New facilities announcement

The main discussion board for everything Tulane athletics related.
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12653
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Wed Aug 30, 2017 4:47 pm

That's a bad move. No sense in even putting it up there if it's not covered. The small field that exist now is used for linemen to go over and do drills on. The kickers sometimes use it. You are not going to send those players to do those drills where they have to go through a building and go up there.


High School Stadium Gets You High School Football
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 6421
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Online

Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:46 pm

winwave wrote:That's a bad move. No sense in even putting it up there if it's not covered. The small field that exist now is used for linemen to go over and do drills on. The kickers sometimes use it. You are not going to send those players to do those drills where they have to go through a building and go up there.
Unless that's where their position groups are practicing that day.
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12653
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:41 pm

Like I said the current field is hardly used b/c of the size limitations. The players go over there briefly and are easy to get back when they are needed at practice on the main field. To send them upstairs to the top of a building would just be a joke.

Of course this is probably not worth our time as they had an extremely difficult time raising the rest of the money for the stadium. So the donors are tapped out and the money for this will probably be a long time coming.
High School Stadium Gets You High School Football
User avatar
OUG
Riptide
Posts: 2668
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:59 am
Status: Offline

Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:58 pm

winwave wrote:That's a bad move. No sense in even putting it up there if it's not covered. The small field that exist now is used for linemen to go over and do drills on. The kickers sometimes use it. You are not going to send those players to do those drills where they have to go through a building and go up there.
We need the ops/performance building. Putting the field on the roof is not the reason we are building the ops/performance building. We are keeping the status quo from a practice space perspective but gaining $35m of upgrades in meeting, video, training, strength, nutrition, locker room, nutrition, players lounge, and study space. We are very sub-par in these areas now. Hard not to see that as a net win.

Maybe email Troy your thoughts and see what he says.
User avatar
RobertM320
Tsunami
Posts: 6630
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Destrehan, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:04 pm

OUG wrote:
winwave wrote:That's a bad move. No sense in even putting it up there if it's not covered. The small field that exist now is used for linemen to go over and do drills on. The kickers sometimes use it. You are not going to send those players to do those drills where they have to go through a building and go up there.
We need the ops/performance building. Putting the field on the roof is not the reason we are building the ops/performance building. We are keeping the status quo from a practice space perspective but gaining $35m of upgrades in meeting, video, training, strength, nutrition, locker room, nutrition, players lounge, and study space. We are very sub-par in these areas now. Hard not to see that as a net win.

Maybe email Troy your thoughts and see what he says.
I think this is the proper way to look at it, OUG. The practice field moving to the roof may be a minor inconvenience, but its more than outweighed by the net positives of the new upgrades. And its not like we're eliminating the field, we'll still have it.
"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE! HANG EM AND BANG EM! HANG EM AND BANG EM!"-- Todd Graffagnini
User avatar
tpstulane
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:16 pm

RobertM320 wrote:
OUG wrote:
winwave wrote:That's a bad move. No sense in even putting it up there if it's not covered. The small field that exist now is used for linemen to go over and do drills on. The kickers sometimes use it. You are not going to send those players to do those drills where they have to go through a building and go up there.
We need the ops/performance building. Putting the field on the roof is not the reason we are building the ops/performance building. We are keeping the status quo from a practice space perspective but gaining $35m of upgrades in meeting, video, training, strength, nutrition, locker room, nutrition, players lounge, and study space. We are very sub-par in these areas now. Hard not to see that as a net win.

Maybe email Troy your thoughts and see what he says.
I think this is the proper way to look at it, OUG. The practice field moving to the roof may be a minor inconvenience, but its more than outweighed by the net positives of the new upgrades. And its not like we're eliminating the field, we'll still have it.
On the bright side it will be a nice party deck during games.
:mrgreen:
Stadiums get old, winning never does.
Tulane Class of 1981
User avatar
RobertM320
Tsunami
Posts: 6630
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Destrehan, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:21 pm

tpstulane wrote:
RobertM320 wrote:
OUG wrote:
winwave wrote:That's a bad move. No sense in even putting it up there if it's not covered. The small field that exist now is used for linemen to go over and do drills on. The kickers sometimes use it. You are not going to send those players to do those drills where they have to go through a building and go up there.
We need the ops/performance building. Putting the field on the roof is not the reason we are building the ops/performance building. We are keeping the status quo from a practice space perspective but gaining $35m of upgrades in meeting, video, training, strength, nutrition, locker room, nutrition, players lounge, and study space. We are very sub-par in these areas now. Hard not to see that as a net win.

