PDA

View Full Version : New AD has a plan



Jarhead
07-08-2008, 08:48 AM
The front page linked us to Al Featherstone's column on Kevin White's lunch with the press, (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=1506570) and I liked what I read, but for one little thing. Scroll down on the column, and you will see that FDA's plan to lower the field on Wallace Wade is now Kevin White's plan.

He talked about the possibility of moving the track at Wallace Wade to the school’s “New Campus” which would allow Duke to lower the football field at Wade Stadium and perhaps increase the stadium’s capacity to 40,000 seats. He talked about making Wade more fan friendly by upgrading concession stands and rest room facilities. He talked about improving the practice area – of building a field house and elongating the practice fields. He talked about a major renovation of the baseball stadium.
Actually, it may be necessary. I just didn't want to admit that FDA has been right all along. Sorry, FDA. You did get it right. Let's see what the consultants do with it.

hughgs
07-08-2008, 06:19 PM
The front page linked us to Al Featherstone's column on Kevin White's lunch with the press, (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=1506570) and I liked what I read, but for one little thing. Scroll down on the column, and you will see that FDA's plan to lower the field on Wallace Wade is now Kevin White's plan.

Actually, it may be necessary. I just didn't want to admit that FDA has been right all along. Sorry, FDA. You did get it right. Let's see what the consultants do with it.

I read the article in one of the newspapers and my first question upon seeing that line was the context in which White was speaking. Was he speaking from the standpoint of brainstorming, where all possibilities are on the table, or was he speaking from the standpoint that he's had a few meetings and here is our wish list? I suspect that it's the former, but I would like to hear from someone who actually knows.

formerdukeathlete
07-09-2008, 01:36 PM
The front page linked us to Al Featherstone's column on Kevin White's lunch with the press, (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=1506570) and I liked what I read, but for one little thing. Scroll down on the column, and you will see that FDA's plan to lower the field on Wallace Wade is now Kevin White's plan.

Actually, it may be necessary. I just didn't want to admit that FDA has been right all along. Sorry, FDA. You did get it right. Let's see what the consultants do with it.

Hey, Jarhead, yes, I think Kevin White is more focused on how WW can be transformed to make it a true D1 college Football venue. Many schools have removed the track or built new stadiums sans the track. Traditionally, removing the track in a natural bowl, was one of the least expensive ways to add seats. If you look at most natuaral bowls, or even most college stadiums, the field is below grade. Take, for instance, Notre Dame. The game day experience at Wade would be vastly improved if fans moved all the way down to the field, rather than being removed and separated as they are with the track. So, if we did this and kept the horseshoe open (which we can, you just add seats on the horseshoe end on the grade that is lowered), we are talking probably 7 - 9k seats. This leaves room for expansion at a future point through closing the horseshoe end. To me, this is the most important thing we can do. As we plan on being successful, we can plan on drawing as many fans as in the 1950s and 1960s and even more. This has to be of interest to Kevin White. We are spending money to be good in Football. We will be good, and we will be able to draw 50- 60k for a game, which helps with the money to maintain the program. In the meantime, the seats added will be very good seats and the stadium looks more impressive to recruits.

I think the original plans drawn up by Alleva were too timid - afraid of moving the track, forgetful that Duke routinely drew 45k fans in the past when the Triangle area was a small fraction of the size today. Moving the track will cost a few million. But it will be money well spent. Game day experience at Wade will be straight up, real deal Football, hard core, like the Marine Corps.:)

Bluedawg
07-10-2008, 01:05 PM
The front page linked us to Al Featherstone's column on Kevin White's lunch with the press, (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=1506570) and I liked what I read, but for one little thing. Scroll down on the column, and you will see that FDA's plan to lower the field on Wallace Wade is now Kevin White's plan.

Actually, it may be necessary. I just didn't want to admit that FDA has been right all along. Sorry, FDA. You did get it right. Let's see what the consultants do with it.

The only concern I've had over that is could it be done during one off season. It sounds like a major undertaking.

Bluedawg
07-10-2008, 01:14 PM
I read the article in one of the newspapers and my first question upon seeing that line was the context in which White was speaking. Was he speaking from the standpoint of brainstorming, where all possibilities are on the table, or was he speaking from the standpoint that he's had a few meetings and here is our wish list? I suspect that it's the former, but I would like to hear from someone who actually knows.

Based on this comment, I think its brainstorming:


“When we went to my previous institution, we contracted a national sporting architectural firm to get a master plan. If you aggregate all the facilities that are already built and the ones that are coming out of the ground [at Notre Dame], it probably represents something like $120 million. Everything we determined that we needed became part of the plan. It’s interesting to see most of it in place eight years later. I think we need to go through exactly the same kind of exercise here at Duke.

“I really want to hear from the experts. It’s easy for us to be pedestrian architects. I would really rather the professionals come in here and take a good hard look at it and give us a sense of what all of this might look like.”

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=1506570

hughgs
07-10-2008, 03:02 PM
Based on this comment, I think its brainstorming:

Thanks.

Assuming it's a series of brain-storming ideas then I don't think we should temper our collective anticipation that all of these suggestions will occur.

For example, look at the idea of moving the track. While I applaud the ability of the new AD to include the idea at any brain-storming session, when it gets to the level of actual implementation where ar they going to locate it? Not even FDA has come up with a "reasonable" place for the new track.

jmb
07-10-2008, 03:13 PM
Thanks.

Assuming it's a series of brain-storming ideas then I don't think we should temper our collective anticipation that all of these suggestions will occur.

For example, look at the idea of moving the track. While I applaud the ability of the new AD to include the idea at any brain-storming session, when it gets to the level of actual implementation where ar they going to locate it? Not even FDA has come up with a "reasonable" place for the new track.

Check out White's quote: his idea is the new campus. Grass fields on Whitford Drive are another possibility

Jarhead
07-10-2008, 08:59 PM
Check out White's quote: his idea is the new campus. Grass fields on Whitford Drive are another possibility
And there are other options, such as the land directly across Cameron Blvd from Wade Stadium and the practice fields. I don't think this is a simple brain storming session. This was a conference with select members of the media. It is the beginning volley in a campaign to upgrade DUAA facilities. I don't think that he will confine it to football stadium. He will need to raise the funds, and his campaign has started, but he will bring experts on site for assistance. I would expect the task to be done properly.

jimsumner
07-10-2008, 10:06 PM
I was at this press conference. Let me add some context. At that time his wife and youngest daughter were getting ready to move to Durham. They don't have a house yet, they're living in an apartment. He knew that his daughter was going to enroll at a local high school but he didn't know which one.

In other words, this is a man who is still very much in a learning-curve, state-of-transition. I think it's telling that he's spent most of the little time he's spent in Durham meeting with coaches, support people, media. He's not the kind of person who's going to come in and start throwing his weight around just to show people he can do it; yes, Dan Snyder, I'm talking to you but lots of other people.

As for Wade, Coombs, and the rest of the infrastructure, he knows that lots of work needs to be done, he's going to make darn sure it's done at the highest professional level but he's smart enough to know that he's nowhere near ready to make firm pronouncements as to exactly what that work will encompass.

Talk is cheap, of course, but my general, early impressions are positive. I think the guy knows what he's doing, has good instincts, and likes working with people. That's a pretty good start.

Inonehand
07-10-2008, 11:23 PM
I was at this press conference. Let me add some context. At that time his wife and youngest daughter were getting ready to move to Durham. They don't have a house yet, they're living in an apartment. He knew that his daughter was going to enroll at a local high school but he didn't know which one.

In other words, this is a man who is still very much in a learning-curve, state-of-transition. I think it's telling that he's spent most of the little time he's spent in Durham meeting with coaches, support people, media. He's not the kind of person who's going to come in and start throwing his weight around just to show people he can do it; yes, Dan Snyder, I'm talking to you but lots of other people.

As for Wade, Coombs, and the rest of the infrastructure, he knows that lots of work needs to be done, he's going to make darn sure it's done at the highest professional level but he's smart enough to know that he's nowhere near ready to make firm pronouncements as to exactly what that work will encompass.

Talk is cheap, of course, but my general, early impressions are positive. I think the guy knows what he's doing, has good instincts, and likes working with people. That's a pretty good start.


Right on Jim. Nobody I have talked to in the department has had anything but positive things to say. He seems to also be solidly missed by Notre Dame people too (at least those that worked for him).

I remember the days of temporary bleachers in Wally Wade for overflow crowds. We are a long way from that being a necessity but we can certainly get to the point where 33k seats are not enough. Cutcliffe has to win.

formerdukeathlete
07-11-2008, 07:59 AM
The only concern I've had over that is could it be done during one off season. It sounds like a major undertaking.


