it's a fact. Lack of winning comes from lack of players. Facilities matter. Other than to a couple of Tulane fans.

[DfromCT]

Going strictly on the stadium size we should have had Top 25 recruiting classes every year we played in the Superdome.

EXACTLY!

We played in one of the finest football facilities in the country, and NEVER had a recruiting class that was even close to top 50. We now play in a nice, intimate but small on campus facility. Yet some want to blame our lack of success on moving out of the Dome. The Dome SUCKED for Tulane. It was like going to a funeral. It wasn't the cause of our poor play, but it didn't bring us the success folks here would like to attribute to a great facility. It just wasn't right for Tulane and did nothing to help us recruit. The one exception I'd make is for kickers, whom loved to kick in the Superdome.

[winwave]

Didn't know SC/RD bought th chargers.

Enough whining about Yulman. It is here and staying here unless someone has $100 million to build something bigger and better somewhere. My aspiration for Tulane football is winning seasons to start. I will worry about G5 crap way down the road. Let's leverage what we already have and raise additional $ to improve other facilities that attract student athletes.

As far as recruiting Yulman is as big a team problem as any.

Well, there are many examples of teams that have had great runs with Tulane level or worse stadiums (Boise State, Georgia Southern, San Jose State, Toledo, etc.), and those teams have had various spikes in recruiting, so it seems a little unreasonable to lay Tulane's recruiting (and on the field) failures on the size of the stadium.

Yea we want to be Toledo. The facilities are a joke. To not recognize it is to be part of the problem.

No one said Toledo has good facilities. All that was said is that there are many G5 programs with Tulane level facilities that have had pretty good recruiting classes by G5 standards -and- good on the field success. Toledo's 2017 class is ranked #70, 2013 was #75, 2012 was #78, and 2011 was #74. If Toledo's facilities are as bad as you say they are, then Tulane's facilities are not an excuse for poor recruiting.

I was talking about success level. Sure hope we aspire to more.

Enough burying your head in the sand. Winning won't start till we get better players. We won't attract said players to a HS stadium. It's Tulane's job to raise the money to fix the facilities issues. It's why TD gets paid the big bucks.

BULL S#(T. Plain and simple. There's at least a dozen teams that play in stadiums worse than Yulman. BTW: Which side seats more, the "high school" side or the "Glazer" side? I think you'd be surprised if you counted the seats. Despite the looks of it the short side seats more, and has more people in the seats.

I'm not making apologies for Yulman. I am saying, flat out, that our track record has ZERO to do with the stadium. Win and they will come. Lose regularly and they won't come. How has Tulsa done the past two years with an inferior stadium? A whole lot better than Tulane has with a brand new stadium.

WRONG. It is just ignorant to just say we need to win. No fucking shit. It takes players to win. We already had HS facilities as far as the weight room, meeting rooms, squad room , etc. We cemented our status as small time when we built a HS stadium. Hell TURVS was more adamant about the stadium than anyone. Yet even he recently posted that something needs to be done about the stadium for Tulane football to be taken seriously.

[DfromCT]

Yeah, Winwave, we were winning national championships when we played in a world class facility, now we suck because we play in Yulman. That's how it is, no doubt. Yeah you right.

[winwave]

Going strictly on the stadium size we should have had Top 25 recruiting classes every year we played in the Superdome.

EXACTLY!

We played in one of the finest football facilities in the country, and NEVER had a recruiting class that was even close to top 50. We now play in a nice, intimate but small on campus facility. Yet some want to blame our lack of success on moving out of the Dome. The Dome SUCKED for Tulane. It was like going to a funeral. It wasn't the cause of our poor play, but it didn't bring us the success folks here would like to attribute to a great facility. It just wasn't right for Tulane and did nothing to help us recruit. The one exception I'd make is for kickers, whom loved to kick in the Superdome.

WRONG. First off no one said that size alone equates to the quality of players but a 22,660 seat stadium is a fucking joke. Get your heads out of your asses. As long as Tulane is told the stadium is fine as is it will not succeed. When we moved in we had better than top 50 classes. The Dome didn't suck. It was great. Then Tulane didn't keep up w/ the rest of the facilities and made terrible hiring decisions. No one blamed moving out for lack of success. what is blamed is what is a joke it's replacement is.

[winwave]

Yeah, Winwave, we were winning national championships when we played in a world class facility, now we suck because we play in Yulman. That's how it is, no doubt. Yeah you right.

Finished #7. But hey you obviously enjoy the losing so keep on.

[DfromCT]

And oh by the way: The short side of Yulman seats more by itself than 90% of high school stadiums in this country. There's very few, (and most if not all that do exceed are COUNTY <multiple schools using them> facilities) if any high school stadiums that seat 10,000.