Maybe email Troy your thoughts and see what he says.
I think this is the proper way to look at it, OUG. The practice field moving to the roof may be a minor inconvenience, but its more than outweighed by the net positives of the new upgrades. And its not like we're eliminating the field, we'll still have it.
On the bright side it will be a nice party deck during games.
:mrgreen:
It will be as if we expanded Yulman! :mrgreen:
"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE! HANG EM AND BANG EM! HANG EM AND BANG EM!"-- Todd Graffagnini
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12653
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:30 pm

OUG wrote:
winwave wrote:That's a bad move. No sense in even putting it up there if it's not covered. The small field that exist now is used for linemen to go over and do drills on. The kickers sometimes use it. You are not going to send those players to do those drills where they have to go through a building and go up there.
We need the ops/performance building. Putting the field on the roof is not the reason we are building the ops/performance building. We are keeping the status quo from a practice space perspective but gaining $35m of upgrades in meeting, video, training, strength, nutrition, locker room, nutrition, players lounge, and study space. We are very sub-par in these areas now. Hard not to see that as a net win.

Maybe email Troy your thoughts and see what he says.

I never said it wasn't a net win. No one has been on these forums for longer than me saying we needed those things. You know that. That doesn't mean we shouldn't go all the way. We need the IPF aspect of it for multiple purposes. It is something everyone else has and has had for a long time and the good recruits are going to take multiple visits and see the difference. We lose practice time when we use the Saints facility. We also lose practices completely sometimes when we can't get access to the Saints facility. It is a place players can use in the summer to do their work together when we get rain.

Just to clarify when I said it's a bad move I thought it was clear I was strictly talking about the field not the building.
High School Stadium Gets You High School Football
User avatar
RobertM320
Tsunami
Posts: 6630
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Destrehan, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:52 pm

I don't see how you can say its a bad more. Would you rather we build an IPF and not do the performance center? We can only do one thing at a time, and I think we would all agree, this is more a priority than the IPF. From what I've seen, any time schools are promoting their facilities, the pictures they show the most are the insides of the locker rooms, the meeting rooms, the video facilities, the weight rooms, etc, because that's what the recruits are looking at. It doesn't mean we don't still need an IPF eventually, it just means these items are a bigger priority than the IPF. FOR NOW, we can use the Saints facility. If we build our own IPF, its not like we can go to Airline Drive and use their meeting rooms, weight rooms, and nutrition center.
"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE! HANG EM AND BANG EM! HANG EM AND BANG EM!"-- Todd Graffagnini
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12653
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:17 pm

RobertM320 wrote:I don't see how you can say its a bad more. Would you rather we build an IPF and not do the performance center? We can only do one thing at a time, and I think we would all agree, this is more a priority than the IPF. From what I've seen, any time schools are promoting their facilities, the pictures they show the most are the insides of the locker rooms, the meeting rooms, the video facilities, the weight rooms, etc, because that's what the recruits are looking at. It doesn't mean we don't still need an IPF eventually, it just means these items are a bigger priority than the IPF. FOR NOW, we can use the Saints facility. If we build our own IPF, its not like we can go to Airline Drive and use their meeting rooms, weight rooms, and nutrition center.
Read my post again. I said not making the practice field an IPF is a bad move. Again no one has advocated longer and louder than me that we needed to replace all the substandard things in Wilson. You can do both though and we are so far behind it's time Tulane step it up and get it completely right. The schools show those other facilities b/c they have come along in the last decade. The IPF's were addressed by them a decade or two before that. As for the Saints IPF I have clearly stated why having our own is important. But hey you obviously think we can afford to lose practices and practice time. :mrgreen:

BTW, everyone needs to work on their reading comprehension before going straight to pouncing.
High School Stadium Gets You High School Football
JerseyWave
Riptide
Posts: 3836
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:09 pm
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline

Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:52 pm

The Performance Center has to be the priority. I think the practice field on the roof is stupid. I would rather have the Performance Center built into the back of the north end zone, have part of the Performance Center overlook the Stadium like a Mezzanine level and then build an upper deck on top of it. Use the baseball field for additional practice space, especially during preseason when baseball is not practicing.
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12653
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:21 pm

To be honest I don't know why they didn't use the Rosen lot for this. Could have included parking with it.
High School Stadium Gets You High School Football
sader24
Tsunami
Posts: 5493
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:35 pm
Status: Offline