I was in LA, working downtown, close to the Coliseum, when the track was removed and the field lowered. I recall going over to take a look on a Saturday after putting in a few hours. Bulldozing the field at Wade, removing the track could start right after our last home game this coming season (provided we get the permits), depending on rain, it might take as little as 1 week to get the field area down to where it would be possible to cut the current wall of the stadium, carry that off, and then start forming up the new structure. Have to reset field drainage. This comes after the new structure is in place around the field - this takes about 2 months. A bleacher company comes in and fabricates aluminum bleachers on site - these take a month to intall. The last thing is getting the field ready. You are around March and you sod the field. The spring game might have to be played on the practice fields, maybe the soccer stadium. But then you are ready to go.

In LA, as I recall, the field lowering, track removal, new stands took about 4 months, and this was in the winter when they had some rain.

re the new track location - the strategic plan calls for a new track in the new Central Campus. I'd like to see it stay on West. You know someone will donate the money for the new track complex to be named after that donor.

Inonehand
07-11-2008, 01:52 PM
I was in LA, working downtown, close to the Coliseum, when the track was removed and the field lowered. I recall going over to take a look on a Saturday after putting in a few hours. Bulldozing the field at Wade, removing the track could start right after our last home game this coming season (provided we get the permits), depending on rain, it might take as little as 1 week to get the field area down to where it would be possible to cut the current wall of the stadium, carry that off, and then start forming up the new structure. Have to reset field drainage. This comes after the new structure is in place around the field - this takes about 2 months. A bleacher company comes in and fabricates aluminum bleachers on site - these take a month to intall. The last thing is getting the field ready. You are around March and you sod the field. The spring game might have to be played on the practice fields, maybe the soccer stadium. But then you are ready to go.

In LA, as I recall, the field lowering, track removal, new stands took about 4 months, and this was in the winter when they had some rain.

re the new track location - the strategic plan calls for a new track in the new Central Campus. I'd like to see it stay on West. You know someone will donate the money for the new track complex to be named after that donor.


Could it be done, yes. But, I believe there are plenty other issues to consider. For one, I think there is major water sewer infrastructure under the field. The tunnel was actually built not for players to run through but as an access for pipes. We shall see. Having sat up close to the field at a number of stadiums for football games, there is nothing like it.

hughgs
07-11-2008, 02:15 PM
re the new track location - the strategic plan calls for a new track in the new Central Campus. I'd like to see it stay on West. You know someone will donate the money for the new track complex to be named after that donor.

Can you post a link to this information? It's the first I've heard of it. Or is this simply information that you've heard about.

Devil in the Blue Dress
07-11-2008, 02:47 PM
Could it be done, yes. But, I believe there are plenty other issues to consider. For one, I think there is major water sewer infrastructure under the field. The tunnel was actually built not for players to run through but as an access for pipes. We shall see. Having sat up close to the field at a number of stadiums for football games, there is nothing like it.

There is a relatively new drainage system under the football field. The original drainage system stayed in place from 1929 until just a few years ago. After many years the system wasn't allowing the water to drain off the field well at all and was finally replaced within the past few years (five?). I suspect Bill Brill may know whether the tunnel has other functions in addition to allowing players access to the field.

formerdukeathlete
07-11-2008, 02:59 PM
Can you post a link to this information? It's the first I've heard of it. Or is this simply information that you've heard about.

should be right in the body of the plan, which is linked on the goduke.com website. Unless I am mistaken, it also discussed building a new pool (50 meeters, indoor) beside the new track facility.

formerdukeathlete
07-11-2008, 03:13 PM
Could it be done, yes. But, I believe there are plenty other issues to consider. For one, I think there is major water sewer infrastructure under the field. The tunnel was actually built not for players to run through but as an access for pipes. We shall see. Having sat up close to the field at a number of stadiums for football games, there is nothing like it.

If this is true, these pipes may run along below one of the sidelines - would seem more likely than that they would be under the track or the field (access). The main sewer, if it is there, could be diverted / moved to go under the new stadium seating, or lowered to continue to run under the (lowered) sidelines. Probably talking a $100k item - guess, tops, which might add 2 weeks to the timeline, I would think, so long as it is planned for properly.

Of course, we would redo the drainage for the football field. Football field related drainage plumbing would be replaced in any event.

bill brill
07-11-2008, 03:32 PM
I am all but certain that the track will be removed, but doubt that it has a high priority. duke needs to fill up the current wade seats first. the idea is to come up with an overall plan, with timetables for each, which helps fund raising. foundations and people tend to give more and more quickly when they can see the specifics in front of them, i.e., a well conceived plan incorporating all of the current and new facilities.

hughgs
07-11-2008, 04:53 PM
should be right in the body of the plan, which is linked on the goduke.com website. Unless I am mistaken, it also discussed building a new pool (50 meeters, indoor) beside the new track facility.

Here's the first reference I found to a new track (pg. 6):

Five years
Replace the President’s Box in Wallace Wade
Build the Performance Center
Construct a recreation complex on the New Campus
400 meter track
Squash courts
Aquatics center
Recreation center

I'm not sure that a recreation complex is the same as a varsity track. And in case you think that the strategic plan does not address non-varsity students (pg. 14):

We should provide improved club, intramural, and HPER opportunities. We anticipate at a minimum that we will need to a) increase staff for intramurals and club sports; b) provide more fields and facilities for intramural competition; and c) provide better facilities for swimming and other recreational activities. We particularly want to emphasize planning that will look at the long term needs of the university as a whole and construct facilities that will be useful to more than one team and to HPER as well as intercollegiate sports. These facilities should also be regarded as a means to improve relations with the local community.

The strategic plan clearly differentiates between varsity facilities and recreational facilities. Therefore I surmise that the strategic plan does not call for removal of the track.

So, let's not get ahead of ourselves and start believing that ideas from a brain-storming session are actually going to occur.

formerdukeathlete
07-11-2008, 05:09 PM
Here's the first reference I found to a new track (pg. 6):

Five years
Replace the President’s Box in Wallace Wade
Build the Performance Center
Construct a recreation complex on the New Campus
400 meter track
Squash courts
Aquatics center
Recreation center

I'm not sure that a recreation complex is the same as a varsity track. And in case you think that the strategic plan does not address non-varsity students (pg. 14):

.........................The strategic plan clearly differentiates between varsity facilities and recreational facilities. Therefore I surmise that the strategic plan does not call for removal of the track.

So, let's not get ahead of ourselves and start believing that ideas from a brain-storming session are actually going to occur.

The Aquatics center on the new Campus would be the varsity swimming practice facility. Yes, the strategic play does not specify that the 400 meter track built by it would become the varsity track facility. It is just a possible location. I would prefer a new track facility, with stands, clubhouse on West. Not all varsity sports are on West (currently), eg., field hockey, so what will happen will depend on what should work best vis a vis the track.

Its got to go from Wade. Within 5 years we may be the only bowl series d 1 school with the antiquated stadium format. Within 5 years we may also have the smallest stadium in that division. Neither helps recruiting. lowering the field and adding seats gets us at a critical mass to sustain our program. Otherwise, throw in the towel, along with the antiquated combined track format.

Keep abreast - I think White will move this forward as a priority.

hughgs
07-11-2008, 05:33 PM
Yes, the strategic play does not specify that the 400 meter track built by it would become the varsity track facility. It is just a possible location. I would prefer a new track facility, with stands, clubhouse on West. Not all varsity sports are on West (currently), eg., field hockey, so what will happen will depend on what should work best vis a vis the track.

Its got to go from Wade. Within 5 years we may be the only bowl series d 1 school with the antiquated stadium format. Within 5 years we may also have the smallest stadium in that division. Neither helps recruiting. lowering the field and adding seats gets us at a critical mass to sustain our program. Otherwise, throw in the towel, along with the antiquated combined track format.

Keep abreast - I think White will move this forward as a priority.

First of all, there's a huge difference between a 400 meter recreational track and something that can support the varsity team. There are the long jump pits and the steeplechase pits to name two. Surely, you don't believe that the recreational track will include those items. So, if they don't include those items then there's no way that the varsity team is going to use the facility.

Second, you always say that the track has to be removed from Wade but offer no evidence to back up your claims. You may believe your claims that the removal is necessary but you don't offer any evidence just more of your believes.

Finally, you have yet to answer the question of where the new track will go. It's easy to say that it should be removed and that the new track needs to have some set of amenities, but you have yet to offer up a viable place.

Now, I'm not saying that you're wrong, but as of this moment I don't see any evidence, other than your convictions, that the track will be removed.

formerdukeathlete
07-11-2008, 06:09 PM
..............
Second, you always say that the track has to be removed from Wade but offer no evidence to back up your claims. You may believe your claims that the removal is necessary but you don't offer any evidence just more of your believes.

Finally, you have yet to answer the question of where the new track will go. It's easy to say that it should be removed and that the new track needs to have some set of amenities, but you have yet to offer up a viable place.

Now, I'm not saying that you're wrong, but as of this moment I don't see any evidence, other than your convictions, that the track will be removed.

the caption above is my suggestion to you. about 20 d 1 programs have removed tracks, maybe more, or they have built new stadiums, and the reasons were quite well thought out, and compelling.