[winwave]

It's the second biggest HS stadium in New Orleans. Nuff said.

[DfromCT]

Yeah, Winwave, we were winning national championships when we played in a world class facility, now we suck because we play in Yulman. That's how it is, no doubt. Yeah you right.

Finished #7. But hey you obviously enjoy the losing so keep on.

Once in the 34 years we played there. And 16 seasons before moving back on campus, where we draw 5-10x what we ACTUALLY put into the Dome. We were down below 1000 attendees for many games our last 10 years there. That includes a homecoming game against Army where you could count the fans EASILY.

But you want to bury your head in the sand, fine. We should move back to the Dome and solve all our problems. The coach that brought us into the top 10 is available, and his top assistant will be too. No worries, we'll be top 10 perennially, just go back in time. All problems solved.

[winwave]

Yeah, Winwave, we were winning national championships when we played in a world class facility, now we suck because we play in Yulman. That's how it is, no doubt. Yeah you right.

Finished #7. But hey you obviously enjoy the losing so keep on.

Once in the 34 years we played there. And 16 seasons before moving back on campus, where we draw 5-10x what we ACTUALLY put into the Dome. We were down below 1000 attendees for many games our last 10 years there. That includes a homecoming game against Army where you could count the fans EASILY.

But you want to bury your head in the sand, fine. We should move back to the Dome and solve all our problems. The coach that brought us into the top 10 is available, and his top assistant will be too. No worries, we'll be top 10 perennially, just go back in time. All problems solved.

Our actual attendance now is 5,000 or so for most games and close to half of that are fans of the other team. Many here complained all season about having to sit w/opposing fans. so yea just bury your head in the sand while the losing continues.

[DfromCT]

Yeah, Winwave, we were winning national championships when we played in a world class facility, now we suck because we play in Yulman. That's how it is, no doubt. Yeah you right.

Finished #7. But hey you obviously enjoy the losing so keep on.

Once in the 34 years we played there. And 16 seasons before moving back on campus, where we draw 5-10x what we ACTUALLY put into the Dome. We were down below 1000 attendees for many games our last 10 years there. That includes a homecoming game against Army where you could count the fans EASILY.

But you want to bury your head in the sand, fine. We should move back to the Dome and solve all our problems. The coach that brought us into the top 10 is available, and his top assistant will be too. No worries, we'll be top 10 perennially, just go back in time. All problems solved.

Our actual attendance now is 5,000 or so for most games and close to half of that are fans of the other team. Many here complained all season about having to sit w/opposing fans. so yea just bury your head in the sand while the losing continues.

Or 4,000 more than we put into the Dome. Yeah all our problems recruiting are tied to the stadium. That's the ticket. Sure. Ok, easy fix. Go back to the Dome and wins will follow. RIGHT!

[DfromCT]

Here's the most important point: YULMAN IS NOT GOING AWAY. We're staying there probably for the rest of our lifetimes. It's NOT getting expanded in the next 5 years, probably not in the next 10 years.

DEAL WITH IT. If you can't then suck on a grape.

[GreenPuddleSplash]

Here's the most important point: YULMAN IS NOT GOING AWAY. We're staying there probably for the rest of our lifetimes. It's NOT getting expanded in the next 5 years, probably not in the next 10 years.

DEAL WITH IT. If you can't then suck on a grape.

Well said D. We could probably write 3-4 treatises on this topic of our stadium size based on how long we have talked about it. The fact is we spent a ton of money and built it for better or for the worst, and we're stuck with it. We should be past the buyer's remorse stage and at least talking about how it can be cultivated into a place for winning.

[winwave]

Yeah, Winwave, we were winning national championships when we played in a world class facility, now we suck because we play in Yulman. That's how it is, no doubt. Yeah you right.

Finished #7. But hey you obviously enjoy the losing so keep on.

Once in the 34 years we played there. And 16 seasons before moving back on campus, where we draw 5-10x what we ACTUALLY put into the Dome. We were down below 1000 attendees for many games our last 10 years there. That includes a homecoming game against Army where you could count the fans EASILY.

But you want to bury your head in the sand, fine. We should move back to the Dome and solve all our problems. The coach that brought us into the top 10 is available, and his top assistant will be too. No worries, we'll be top 10 perennially, just go back in time. All problems solved.

Our actual attendance now is 5,000 or so for most games and close to half of that are fans of the other team. Many here complained all season about having to sit w/opposing fans. so yea just bury your head in the sand while the losing continues.