Thu Aug 31, 2017 2:11 am

How much more would it cost to cover the field? It just seems like a Tulane move, so close to having exactly what we need and stop short on an obvious step that would make the whole thing perfect for us. If you're putting a field up there it seems to make no sense to not enclose it and if you don't have or don't think you can get the $$ to do it in the near future just come out and say we have plans to enclose the field down the road but we feel like the other aspects of this building are a more immediate priority, however we are constructing the building to support an IPF on top in the future. Everyone would see that as reasonable I think.
lurker123
Swell
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:01 pm
Status: Offline

Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:04 am

sader24 wrote:How much more would it cost to cover the field?
FWIW: More than Tulane is paying right now. Fritz's view specifically is that he has a top class IPF on Airline Highway which a Tulane board member gives him use of for free. He'd rather spend the money on a performance center.

In this case what matters to Fritz most is getting an adequate performance center under the proposed practice field not getting a covering over it.
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12653
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:20 am

sader24 wrote:How much more would it cost to cover the field? It just seems like a Tulane move, so close to having exactly what we need and stop short on an obvious step that would make the whole thing perfect for us. If you're putting a field up there it seems to make no sense to not enclose it and if you don't have or don't think you can get the $$ to do it in the near future just come out and say we have plans to enclose the field down the road but we feel like the other aspects of this building are a more immediate priority, however we are constructing the building to support an IPF on top in the future. Everyone would see that as reasonable I think.
This.
High School Stadium Gets You High School Football
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 6421
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Online

Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:58 am

Umm....didn't we read earlier in the summer how big of an advantage the Saints IPF is for us? Yes, we lose 15 minutes of travel time, but a bunch of players were quoted as saying it was really cool, great recruiting tool, etc.

And not for nothing WE PLAY OUTSIDE NOW. Having the option of moving inside, pretty much whenever needed, is still there. Having a 50 yard IPF on campus would not be that big of a step forward. Thank you to the Benson family and Saints organization for providing a world class (and recruiting tool) alternative.
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
User avatar
tpstulane
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

Thu Aug 31, 2017 7:12 am

DfromCT wrote:Umm....didn't we read earlier in the summer how big of an advantage the Saints IPF is for us? Yes, we lose 15 minutes of travel time, but a bunch of players were quoted as saying it was really cool, great recruiting tool, etc.

And not for nothing WE PLAY OUTSIDE NOW. Having the option of moving inside, pretty much whenever needed, is still there. Having a 50 yard IPF on campus would not be that big of a step forward. Thank you to the Benson family and Saints organization for providing a world class (and recruiting tool) alternative.
The loss of travel time is overblown. It's not deducted from practice time until school starts and classes begin. So in reality it's probably like a field trip and a break during summer ball for those kids. They get on a bus together probably look forward to hitting the Saints facility more than they do practicing on campus. If WF thought he needed one on campus he'd get one.
Stadiums get old, winning never does.
Tulane Class of 1981
User avatar
wave97
Swell
Posts: 1340
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:08 pm
Status: Online

Thu Aug 31, 2017 7:49 am

I am sure that our AD will do a good job with the aesthetics of the new facility, but please let Coach Speer have his way with the training/nutrition elements.
Hades is our friend.
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12653
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:44 am

The season last a lot longer than camp. Lost practice time is an important issue.
High School Stadium Gets You High School Football
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 6421
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Online

Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:57 am

winwave wrote:The season last a lot longer than camp. Lost practice time is an important issue.
But we'll use the Saints (or any) IPF less and less as the leaves turn brown and the mercury comes down. If we use it more than once/week I'd be surprised.

Remember, we play OUTDOORS! To my knowledge, there isn't an indoor team in our conference.
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
lurker123
Swell
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:01 pm
Status: Offline

Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:42 am

winwave wrote:The season last a lot longer than camp. Lost practice time is an important issue.
With school starting is Fritz going to continue to practice in the early morning? Does it rain more in the morning or the afternoon around here?

I give you the Energizer Bunny award for never quiting on the issue but an on-campus IPF ain't happening for at least another decade at earliest, if even then. You have properly emphasized importance of a performance center. Everyone agrees that's the priority especially WF and TD. Let's accomplish that first.