Let me mention some names off the top: Missouri, Penn State, Navy, Wisconsin, Texas Tech, USC (Coliseum), Stanford. Reasons were often very similar. Inexpensive way to add very good seats close to the field.

Our rivals also make fun of Wade and the track. Hits home and hurts recruiting.

Inonehand
07-11-2008, 10:38 PM
the caption above is my suggestion to you. about 20 d 1 programs have removed tracks, maybe more, or they have built new stadiums, and the reasons were quite well thought out, and compelling.

Let me mention some names off the top: Missouri, Penn State, Navy, Wisconsin, Texas Tech, USC (Coliseum), Stanford. Reasons were often very similar. Inexpensive way to add very good seats close to the field.

Our rivals also make fun of Wade and the track. Hits home and hurts recruiting.

Now, let's be reasonable. Yes, I believe the stadium would be more fan friendly and enjoyable without the track but to state it is detrimental to recruiting is a little bit much isn't it? If 33,000 rear ends sat in Wally Wade as it is, recruits would notice that far more than the removal of the track. 18 year olds are swayed by many odd things but the fact there is or isn't a track around the field doesn't seem to be high on the list. Having 9000 people at homecoming seems more important.

gep
07-11-2008, 11:10 PM
I only went into Wallace Wade once... for graduation. If I recall, the top levels of the seating is at "regular" ground level. Would there be any possibility of adding a "second story" of seats, above the current seating? Just a thought... :rolleyes:

Devil in the Blue Dress
07-11-2008, 11:17 PM
I only went into Wallace Wade once... for graduation. If I recall, the top levels of the seating is at "regular" ground level. Would there be any possibility of adding a "second story" of seats, above the current seating? Just a thought... :rolleyes:
In the "old days" there were a number of wooden bleachers providing lots of seating on what is now the paved concourse. The first game my dad took our family to was the 1959 Army game. Our seats were in a section of the wooden bleachers. (I seem to recall that the bleachers are added to increase the seating capacity for the Rose Bowl when it was played in Durham...)

formerdukeathlete
07-11-2008, 11:49 PM
I only went into Wallace Wade once... for graduation. If I recall, the top levels of the seating is at "regular" ground level. Would there be any possibility of adding a "second story" of seats, above the current seating? Just a thought... :rolleyes:


you could add a second story, but the seats would not be (nearly) as good as the seats added by simply lowering the field, and the seats would probably cost more.

University of Wisconsin is a good study. The first order of expansion was to lower the field, remove the track (in the WW like horseshoe) and add 11k searts close in. The stadium retained its historical significance, charm, yet was updated (this occurred in the 1950s). Later on they added an upper deck.

Duke probably does not add a second deck, and how would it look, with F-Y / press box on one side and an upper deck on the other?

later, what may be planned is converting bleachers into chairs - you lose 15% of your seating capacity then. so, at current capacity WW goes from 33k to 28k when we do that. It is not so much that we need more seats, we need the type of seats which provide an exciting college football atmosphere. It also makes the stadium more impressive. It helps recruiting. It would help attendance. There is nothing certain in an absolute sense about this. Consider that virtually all of the bcs football world have gotten rid of their tracks (the two remaining, Wash. and Kansas appear closer to getting rid of theirs), while at the same time Duke's Football program has declined into obscurity. We can fill 40k for Football playing better than 500 ball. We did it in the 1950s and 1960s, when Raleigh Durham, the State of North Carolina, southern Middle Atlantic States were, what, a sixth of the population today?

gep
07-12-2008, 01:46 AM
you could add a second story, but the seats would not be (nearly) as good as the seats added by simply lowering the field, and the seats would probably cost more.

******

It is not so much that we need more seats, we need the type of seats which provide an exciting college football atmosphere.



Thanks for your insight. As I said, I speak from interest, as opposed to real knowledge. I do agree that we need seats that enhance the college football atmospere. But if a "quick fix" of adding more seats... which hopefully will be needed "very soon now"... maybe, as DBD said earlier, some kind of "upper deck" seating will do for now as it did for the Rose Bowl in the past:D

Or, if really anticipated that an "upper deck" will be needed in the future, maybe at least the overall design concept will help in planning...

hughgs
07-12-2008, 05:44 AM
the caption above is my suggestion to you. about 20 d 1 programs have removed tracks, maybe more, or they have built new stadiums, and the reasons were quite well thought out, and compelling.

That's all well and good, but you have yet to provide well thought out and compelling reasons for removal of the track. And by compelling I mean that you need to provide more evidence, directly related to Duke's situation, that we need to remove the track.

You say it hurts recruiting. How do you know? Believing a statement doesn't make it so. Show us some evidence.

You say they can move the track. Where's the new location? Given that the new strategic plan calls for the upgrade of old fields and the construction of new recreational centers (not varsity fields) you have yet to answer this all-important question.

Once again, your making statements of your beliefs as if they were true. I'm simply asking for some evidence.

formerdukeathlete
07-12-2008, 07:41 AM
That's all well and good, but you have yet to provide well thought out and compelling reasons for removal of the track. And by compelling I mean that you need to provide more evidence, directly related to Duke's situation, that we need to remove the track.

You say it hurts recruiting. How do you know? Believing a statement doesn't make it so. Show us some evidence.

You say they can move the track. Where's the new location? Given that the new strategic plan calls for the upgrade of old fields and the construction of new recreational centers (not varsity fields) you have yet to answer this all-important question.

Once again, your making statements of your beliefs as if they were true. I'm simply asking for some evidence.


I am quite certain that it is true that the track hurts recruiting, hinders enthusiam to go to games, hinders enthusiasm at the games, and makes our stadium seem outdated. The President's box is unsightly to most all, and that the stadium is the worst in the ACC. I think if you spent an hour googling and reading about what others think of Wade, you would understand that it is highly probable that recruits read the same.

Wisconsin is a good case study.

http://www.collegegridirons.com/bigten/CampRandallStadium.htm

Their stadium was constructed about 10 years before Wade - a horseshoe design with a track separating the fans from the field.

http://www.collegecharlie.com/stadiums.html

From the description of Ohio State's stadium,

"The closeness of the seating provides a definite home-field advantage for the Buckeyes"

Ohio State like Wisconsin started out as a one deck horseshoe with a running track separating fans from the field.

Another thing you will notice is how in many stadiums the field is significantly below grade: Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio state, Wisconsin, Yale.

You want surveys, hard evidence, well there is none exact. Could Duke win without removing the track. Well it did briefly with Spurrier and one year with Goldsmith. The parsity of success is partly attibutable to having the worst stadium in all bcs. In the most recent presser, Dr. White voiced really fixing Wade as the single most important thing (though Cutcliffe's priority is the practice facility). Dr. White has been around major college sports for a long time. He wants to 86 the track because he believes it is necessary. I dont think we reach a critical mass re Football without doing it. And, if we do not think we can fill 40k for home games, we should get out of the business, leave the ACC, and play D1-AA type ball. Right now, there are a lot of D1-AA type schools with better stadiums to watch a game, including Yale, Harvard, Princeton. Wait, eventually we might even have to remove the track if we stick to Richmond and the Patriot league!

DukeVu
07-12-2008, 10:30 AM
That's all well and good, but you have yet to provide well thought out and compelling reasons for removal of the track. And by compelling I mean that you need to provide more evidence, directly related to Duke's situation, that we need to remove the track.

You say it hurts recruiting. How do you know? Believing a statement doesn't make it so. Show us some evidence.

You say they can move the track. Where's the new location? Given that the new strategic plan calls for the upgrade of old fields and the construction of new recreational centers (not varsity fields) you have yet to answer this all-important question.

Once again, your making statements of your beliefs as if they were true. I'm simply asking for some evidence.


Why does anyone have to provide Hughgs any concrete evidence? If you have been paying attention for the last few year it is evident enough that Duke has not been getting the quality athletes to compete. The stadium in its present condition is evident to everybody with eyes that Duke has not been committed to football. And you are not giving potential Duke students enough credit when you say that they do not pay attention to facilities. The bathrooms, the concession stands, the president's box, come on, you are not serious about this.

And what about the track? Does Duke even have a track team? It appears that a recreational track facility would be adequate for a team that you never read about being competitive for anything. Maybe in a rare incidence do you see ONE individual compete in a distance race. And even if Duke got serious about track I do not believe that a single poster on this board would make the decision of where to locate the track.

I sat in WW more than 50 years ago amidst 48,000 fans jammed shoulder to shoulder with splintered wooden seats pricking my backsides. Peeing in the same troughs with the same old concession stands. Nothing much has changed except backless metal, reduced seats and the press box. The university is making a committment, finally, and now we have a few whinners about the Track, who are asking someone to 'prove to them' that the track shouldn't go. Why do you even consider that a non-competitive, non-revenue sport become more than a minor consideration in the revival of a revenue producing, university enhancing sport? I am not saying that track should be banished, just that it be placed in proper perspective.

Duke has hired a first class coaching staff and a first class AD and for myself I am willing to let them make the decisions unless, of course, if you are a major contributor of say 10 Million or so.

jimsumner
07-12-2008, 10:53 AM
I agree with hughgs that you don't tear up the track without having an adequate replacement.