Or 4,000 more than we put into the Dome. Yeah all our problems recruiting are tied to the stadium. That's the ticket. Sure. Ok, easy fix. Go back to the Dome and wins will follow. RIGHT!

BULLSHIT. We had one documented game under 1,000. Our usual actual was around 5,000. Once again you go saying things no one ever said. IT IS AN ISSUE.

[winwave]

Here's the most important point: YULMAN IS NOT GOING AWAY. We're staying there probably for the rest of our lifetimes. It's NOT getting expanded in the next 5 years, probably not in the next 10 years.

DEAL WITH IT. If you can't then suck on a grape.

Well said D. We could probably write 3-4 treatises on this topic of our stadium size based on how long we have talked about it. The fact is we spent a ton of money and built it for better or for the worst, and we're stuck with it. We should be past the buyer's remorse stage and at least talking about how it can be cultivated into a place for winning.

THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. TO SAY OTHERWISE IS TO SAY YOU SUPPORT THE RICK DICKSON VISION FOR TULANE ATHLETICS.

YOU DEAL WITH IT. IF YOU DON'T LIKE READING ABOUT IT QUIT READING THE BOARD B/C I'M GONG TO STAY ONIT TILL THEY FIX IT.

[Aberzombie1892]

Well, the issue here is that some posters argue that the stadium is the issue, but, as I indicated earlier, there are many examples of G5 teams with Tulane level facilities or worse that have had great recruiting classes (by G5 standards) over the last few years so the facilities argument doesn't seem to hold too much weight.

If some posters are now arguing that Tulane should aspire for more than what it has, that's a separate and distinct argument than the argument that facilities are the cause of poor recruiting. I agree that Tulane should aspire for more, but whether Tulane should or should not aspire for more has no bearing on the issue of the stadium's impact on recruiting.

No one said it is THE issue. No one. But there is no doubt it is a major issue. As a former player just posted in another thread on this topic he said he wouldn't even give Tulane the time of day now due to the facilities issue. More importantly the people whose opinion counts, quality HS football players, is clear. As for what you posted none of it proved anything about facilities not being an issue.

Do you, or any other poster, have any quantifiable evidence that the stadium is negatively impacting recruiting? I've provided quantifiable evidence that it doesn't by citing many other programs with similar facilities that have done well on the recruiting trail at various points over the last few years, but I haven't seen any evidence that it does.

As for the former player, it's impossible to analyze that assertion. Moving past the facts that random examples mean nothing and that anyone can say anything in hindsight - hence why citable data is important - if that player would be a 2* player with no better offer than Tulane, he would probably attend Tulane, but, if he received a better offer than Tulane, there's a good chance that he would go to the better program just like any other recruit - regardless of facilities.

Challenging data supporting an assertion with an example of anecdotal evidence is never effective since the example anecdotal evidence doesn't outweigh the data.

[GreenPuddleSplash]

Here's the most important point: YULMAN IS NOT GOING AWAY. We're staying there probably for the rest of our lifetimes. It's NOT getting expanded in the next 5 years, probably not in the next 10 years.

DEAL WITH IT. If you can't then suck on a grape.

Well said D. We could probably write 3-4 treatises on this topic of our stadium size based on how long we have talked about it. The fact is we spent a ton of money and built it for better or for the worst, and we're stuck with it. We should be past the buyer's remorse stage and at least talking about how it can be cultivated into a place for winning.

THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. TO SAY OTHERWISE IS TO SAY YOU SUPPORT THE RICK DICKSON VISION FOR TULANE ATHLETICS.

YOU DEAL WITH IT. IF YOU DON'T LIKE READING ABOUT IT QUIT READING THE BOARD B/C I'M GONG TO STAY ONIT TILL THEY FIX IT.

I also see your point win, and don't get me wrong, I will never support RD and his decisions. However, the point I am making is that I don't think anyone here supports RD or his collosal failure of building a mini CFB stadium, so instead of talking about how bad it sucks, we could talk about ways to improve it, like expansion on the Westfield Terrace etc or other feasible ideas. I just don't think it's even realistic to contemplate demolishing an almost like new $90 million stadium.

[winwave]

Well, the issue here is that some posters argue that the stadium is the issue, but, as I indicated earlier, there are many examples of G5 teams with Tulane level facilities or worse that have had great recruiting classes (by G5 standards) over the last few years so the facilities argument doesn't seem to hold too much weight.

If some posters are now arguing that Tulane should aspire for more than what it has, that's a separate and distinct argument than the argument that facilities are the cause of poor recruiting. I agree that Tulane should aspire for more, but whether Tulane should or should not aspire for more has no bearing on the issue of the stadium's impact on recruiting.