In short Tulane has a world class IPF a few minutes from campus that it gets for free with mostly flexible availability (especially because of in-season morning practice schedule.) It does not have even an average performance center anywhere at hand on or off campus and it requires serious fund raising to make it happen.
mbawavefan12
Tsunami
Posts: 5217
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:17 pm
Status: Offline

Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:58 am

sader24 wrote:How much more would it cost to cover the field? It just seems like a Tulane move, so close to having exactly what we need and stop short on an obvious step that would make the whole thing perfect for us. If you're putting a field up there it seems to make no sense to not enclose it and if you don't have or don't think you can get the $$ to do it in the near future just come out and say we have plans to enclose the field down the road but we feel like the other aspects of this building are a more immediate priority, however we are constructing the building to support an IPF on top in the future. Everyone would see that as reasonable I think.

Installing a permanent dome on a structure not designed to accept said dome would be hugely expensive. Plus installing a permanent dome on Yulman would sort of destroy the purpose of moving out of the dome in many ways.

Now Golfnut has talked a lot about inflatable domes and I have spent some time researching them. Again, they only cover the field and not the stands. The costs I have found is $8-$11 per square foot, which I think would be about $300K for an 80 yd by 40 yd field, but someone should check my math. There are also considerable costs to inflate the dome and take it down each year and the dome itself has some serious energy costs as well. However, there are other benefits as other teams and the general student population can utilize the dome as well. Frankly, the dome is used more in cold weather areas, not sure why.

Perhaps an inflatable dome would be a short term fix for Tulane, but I just assume utilize the Saints facility as it is not far and a good recruiting tool. What we should be focusing on, IMO, is to get the support assets in place (meeting rooms, offices, new strength/conditioning, nutrition, study rooms, locker room, training rooms etc.) and design the structure to accept an IPF on top once those funds are raised. I think those support assets and the Saints IPF would place us on an even playing field. Then we start winning consistently, expand Yulman then focus on the IPF. The other elephant in the room is our 3200 seat Bball arena. Lots of work to be done.
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12653
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:24 pm

DfromCT wrote:
winwave wrote:The season last a lot longer than camp. Lost practice time is an important issue.
But we'll use the Saints (or any) IPF less and less as the leaves turn brown and the mercury comes down. If we use it more than once/week I'd be surprised.

Remember, we play OUTDOORS! To my knowledge, there isn't an indoor team in our conference.
It rains year round here. Most schools that have IPF's play outdoors.
High School Stadium Gets You High School Football
User avatar
RobertM320
Tsunami
Posts: 6630
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Destrehan, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:27 pm

winwave wrote:
RobertM320 wrote:I don't see how you can say its a bad more. Would you rather we build an IPF and not do the performance center? We can only do one thing at a time, and I think we would all agree, this is more a priority than the IPF. From what I've seen, any time schools are promoting their facilities, the pictures they show the most are the insides of the locker rooms, the meeting rooms, the video facilities, the weight rooms, etc, because that's what the recruits are looking at. It doesn't mean we don't still need an IPF eventually, it just means these items are a bigger priority than the IPF. FOR NOW, we can use the Saints facility. If we build our own IPF, its not like we can go to Airline Drive and use their meeting rooms, weight rooms, and nutrition center.
Read my post again. I said not making the practice field an IPF is a bad move. Again no one has advocated longer and louder than me that we needed to replace all the substandard things in Wilson. You can do both though and we are so far behind it's time Tulane step it up and get it completely right. The schools show those other facilities b/c they have come along in the last decade. The IPF's were addressed by them a decade or two before that. As for the Saints IPF I have clearly stated why having our own is important. But hey you obviously think we can afford to lose practices and practice time. :mrgreen:

BTW, everyone needs to work on their reading comprehension before going straight to pouncing.
Maybe engineering wise its not feasible to make it an IPF on top of the building? Or maybe, they're planning eventually to build an IPF, so no reason to spend the money now to cover a partial field, when they'll eventually have a full size covered field? Lots of factors to consider.
"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE! HANG EM AND BANG EM! HANG EM AND BANG EM!"-- Todd Graffagnini
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 6421
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Online

Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:31 pm

winwave wrote:
DfromCT wrote:
winwave wrote:The season last a lot longer than camp. Lost practice time is an important issue.
But we'll use the Saints (or any) IPF less and less as the leaves turn brown and the mercury comes down. If we use it more than once/week I'd be surprised.

Remember, we play OUTDOORS! To my knowledge, there isn't an indoor team in our conference.
It rains year round here. Most schools that have IPF's play outdoors.
But clearly to those that make the decisions, the performance center was a higher priority than a 50 or 60 yard IPF, especially when there's a world class IPF at our disposal, at no charge, minutes away. Not having one on campus, according to current players and coaches, doesn't hurt recruiting. Using the Saints facility helps recruiting, again, according to current players and coaches.
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
Post Reply