But, speaking as someone who has attended football games at Wade since LBJ was president, I don't think there's any question that the track inhibits the football experience. It simply puts fans further away from the field than they need to be. And I'm speaking as a former runner.

The compromise made sense when Duke was in the big-time track business. The international meets in the 1970s, the NCAA championship meets, all benefited from having a great track and a full stadium. But those days are gone. Years ago Duke/Durham tried to get on the Grand Prix circuit and was rebuffed. No disrespect to any incumbents, but LeRoy Walker and Al Buehler are retired and Durham is no longer in the running for track-town-USA. I'll concede to Eugene.

So having this track where it is for meets that attract a few hundred non-paying fans at the expense of a resurgent, revenue-producing football program is a luxury that Duke can no longer afford. IMO.

FWIW, I specifically asked our new AD about the track at the media luncheon last week and he was non-committal. But it's on his to-do list, I'm sure of that.

Jarhead
07-12-2008, 02:14 PM
When I started this thread Kevin White's press conference was news that nobody was talking about. I was thinking that we should have been paying more attention to it, so I keyed on what was, on the old DBR main board, a pretty hot topic back when Ted Roof was the new head coach -- how to improve ,the facilities at Wallace Wade Stadium. I was opposed to any move that would remove the track facilities from the stadium. Formerdukeathlete was strongly in favor of removing the track and lowering the field.

On reading Al Featherstone's (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=1506570) column on White's press conference, I was thinking that he must have some ideas that need our support. I don't think that the topics he covered in the press conference were just some things of the cuff. He had been giving some thought on how he would start off doing his new job. He was preparing us for things to come, and was doing more than floating a trial balloon. He had some ideas, and he wanted to get those ideas out there to see who his allies would be in getting his job done. As I have been reading this thread, I believe that he has found some here. That would be nice for us, if he notices us.

Removing the track would just be one of the tasks he needs to consider, but I now feel that it may be job one for him, because of all of the things he would have to line up to get that job done, and because it will be a factor on rebuilding the football program at Duke. I have the feeling that it already has a high priority on his to-do list. There are some givens that he has to consider. One is that absent a top notch track facility, varsity track has little chance of survival, so he must see to it that a varsity track facility is in place. Another is that Wallace Wade must be improved, and removing the track would be part of a plan for that improvement. I personally see no real need for keeping the track in the stadium even though I was once arguing against its removal. I'm a flip flopper, I guess. It's removal should be a major part of the improvements.

Of course, money will be needed, and a location for a new varsity track facility has to be found. If the new recreation facility on the central campus already provides adequate space and facilities for varsity track, then we may have a solution. On the other hand, there are other places, and other reasons for that facility to be located elsewhere. I agree with the thought that West Campus would be a better location, and my suggestion has been the piece of land across Cameron Blvd from Wallace Wade just east of the golf course practice range. That would take something from the value of the recreational facility on Central Campus, so I could be convinced otherwise. A varsity track facilty is a must, wherever it is.

I am anxious to see what Kevin White's final plan will be. Time is passing by, so everybody has to dig in and get on with the job. Fund raising is critical, and the University coffers should be able to give some help. There will be considerable financial benefits from a well designed plan. When it happens, I want them to remember to move the football field back four yards toward the closed end. They had moved it four yards toward the open end to accommodate changes to the track to meet Olympic specs. My seats used to be on the 50 yard line. Now they are on the 46 yard line. Don't forget that four yards, Kevin.

hughgs
07-13-2008, 01:44 AM
Why does anyone have to provide Hughgs any concrete evidence? If you have been paying attention for the last few year it is evident enough that Duke has not been getting the quality athletes to compete. The stadium in its present condition is evident to everybody with eyes that Duke has not been committed to football. And you are not giving potential Duke students enough credit when you say that they do not pay attention to facilities. The bathrooms, the concession stands, the president's box, come on, you are not serious about this.

And what about the track? Does Duke even have a track team? It appears that a recreational track facility would be adequate for a team that you never read about being competitive for anything. Maybe in a rare incidence do you see ONE individual compete in a distance race. And even if Duke got serious about track I do not believe that a single poster on this board would make the decision of where to locate the track.

I sat in WW more than 50 years ago amidst 48,000 fans jammed shoulder to shoulder with splintered wooden seats pricking my backsides. Peeing in the same troughs with the same old concession stands. Nothing much has changed except backless metal, reduced seats and the press box. The university is making a committment, finally, and now we have a few whinners about the Track, who are asking someone to 'prove to them' that the track shouldn't go. Why do you even consider that a non-competitive, non-revenue sport become more than a minor consideration in the revival of a revenue producing, university enhancing sport? I am not saying that track should be banished, just that it be placed in proper perspective.

Duke has hired a first class coaching staff and a first class AD and for myself I am willing to let them make the decisions unless, of course, if you are a major contributor of say 10 Million or so.

The reason that FDA should provide some evidence that his statements are ture are tow-fold. First, he has a history of making major pronouncements based strictly on his opinion and rarely backs up those pronouncements. Second, the idea of this board is to have reasonable debates about Duke basketball and by extension the football program. It's impossible to discuss or debate the merits of the removal of the track if one side is simply going to repeat over and over that they are correct and refuse to provide evidence.

You will notice that at no point am I trying to decide whether the track needs to be moved. But, if a poster is going to state unequivocally that the track will be moved and that poster is not part of the administration then I think the community is better served if we understand how that pronouncement is grounded.

hughgs
07-13-2008, 01:51 AM
You want surveys, hard evidence, well there is none exact. Could Duke win without removing the track. Well it did briefly with Spurrier and one year with Goldsmith. The parsity of success is partly attibutable to having the worst stadium in all bcs. In the most recent presser, Dr. White voiced really fixing Wade as the single most important thing (though Cutcliffe's priority is the practice facility). Dr. White has been around major college sports for a long time. He wants to 86 the track because he believes it is necessary. I dont think we reach a critical mass re Football without doing it.

Thank you for answering the question. I don't disagree that other schools have created a better football experience without a track, but I also don't think that Duke will do anything to the track until they find another place for it. That's the 500 pound gorilla that you ignore.

I will take issue with one statement. Dr. White has never said that he believes it is necessary to 86 the track. If you read what people who attended the news conference said, Dr. White is considering all ideas and one of those is the removal of the track. There's a big difference.

hughgs
07-13-2008, 01:58 AM
... and my suggestion has been the piece of land across Cameron Blvd from Wallace Wade just east of the golf course practice range. That would take something from the value of the recreational facility on Central Campus, so I could be convinced otherwise. A varsity track facilty is a must, wherever it is.

I've always thought that the men's lacrosse team practiced on that field every once in a while. And getting to the track at that location would be a major pain. There's no easy access from Duke unless you walk along Cameron Blvd.

Jarhead
07-13-2008, 06:40 AM
I've always thought that the men's lacrosse team practiced on that field every once in a while. And getting to the track at that location would be a major pain. There's no easy access from Duke unless you walk along Cameron Blvd.
You may be right, but a pedestrian bridge or a tunnel might work. The biggest problem I see is that there is a creek running right through that area. Google Earth shows nothing but woods, and that creek. I am sure that the professional design help White is considering would figure out all of that. I think if we continue talking about it, we'll talk ourselves out of it. I hope the folks in charge aren't as confused as we are.

formerdukeathlete
07-13-2008, 09:36 AM
Thank you for answering the question. I don't disagree that other schools have created a better football experience without a track, but I also don't think that Duke will do anything to the track until they find another place for it. That's the 500 pound gorilla that you ignore.

I will take issue with one statement. Dr. White has never said that he believes it is necessary to 86 the track. If you read what people who attended the news conference said, Dr. White is considering all ideas and one of those is the removal of the track. There's a big difference.

As far as my history on getting out in front of issues on this Board, which you have commented on in a negative fashion above, you fail to acknowledge how prescient my opinions on this Board have been. For example, I was first about what went on in the Duke Lacrosse matter. I was first in pointing out that the track has got to go - four years ago, which will happen because the reasons why we need to do this have been answered for many years and by many other schools.

I have offered the basis of my opinion - our stadium looks high school and virtually all others have removed the track. Our stadium lacks capacity to sustain a winning program. It lacks the proper atmosphere to create and sustain fan interest to sustain a winning program, and, most importantly it is an easy problem to fix - remove the track, lower the field and form up permanent seating, mimicing the existing footprint down to the field.

The 500 pound gorilla, the track, is really more like a 16 ounce problem. We have land for a track, it does not take up that much space. I would even say that we have a benefactor ready to contribute the money so that the track and stands will be named after that person. The monkey wrench is the obstreperous track fan.