No one said it is THE issue. No one. But there is no doubt it is a major issue. As a former player just posted in another thread on this topic he said he wouldn't even give Tulane the time of day now due to the facilities issue. More importantly the people whose opinion counts, quality HS football players, is clear. As for what you posted none of it proved anything about facilities not being an issue.

Do you, or any other poster, have any quantifiable evidence that the stadium is negatively impacting recruiting? I've provided quantifiable evidence that it doesn't by citing many other programs with similar facilities that have done well on the recruiting trail at various points over the last few years, but I haven't seen any evidence that it does.

As for the former player, it's impossible to analyze that assertion. Moving past the facts that random examples mean nothing and that anyone can say anything in hindsight - hence why citable data is important - if that player would be a 2* player with no better offer than Tulane, he would probably attend Tulane, but, if he received a better offer than Tulane, there's a good chance that he would go to the better program just like any other recruit - regardless of facilities.

Challenging data supporting an assertion with an example of anecdotal evidence is never effective since the example anecdotal evidence doesn't outweigh the data.

Other than Boise you cited a few schools that very few would consider successful football programs. Your data was worthless. Tulane's recruiting results speak volumes on the topic.

[winwave]

Here's the most important point: YULMAN IS NOT GOING AWAY. We're staying there probably for the rest of our lifetimes. It's NOT getting expanded in the next 5 years, probably not in the next 10 years.

DEAL WITH IT. If you can't then suck on a grape.

Well said D. We could probably write 3-4 treatises on this topic of our stadium size based on how long we have talked about it. The fact is we spent a ton of money and built it for better or for the worst, and we're stuck with it. We should be past the buyer's remorse stage and at least talking about how it can be cultivated into a place for winning.

THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. TO SAY OTHERWISE IS TO SAY YOU SUPPORT THE RICK DICKSON VISION FOR TULANE ATHLETICS.

YOU DEAL WITH IT. IF YOU DON'T LIKE READING ABOUT IT QUIT READING THE BOARD B/C I'M GONG TO STAY ONIT TILL THEY FIX IT.

I also see your point win, and don't get me wrong, I will never support RD and his decisions. However, the point I am making is that I don't think anyone here supports RD or his collosal failure of building a mini CFB stadium, so instead of talking about how bad it sucks, we could talk about ways to improve it, like expansion on the Westfield Terrace etc or other feasible ideas. I just don't think it's even realistic to contemplate demolishing an almost like new $90 million stadium.

GPS don't be misled by the likes of zombie or D. No one ever said tear it down. My point the whole time has been that something needs to be done about it.

[winwave]

Didn't know SC/RD bought th chargers.

As far as recruiting Yulman is as big a team problem as any.

Well, there are many examples of teams that have had great runs with Tulane level or worse stadiums (Boise State, Georgia Southern, San Jose State, Toledo, etc.), and those teams have had various spikes in recruiting, so it seems a little unreasonable to lay Tulane's recruiting (and on the field) failures on the size of the stadium.

That's not many . It's one of the whopping 4 you cited.

[DfromCT]

Yeah, Winwave, we were winning national championships when we played in a world class facility, now we suck because we play in Yulman. That's how it is, no doubt. Yeah you right.

Finished #7. But hey you obviously enjoy the losing so keep on.

Once in the 34 years we played there. And 16 seasons before moving back on campus, where we draw 5-10x what we ACTUALLY put into the Dome. We were down below 1000 attendees for many games our last 10 years there. That includes a homecoming game against Army where you could count the fans EASILY.

But you want to bury your head in the sand, fine. We should move back to the Dome and solve all our problems. The coach that brought us into the top 10 is available, and his top assistant will be too. No worries, we'll be top 10 perennially, just go back in time. All problems solved.

Our actual attendance now is 5,000 or so for most games and close to half of that are fans of the other team. Many here complained all season about having to sit w/opposing fans. so yea just bury your head in the sand while the losing continues.

Or 4,000 more than we put into the Dome. Yeah all our problems recruiting are tied to the stadium. That's the ticket. Sure. Ok, easy fix. Go back to the Dome and wins will follow. RIGHT!

bullsh*t. We had one documented game under 1,000. Our usual actual was around 5,000. Once again you go saying things no one ever said. IT IS AN ISSUE.

We ANNOUNCED crowds of 5000. I know for a fact that we had plenty of games of less than 1000 through the turnstyles.

But if you want to blame losing on Yulman, go ahead. Yulman isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. MOVE ON, we're not going back to the dome in our lifetime. If you like the warm fuzzy feeling you get pissing into the wind, then enjoy doing so.