[brando]

Originally Posted by drummer

You know, it seems that whatever they do, there may be a chance to add the upper deck later. That would allow for some more symmetry with the upper deck going essentially three quarters around the stadium. The boxes, etc., underneath might not have that much of an impact at that point. I'm personally okay losing the board, but I know others have mixed feelings about that. I'd prefer a full bowl of the upper deck to a giant screen.

They cannot add an upper deck to the south end zone without complexly bulldozing and re-locating their offices which they are not doing. They are planning to pour millions into renovating it. There also isn't really the footprint needed without closing San Jacinto street which they won't do. That's also why it likely won't be a continuous seating bowl with the east side. There isn't room to do a proper arc to connect the two.

Why would you prefer to look at blurry people instead of a giant video board where you can see replays? It seems like a worse fan experience.

Originally Posted by the Genral

The west side doesn't match the east side, and the south end will not math the north end. It will always be a stadium of 4 different sides. It succeeds in functionality, but falls a bit short in continuity and aesthetics. It reminds me of the expansion at the airport.

Match how? From the outside, a person who sees the stadium for the first time would think that the north, east and new south sides were all built at the same time. No one would think they were built separately by comparing them inside the bowls. Football stadiums are highly diverse in how the sides of their seating bowls are arranged. http://football.ballparks.com Some have continuous seating bowls, some don't. Some are mostly giant arenas like NRG and others have more independent structured sides and shapes.

Originally Posted by Owlhorn

There's no reason the south endzone can't match the north. The football complex is going to be rebuilt along with the endzone. The lack of upper deck talk is the Capitol view corridor crap again. Again, there are plenty of ways to play with capacity. Adding capacity at all isn't even necessary no matter what structure is built. No reason any future video boards couldn't sit atop an upper deck. Why does everytime UT builds something, its like the first time something has ever been built as if there aren't countless examples in the world to how this project can be done. Unless they want the stadium to float or take off into orbit, pretty much anything regarding capacity or allowing views of downtown from the club sections or whatever weird requests are being asked can be done and still make the stadium look like one stadium. Why can't we have a beautiful stadium like Notre Dame just completed? Want the football complex and practice facility to be one? Build up. Light structure retractable roofs. Soccer clubs do this stuff, but can't at UT.

I have not seen anything about the football complex (Montcrief) being re-built. Just renovated.

You mean bulldoze the stadium and build from scratch? Notre Dame has a new stadium? How does UT not know how to build projects? They did a good job with the north end zone. They demolished it and built the lower deck in an offseason and built the upper in the following offseason. It also looks great from the outside and inside.

You could put a video board on top of an upper deck but it just makes for a worse fan experience. It's really nice how low the current sideboard is.

Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule

I don't know, but that's the point I was making. Who's to say that UT isn't vastly underrated this year at #22, or that USC isn't vastly overrated just the same was ND was last year? I just think we have more than a fluke chance to beat USC this year, that's all.

USC isn't overrated. I thought UT would beat Notre Dame last year but they don't have a chance this year. They lost 3 games last year but that was before they found their starting QB. They could have made it to the championship game if they snuck into the playoffs.