In any discussion, debate, advocacy, I pursue a course of action which is in the best interests of my client, constituency. The issue here is, what is in the best interests of the overall athletic program, of Duke University, not what is in the best interests of the track team, or even the Football team. The University needs a real Football stadium, and getting rid of the track is an inexpensive way of achieving that. We get better in Football because of this. And, this helps sustain our athletic programs, which is in the best interests of the University. Yes, this is my opinion, based on analysis of the facts. Just like what I did in the Lacrosse case.

hughgs
07-13-2008, 01:32 PM
As far as my history on getting out in front of issues on this Board, which you have commented on in a negative fashion above, you fail to acknowledge how prescient my opinions on this Board have been. For example, I was first about what went on in the Duke Lacrosse matter. I was first in pointing out that the track has got to go - four years ago, which will happen because the reasons why we need to do this have been answered for many years and by many other schools.

I have offered the basis of my opinion - our stadium looks high school and virtually all others have removed the track. Our stadium lacks capacity to sustain a winning program. It lacks the proper atmosphere to create and sustain fan interest to sustain a winning program, and, most importantly it is an easy problem to fix - remove the track, lower the field and form up permanent seating, mimicing the existing footprint down to the field.

The 500 pound gorilla, the track, is really more like a 16 ounce problem. We have land for a track, it does not take up that much space. I would even say that we have a benefactor ready to contribute the money so that the track and stands will be named after that person. The monkey wrench is the obstreperous track fan.

In any discussion, debate, advocacy, I pursue a course of action which is in the best interests of my client, constituency. The issue here is, what is in the best interests of the overall athletic program, of Duke University, not what is in the best interests of the track team, or even the Football team. The University needs a real Football stadium, and getting rid of the track is an inexpensive way of achieving that. We get better in Football because of this. And, this helps sustain our athletic programs, which is in the best interests of the University. Yes, this is my opinion, based on analysis of the facts. Just like what I did in the Lacrosse case.

And this exemplifies why I pound on you so hard about backing up your positions. I commented on the fact that you have never offered a viable alternative to the track. You respond with two strawmen, one that your prescience in the Duke lacrosse case is enough reason for us to believe everything you say, and two that the basis for your opinion should be taken as fact.

And then, instead of answering the question you repeat that it needs to be moved. No has argued that it you can't move the track. I'm simply asking where do you think it will go.

Instead we're subjected to how prescient you are. You forgot to mention that you're picking up lots of women and can bench 280 tons. None of which matters in the conversation.

So, I ask again, where should the track go?

jimsumner
07-13-2008, 01:55 PM
"The monkey wrench is the obstreperous track fan."

Duke has an obsteperous track fan? Where's he been hiding?

formerdukeathlete
07-13-2008, 02:04 PM
And this exemplifies why I pound on you so hard about backing up your positions. I commented on the fact that you have never offered a viable alternative to the track. You respond with two strawmen, one that your prescience in the Duke lacrosse case is enough reason for us to believe everything you say, and two that the basis for your opinion should be taken as fact.

And then, instead of answering the question you repeat that it needs to be moved. No has argued that it you can't move the track. I'm simply asking where do you think it will go.

Instead we're subjected to how prescient you are. You forgot to mention that you're picking up lots of women and can bench 280 tons. None of which matters in the conversation.

So, I ask again, where should the track go?

Where the track goes is an issue which is easily solvable. There are a number of locations. There is a lot of land, including of course land the other side of 751. I'll leave that up to the AD.

It really is far more important that Duke has a viable football stadium. Track separating the fans from the field has been found inadquate and counterproductive many, many times before. Jim Sumner has no agenda on this one, other than perhaps, as I, wanting want is best for the overall athletic program. He now agrees.

Stop the track removal, and you doom Duke to have eventually the smallest Football stadium in bcs and the only one with this antiquated approach to the fan experience. Wisconsin and Ohio State got rid of their tracks years ago. Stanford, through bulldozing the old stadium very recently. Pitt, through bulldozing the old Pitt Stadium maybe 8 years ago. Texas Tech, Missouri, soon Washington, Penn State many years ago. Division 1-AA type schools have better stadiums. WW is a joke with the track, but it can be a viable football stadium quite simply and economically.

You dont get it, that is clear. "Show me the proof we need this....errr...eerrr...where are the facts.....errr....eerrr..facts....where is the evidence?!"

You would have been the odd man out back in Wisconsin, or at Pitt, or at Stanford, or at Ohio State, Penn State, Texas Tech, now Washington...

I find validation that what I suggest for Duke was found to be necessary to improve the fan experience at a number of other universities. In Duke's case, it can be done easily and economically. We reach a viable critical mass seating capacity to sustain a successful program. We presere the natural setting.

formerdukeathlete
07-13-2008, 02:12 PM
"The monkey wrench is the obstreperous track fan."

Duke has an obsteperous track fan? Where's he been hiding?

goes by the name of hughgs....

After Alleva's renderings of the renovated Wade, which looked to me like the track was removed but the field was not lowered, just that some temp. bleachers were put in along the field level, the uproar, or protests must have come in. The next day, Alleva releases that the track will stay for a long while. He responded to some heat from at least one obstreperous track fan.:)

devilirium
07-13-2008, 02:41 PM
Would agree with FDA here. The track really amounts to a practice facility. Just glancing back at the venues for Duke Track (per the schedule), Duke only had one occasion per year to use the track as a venue for real competition. The Asics invitational, and the Duke invitational.

I've heard rumblings that Central Campus may be the ticket, but certainly the land near the Washington Duke may be a possibility. It's been a good run for Duke Track--Dave Sime, Joel Shankle, the Pan Am games, etc. but it's time to rip it out. Personally, I'll enjoy the running the track in it's new location. The mondo surface is great for this poster, but I can live with running on it in another location.

And with regard to evidence for removal, just attend a football game and talk to the most casual of fans. Inevitably, you will get responses, "I love watching the game at the top of the wall, but why the hell do we have a track here" or "I'd love to have a similar type of viewing experience with football as we do in Cameron", etc. I've even spoken to members of the media favorable to Duke, and they'll say "Duke doesn't have a football stadium, it's a football field with a track around it".

OZZIE4DUKE
07-13-2008, 06:10 PM
I'm gonna have to get a bigger dictionary. My desktop paperback copy of Webster's 21st Century Dictionary for school, home and office lists no such word.


ob·strep·er·ous /əbˈstrɛpərəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhb-strep-er-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. resisting control or restraint in a difficult manner; unruly.
2. noisy, clamorous, or boisterous: obstreperous children.
[Origin: 1590–1600; < L obstreperus clamorous, akin to obstrepere to make a noise at (ob- ob- + strepere to rattle); see -ous]

—Related forms
ob·strep·er·ous·ly, adverb
ob·strep·er·ous·ness, ob·strep·e·ros·i·ty

hughgs
07-13-2008, 06:59 PM
Would agree with FDA here. The track really amounts to a practice facility. Just glancing back at the venues for Duke Track (per the schedule), Duke only had one occasion per year to use the track as a venue for real competition. The Asics invitational, and the Duke invitational.

While it may be true that the track is simply a practice facility, you still need to find someplace to put it. And a recreational track facility won't have a long jump pit, a pole vault pit, and a steeplechase pit.

hughgs
07-13-2008, 07:08 PM
goes by the name of hughgs....

After Alleva's renderings of the renovated Wade, which looked to me like the track was removed but the field was not lowered, just that some temp. bleachers were put in along the field level, the uproar, or protests must have come in. The next day, Alleva releases that the track will stay for a long while. He responded to some heat from at least one obstreperous track fan.:)

Unfortunately for you I'm not necessarily a track fan. I'm simply a poster in this community who is tired of seeing pronouncements made as if they were fact when in truth they are merely the beliefs of someone.

Maybe you're right, we don't need facts when debating issues brought forth in this forum. In that case I think we should get rid of Coach K. I was the first one who thought of cheese-stuffed chicken nuggets therefore everyone should listen to me.

To me it's very simple. If you have strongly held beliefs about the removal of the track (or anything else) then you need to either show the DBR community why we should listen to you (list some facts or present some evidence) or state unequivocally that they are simply your tenets. Only after many, many posts do we find out that one, you have no evidence that relocating the track will improve recruiting and two that the simple question of where to relocate the track doesn't matter because someone else will figure it out.

Whether you end up being right or wrong is immaterial since noone on this board has any true say in the matter (at least I hope not). But debating in good faith means that you have to have facts to debate.

formerdukeathlete
07-13-2008, 08:17 PM
Unfortunately for you I'm not necessarily a track fan. I'm simply a poster in this community who is tired of seeing pronouncements made as if they were fact when in truth they are merely the beliefs of someone.

Maybe you're right, we don't need facts when debating issues brought forth in this forum. In that case I think we should get rid of Coach K. I was the first one who thought of cheese-stuffed chicken nuggets therefore everyone should listen to me.

To me it's very simple. If you have strongly held beliefs about the removal of the track (or anything else) then you need to either show the DBR community why we should listen to you (list some facts or present some evidence) or state unequivocally that they are simply your tenets. Only after many, many posts do we find out that one, you have no evidence that relocating the track will improve recruiting and two that the simple question of where to relocate the track doesn't matter because someone else will figure it out.

Whether you end up being right or wrong is immaterial since noone on this board has any true say in the matter (at least I hope not). But debating in good faith means that you have to have facts to debate.

You underestimate the impact of these discussions, and perhaps are unaware of the types of folks who read these threads.

The basis for my assertion that the track has to go has been laid out pretty well here. Based on the facts and circumstances, I believe ripping out the track gets us what we need to sustain a good Football Program.

Suggest where the track might go (among the various locations) rather than levying smug thinly veiled insults toward me suggesting, "How dare you suggest the track has to go without pinpointing where you would relocate it." Suggest why you agree or disagree with my assertion, read about other stadiums which were improved in this fashion, rather than exclaiming, "where are the facts...I cant think about this without surveys..."

The reasons for and belief we should improve Wade in this fashion are shared by long term followers of the program, includng by journalists such as Frank D of the Herald-Sun.

formerdukeathlete
07-13-2008, 08:51 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Owens_Memorial_Stadium

Ohio State 86 ed their track around 2001, lowering the field by 14.5 feet and bringing seats down to the field. Now they tout close proximity of fans as giving them a home field advantage. According to the wiki article, the 10,000seat combined track, lacrosse, soccer stadium completed in conjuction with the track removal at Ohio Stadium cost $6.5 million. My guess is that OSU did not spend much more than that lowering the field and adding seats down to the field.

OSU lowered the field 14.5 feet. The stadium was already in a flood plain. Modern drainage systems do wonders.

Take a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Stadium

PSurprise
07-13-2008, 09:07 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Owens_Memorial_Stadium

Ohio State 86 ed their track around 2001, lowering the field by 14.5 feet and bringing seats down to the field. Now they tout close proximity of fans as giving them a home field advantage. According to the wiki article, the 10,000seat combined track, lacrosse, soccer stadium completed in conjuction with the track removal at Ohio Stadium cost $6.5 million. My guess is that OSU did not spend much more than that lowering the field and adding seats down to the field.

OSU lowered the field 14.5 feet. The stadium was already in a flood plain. Modern drainage systems do wonders.

Take a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Stadium

Then maybe Duke can add a Turfgrass Science degree to its programs as well.

devilirium
07-13-2008, 09:45 PM
^ That is something that has been needed for quite some time--ie the field turf. The staff has been in Tallman Trask and Dr. Brodhead's ear about it---I can assure you of that. They are very, very leery of the field in it's present shape. As one member of the current staff put it to me and another poster of this board (perhaps hyperbollically)--"We could have a lawsuit on our hands if this isn't fixed".

OZZIE4DUKE
07-13-2008, 09:57 PM
Then maybe Duke can add a Turfgrass Science degree to its programs as well.

Um, I believe that major is better covered at NC State.

Inonehand
07-13-2008, 10:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Owens_Memorial_Stadium

Ohio State 86 ed their track around 2001, lowering the field by 14.5 feet and bringing seats down to the field. Now they tout close proximity of fans as giving them a home field advantage. According to the wiki article, the 10,000seat combined track, lacrosse, soccer stadium completed in conjuction with the track removal at Ohio Stadium cost $6.5 million. My guess is that OSU did not spend much more than that lowering the field and adding seats down to the field.

OSU lowered the field 14.5 feet. The stadium was already in a flood plain. Modern drainage systems do wonders.

Take a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Stadium

So I will tiptoe into this. Earlier your stated that you were the first person to bring up the removal of the track? Really? I've heard about it for years. Getting it done in one off-season? I hope so, but Duke couldn't get bathrooms done so hopefully Trask has nothing to do with future desired changes and additions. Ohio State already had home field advantage, my good man. They added new seats toward a lowered field for money...not wins. Getting the new track facility built on the new improved Central Campus could be years in the makings. Designs, even land use plans, are not even close to being finished. Simply put, the new track facility would have to be built, finished and ready for use before they tear out the track at Wally. Again, I believe it is a good idea and should be done. Its importance is where I differ from you. There are a great number of things that need to be done for football and Wally that are WAY more important. One of which though is tied to track removal...putting a decent scoreboard in the open end. The one we have is pathetic. A new board in the closed in could be done now to augment.

As for your mastery of the English language...very impressed.

devilirium
07-13-2008, 10:37 PM
InOne,

The indoor practice facility is certainly the next thing or pretty close to it in the works. I've already seen some of the details in the Reed Bulletin. What bothers you most about the current scoreboard?

formerdukeathlete
07-13-2008, 10:48 PM
So I will tiptoe into this. Earlier your stated that you were the first person to bring up the removal of the track? Really? I've heard about it for years. Getting it done in one off-season? I hope so, but Duke couldn't get bathrooms done so hopefully Trask has nothing to do with future desired changes and additions. Ohio State already had home field advantage, my good man. They added new seats toward a lowered field for money...not wins. Getting the new track facility built on the new improved Central Campus could be years in the makings. Designs, even land use plans, are not even close to being finished. Simply put, the new track facility would have to be built, finished and ready for use before they tear out the track at Wally. Again, I believe it is a good idea and should be done. Its importance is where I differ from you. There are a great number of things that need to be done for football and Wally that are WAY more important. One of which though is tied to track removal...putting a decent scoreboard in the open end. The one we have is pathetic. A new board in the closed in could be done now to augment.



A new track can be put up on West. The stat. plan had a track going in on Central, but we are not wedded to this, as, if, fixing Wade the right way becomes a priority, as it appears to be.

I disagree that there is anything at Wade which is a higher priority, or which would yield or return more for the dollar than getting rid of the track. Lower the field, bring permanent seating down, install field turf, and we are good to go. Bring all season ticket holders closer to the field.

re bathrooms, concessions, well, I can live with the bathrooms as they are, not ideal, but to me the bathrooms do not make the game day experience. Sitting close to the action does.

I think it is important for folks to review how this sort of stadium improvement works, that many universities have gone this route, that it improves the game day experience. The prevailing opinion had been, "we, Duke, have to sell more seats before we ever do this." The revised opinion may be, with Kevin White thinking about going a head and doing this now, "we can do this and it will help us sell better seats, in a stadium with an improved overall game day experience." Our stadium will be more impressive, which helps recruiting (most believe), which then helps winning, which helps selling tickets, which helps sustain the program. All signs point, imo, to doing this now.

BTW, at least in the last x years since I have been posting, I believe I was the first to suggest that we should not wait until we fill Wade all the time to remove the track and lower the field, and bring seats down to the field. I believe I was first to suggest that doing this will actually help us fill Wade. Yes, you are right, this way of expanding a stadium through removing a track has been around for a long, long time. My point in mentioning firsts was simply to respond to hughhgs negative assertion, implication that my posts are almost always unsubstantiated and incorrect.

RPS
07-14-2008, 10:03 AM
Only after many, many posts do we find out that one, you have no evidence that relocating the track will improve recruiting and two that the simple question of where to relocate the track doesn't matter because someone else will figure it out.My son started summer school with his new football teammates at an outstanding university a week ago and we, as a family, are just removed from the recruiting process. I previously summarized what we were looking at during that process here (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18816#post18816). It was written when he was a high school junior but it remains pretty accurate.

Facilities in general are important. Commitment to the program is more important (and facilities are only one aspect of that). However, the condition of WW is a major problem for Duke recruiting. For years it was glaring evidence that Duke didn't care about football. Recent changes and (especially) Coach Cut can counter the ongoing Duke doesn't care argument, but WW still needs a major overhaul. More important (though related) is fan support. A better stadium and seats closer to the action will help a lot. Becoming competitive will help a lot more.

The school my son ultimately chose doesn't have the best facilities right now. But there is are major upgrades in the works (and way more than $100mm raised to pay for them). An average attendance in excess of 60,000 matters even more.

You may reject my evidence as anecdotal and unrepresentative. But I routinely asked coaches in the recruiting process (including one who turned Duke down a few years ago) about my school and what could be done to fix things. The answers were amazingly consistent across-the-board -- Duke needs more support and better facilities. Thankfully, it appears that the pieces are in place to achieve both.

Getting rid of the track is significant. Obviously, track facilities have to be moved somewhere, but it shouldn't be hard to figure out an appropriate spot, especially since (because of football's being such a "public" sport) improving WW is so important to football's becoming competitive and to the overall health of athletics at Duke.

formerdukeathlete
07-14-2008, 12:47 PM
My son started summer school with his new football teammates at an outstanding university a week ago and we, as a family, are just removed from the recruiting process. I previously summarized what we were looking at during that process here (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18816#post18816). It was written when he was a high school junior but it remains pretty accurate.

Facilities in general are important. Commitment to the program is more important (and facilities are only one aspect of that). However, the condition of WW is a major problem for Duke recruiting. For years it was glaring evidence that Duke didn't care about football. Recent changes and (especially) Coach Cut can counter the ongoing Duke doesn't care argument, but WW still needs a major overhaul. More important (though related) is fan support. A better stadium and seats closer to the action will help a lot. Becoming competitive will help a lot more.

The school my son ultimately chose doesn't have the best facilities right now. But there is are major upgrades in the works (and way more than $100mm raised to pay for them). An average attendance in excess of 60,000 matters even more.

You may reject my evidence as anecdotal and unrepresentative. But I routinely asked coaches in the recruiting process (including one who turned Duke down a few years ago) about my school and what could be done to fix things. The answers were amazingly consistent across-the-board -- Duke needs more support and better facilities. Thankfully, it appears that the pieces are in place to achieve both.

Getting rid of the track is significant. Obviously, track facilities have to be moved somewhere, but it shouldn't be hard to figure out an appropriate spot, especially since (because of football's being such a "public" sport) improving WW is so important to football's becoming competitive and to the overall health of athletics at Duke.

RPS, thank you for your post. your son will enjoy the program at Cal. A friend of mine is a booster and goes to all the games...keeps me abreast of the legal fight to free up the area where Cal intends to build the new football and multipurpose practice facility.

Many get that removing the track is significant, but with Alleva, he was kind half-way there. I am not sure Joe got it completely that you need to lower the field, nor am I sure that we utilized the architects last go around properly.

Were I AD, I would send out as a priority an immediate fundraising query to potential donors who might be interested in donating the money for a new track facility. I would locate it over by Washington Duke. I would reserve land around the area for a new b-ball arena were we ever to get there on that issue down the road. This fundraising I would begin in earnest. I would address the staff's request for field turf at the same time as implementing the first best structural change for Wade, lowering the field, moving down permanent seats, and then installing the field turf that they have requested. I would study further what to do with the concourse. The Iron Dukes building precludes an upper deck, something to think about.

The delay on the bathroom buildings may turn out to be a godsend.

Inonehand
07-14-2008, 02:44 PM
InOne,

The indoor practice facility is certainly the next thing or pretty close to it in the works. I've already seen some of the details in the Reed Bulletin. What bothers you most about the current scoreboard?


My main issue is the video board is subpar and very small. However, until the track is moved I can't see spending a bunch of money upgrading it because it will eventually have to be moved in closer. Certainly a smaller board could be put in on the closed in with an upgraded video screen now. I'd love to see it. I see the practice facility as a major recruiting enhancement. Much more so than the track removal.

hughgs
07-14-2008, 04:46 PM
You may reject my evidence as anecdotal and unrepresentative. But I routinely asked coaches in the recruiting process (including one who turned Duke down a few years ago) about my school and what could be done to fix things. The answers were amazingly consistent across-the-board -- Duke needs more support and better facilities. Thankfully, it appears that the pieces are in place to achieve both.

Getting rid of the track is significant. Obviously, track facilities have to be moved somewhere, but it shouldn't be hard to figure out an appropriate spot, especially since (because of football's being such a "public" sport) improving WW is so important to football's becoming competitive and to the overall health of athletics at Duke.

I don't reject your evidence as anecdotal, it is what it is. The important thing is that you put your point in context, so that others can truly judge what you say. That's very different than how FDA presents his "facts". I'm much more inclined to listen to your ideas than anything that FDA states simply for that reason.

I completely agree that removal of the track is significant. In my mind there are two major issues with its removal. First, does it truly improve some set of criteria. Others have chimed in that removal of the track will enhance the game experience, which I have never disagreed with. FDA has specifically stated that it hurts recruiting, but can't provide any type of evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) that it does. Wishing for something doesn't make it true. I simply want FDA to place his "facts' in their proper context, they are his beliefs and he doesn't have anything to back them up with.

The other major issue, as you point out, is where to move the track. Everyone says that there's plenty of land to put it, but nobody, except Jarhead, as actually figured out a place. And his recommendation has major problems. If it's so easy to find a place on campus for the new track then why can't someone cite a location?

OZZIE4DUKE
07-14-2008, 04:46 PM
My main issue is the video board is subpar and very small. However, until the track is moved I can't see spending a bunch of money upgrading it because it will eventually have to be moved in closer. Certainly a smaller board could be put in on the closed in with an upgraded video screen now. I'd love to see it. I see the practice facility as a major recruiting enhancement. Much more so than the track removal.

I believe the north end scoreboard is supposed to be in this summer. At least that is what I remember before the bathroom and concession stand projects got derailed for a year.

The current score board was pretty state of the art when it was installed many years ago. The replay screen was huge, and is still large enough for our needs today. They replay every play during a game, even if an occasional pixel is missing. All of the pertinent information we need during a game is displayed. I can wait another year or two before it is replaced.

OZZIE4DUKE
07-14-2008, 04:56 PM
I don't reject your evidence as anecdotal, it is what it is. The important thing is that you put your point in context, so that others can truly judge what you say. That's very different than how FDA presents his "facts". I'm much more inclined to listen to your ideas than anything that FDA states simply for that reason.

I completely agree that removal of the track is significant. In my mind there are two major issues with its removal. First, does it truly improve some set of criteria. Others have chimed in that removal of the track will enhance the game experience, which I have never disagreed with. FDA has specifically stated that it hurts recruiting, but can't provide any type of evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) that it does. Wishing for something doesn't make it true. I simply want FDA to place his "facts' in their proper context, they are his beliefs and he doesn't have anything to back them up with.

The other major issue, as you point out, is where to move the track. Everyone says that there's plenty of land to put it, but nobody, except Jarhead, as actually figured out a place. And his recommendation has major problems. If it's so easy to find a place on campus for the new track then why can't someone cite a location?

hughgs, I wish you'd stop your current line of posting. I'm tired of the bickering between you and FDA, and I happen to agree more with him than you, so I'm taking his side.

As to the future track location, at this point, none of us has all the answers; as outsiders we don't even know all the questions. But there are roughly 7,000 acres of Duke Forest surrounding the immediate campus. Surely we can find some place where the environmentalists and Durham County Commissioners will let us put a track that makes sense.

formerdukeathlete
07-14-2008, 05:32 PM
I don't reject your evidence as anecdotal, it is what it is. The important thing is that you put your point in context, so that others can truly judge what you say. That's very different than how FDA presents his "facts". I'm much more inclined to listen to your ideas than anything that FDA states simply for that reason.

I completely agree that removal of the track is significant. In my mind there are two major issues with its removal. First, does it truly improve some set of criteria. Others have chimed in that removal of the track will enhance the game experience, which I have never disagreed with. FDA has specifically stated that it hurts recruiting, but can't provide any type of evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) that it does. Wishing for something doesn't make it true. I simply want FDA to place his "facts' in their proper context, they are his beliefs and he doesn't have anything to back them up with.

The other major issue, as you point out, is where to move the track. Everyone says that there's plenty of land to put it, but nobody, except Jarhead, as actually figured out a place. And his recommendation has major problems. If it's so easy to find a place on campus for the new track then why can't someone cite a location?

read about other schools which have removed the track or built new sans track. read about the rationale. then visit Wade, the least impressive stadium in all of bcs. consider the costs of making it more impressive (removing the track and bringing seats to the field is actually not very expensive, relative to other stadium improvements), consider what actually makes the stadium more impressive. then consider how this more impressive format also improves the game day esperience.

The facts about the impact of the track, would consist of a number of folks opinions, including journalists. About 5 years back, I got a comment from my high school Football coach about Wallace Wade, who wondered if Duke was running out of money, the stadium was so antiquated with the track, would they be able to honor their scholarship commitment were one of his kids to go there.

A compillation of these anecdotals is about all of the "facts" you will find. I presume you also have taken statistics and have a sense of statistical sampling. If virtually every recruit in a sample of 20 looks cross-eyed at Wade with a track (Roof told me as much), after seeing other college stadiums, Wade hurts recruiting. Inject common sense. If we are one of the very last to have a track, and others have gotten rid of the track for home field advantage, game day atmosphere, then it helps our program to get rid of the track. Finally, I have identified across 751 as the location of the track. mapquest an aerial photo. Do some research about where they were going to locate the new b-ball arena in the late 1980s. And, then offer your opinion, one way or another, that you either agree wth my assertion that removing the track is part and parcel for us to have a real football stadium, and therefore part and parcel for us to have a sustainable football program, or that you do not agree with my assertion.

Inonehand
07-14-2008, 09:38 PM
I believe the north end scoreboard is supposed to be in this summer. At least that is what I remember before the bathroom and concession stand projects got derailed for a year.

The current score board was pretty state of the art when it was installed many years ago. The replay screen was huge, and is still large enough for our needs today. They replay every play during a game, even if an occasional pixel is missing. All of the pertinent information we need during a game is displayed. I can wait another year or two before it is replaced.

The current scoreboard was never state of the art. Duke cheaped out when they bought the video board even then. I was a part of a smaller university at the time that bought a more expensive, better quality video screen for an indoor basketball faciltiy. I knew the salespeople involved. They were embarrassed to sell that thing. However, like you, I can wait for it until the field is enhanced.

As for FDA's remarks that the track could go on West...I don't disagree with tons he says. My issue is the fact we all can say what we feel is true and feasible without ever really knowing, in total, what goes into the final decision. I know of no West Campus land not being used for something right now. The grass fields over 751 (down from WaDuke) are used extensively by our varsity teams. We are taking up one parking lot with the practice facility. We want larger (regulation) football practice fields. On and on and on...and athletics isn't the only department at Duke that needs land. Truthfully, I'd like to see the track moved to Central but I think that pushes the timeframe back quite a bit...not to mention it WAS NOT a part of the Central Campus plans for the track there to be a varsity performance track. One possibility...start consilidating some parking into decks and free up some flat lots.

Jarhead
07-14-2008, 09:48 PM
Here's one place to put the track.
405
You may have to click on the image for the big picture, and look right there just to the North East of the golf course driving range. There are actually acres and acres of space for the creative architect to play with. There is also plenty of room to put up temporary bleachers for major track events, such as ACC Track and Field Championships or the Olympic trials. It should be as close to Cameron Blvd. as possible with pedestrian access across the Blvd.

It doesn't require as much land as some of you are thinking. That's why I included the football stadium in the image as a reference point. On the other hand, the facility would probably also fit nicely somewhere on the Central Campus, but the Cameron Blvd location would provide more flexibility for recreational use with better access to the Cross Country Course, if it is still there, and to the wide open spaces of Duke Forest.

By the way, does anybody know if Kevin White has learned about this forum yet? If he browsed here on occasion, he may find some pretty good ideas. When I was assigned to the Data Systems Division at Headquarters, Marine Corps, and later Kansas City, we annually published something we called the "Blue Sky Report." It was everybody's wildest wishes, and it lead to many advances in information technology for the Corps. That's the kind of attitude we should adopt here on this forum, just on the chance that our ideas may be useful.

rockymtn devil
07-14-2008, 10:19 PM
FWIW, I can speak to the impact that removing the track and lowering the field had on the gameday experience at Ohio Stadium. Prior to the renovations in 1999-2000, The 'Shoe was a loud, intimidating place to play. But, there is no question that the removal of the track and the lowering of the field has made it a much louder and more difficult place to play. The current version of Ohio Stadium is the loudest college stadium I've ever been to (this includes Michigan Stadium, Beaver Stadium, and Jordan Hare Stadium, just to name a few). In terms of all stadiums I've been to, it's rivaled only by Invesco Field, home of the Denver Broncos.

Now, removing the track isn't going to make Wallace Wade the Horsehoe of the ACC. But viewing any of the many changes that need to be made to Duke's football program as being saviors on their own is foolish. Instead, lowering the field is an important step to improving the experience for fans which, when coupled with an improvement in play, lead to more fans.

hughgs
07-14-2008, 10:43 PM
hughgs, I wish you'd stop your current line of posting. I'm tired of the bickering between you and FDA, and I happen to agree more with him than you, so I'm taking his side.

As to the future track location, at this point, none of us has all the answers; as outsiders we don't even know all the questions. But there are roughly 7,000 acres of Duke Forest surrounding the immediate campus. Surely we can find some place where the environmentalists and Durham County Commissioners will let us put a track that makes sense.

Sorry you feel that way, but I'll continue to call people out when it seems that they are transposing facts with beliefs.

You should notice that at no time have I actually argued that the track should or shouldn't be removed. I've simply asked FDA to provide a more realistic context of his argument. In one of his first posts he says that the track is a detriment to recruiting as a fact. After a few more posts he finally admits that it's just his opinion. In this argument he constantly does that and I don't think it's a fair way to present arguments.

As for the new location of the track I think that's just as important as the reasons for removal of the track, whether it's recruiting or game enhancement. You've fallen into the trap of others. If it's so easy to find a convenient place why can't we come up with a good place? Duke Forest? Really? That's your best location? Duke Forest extends all the way up 751 and most of the way along Erwin Road. If you want to marginalize the track team even more (against the tenets of the Strategic Plan) then Duke Forest is the place to put the new track. I don't think we can just sweep the new location under the rug. Any new location for the track is just as important as the reasons for moving it. And the idea of using Duke Forest is reaching for straws.

Finally, for the record, I have no problem with removing the track as long as its done for the right reasons and an accessible location is found for the new track. But, that doesn't mean that we should let people we agree with post opinions as facts. We, the board, are better than that.

formerdukeathlete
07-15-2008, 01:05 AM
Sorry you feel that way, but I'll continue to call people out when it seems that they are transposing facts with beliefs.

You should notice that at no time have I actually argued that the track should or shouldn't be removed. I've simply asked FDA to provide a more realistic context of his argument. In one of his first posts he says that the track is a detriment to recruiting as a fact. After a few more posts he finally admits that it's just his opinion. In this argument he constantly does that and I don't think it's a fair way to present arguments.

As for the new location of the track I think that's just as important as the reasons for removal of the track, whether it's recruiting or game enhancement. You've fallen into the trap of others. If it's so easy to find a convenient place why can't we come up with a good place? Duke Forest? Really? That's your best location? Duke Forest extends all the way up 751 and most of the way along Erwin Road. If you want to marginalize the track team even more (against the tenets of the Strategic Plan) then Duke Forest is the place to put the new track. I don't think we can just sweep the new location under the rug. Any new location for the track is just as important as the reasons for moving it. And the idea of using Duke Forest is reaching for straws.
Finally, for the record, I have no problem with removing the track as long as its done for the right reasons and an accessible location is found for the new track. But, that doesn't mean that we should let people we agree with post opinions as facts. We, the board, are better than that.

Well, you have now written enough that your agenda is clear. You dont want to move the track. Jarhead puts up a specific area across 751, which is accessible, and you do not even mention or discuss this specific location, but rather rhetorically exclaim that across 751 is a big area and that this this marginalizes the track team? That this is reaching for staws? Well, I dont think so. And, I do not think you extend Jarhead the courtesy of analyzing what he put forth for purposes of this discussion, this Board. I dont think it marginalizes the swimming team to indicate a new varsity pool on Central Campus, yet this takes it away from the rest of the athletic complex on West.

The basis of my assertions has been clear all along. All of this is based on opinion, the opinion shared by lots and lots of folks based on comments, observations, visiting other stadiums. When does an impression leading to opinions shared by so many, most all, become fact in your mind? Never, if your beloved track might be moved.

Among the priorities for projects facing us vis a vis improving our Football facilities, I do know know whether the new practice facility is any more or less important than a fix-up of Wade to help build the Football program. However, I do believe that removing the track, lowering the field, and bringing down good seats to the field is the most important thing we can do with Wade. Other improvements flow from this. We have a solid building block of a stadium once we do this. I would do this first in conjuction with building a new track. Then decide on the concourse later. And, I think we may have Kevin White's ear on this one.

RPS
07-15-2008, 08:47 AM
FDA has specifically stated that it hurts recruiting, but can't provide any type of evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) that it does. Wishing for something doesn't make it true. I simply want FDA to place his "facts' in their proper context, they are his beliefs and he doesn't have anything to back them up with.

I don't think that it's possibile reasonably to conclude anything other than that WW and the entire "game experience" is a detriment to recruiting. The argument against Duke has consistently been that a lousy record, lousy facilities and lousy attendance means that Duke doesn't care about football and thus won't ever win. A recruit who visits a Duke game and sees us lose in front of a small crowd (where the visiting students and fans outnumber and out-cheer the home team's) in the worst stadium in the BCS isn't likely to be impressed, especially if he has other options. Thankfully, I believe that the pieces are finally in place to turn things around. But fixing WW -- including track removal -- is a crucial part of the overall plan if we're going to succeed.

Bluedawg
07-15-2008, 02:38 PM
I agree with hughgs that you don't tear up the track without having an adequate replacement.

But, speaking as someone who has attended football games at Wade since LBJ was president, I don't think there's any question that the track inhibits the football experience. It simply puts fans further away from the field than they need to be. And I'm speaking as a former runner.

The compromise made sense when Duke was in the big-time track business. The international meets in the 1970s, the NCAA championship meets, all benefited from having a great track and a full stadium. But those days are gone. Years ago Duke/Durham tried to get on the Grand Prix circuit and was rebuffed. No disrespect to any incumbents, but LeRoy Walker and Al Buehler are retired and Durham is no longer in the running for track-town-USA. I'll concede to Eugene.

So having this track where it is for meets that attract a few hundred non-paying fans at the expense of a resurgent, revenue-producing football program is a luxury that Duke can no longer afford. IMO.

FWIW, I specifically asked our new AD about the track at the media luncheon last week and he was non-committal. But it's on his to-do list, I'm sure of that.

You and hughgs are correct, don't move it unless you have a place to put it. I hate the track and the faster it is gone the better.

However, we have to think about the athletes who work hard and play on it. I spoke with one today and our conversation went around to the fact that they can have no home indoor track meets due to not having a facility. They should be just as valued as the other athletes. They work just as hard and take just as much pride in their sport and how they represent Duke University.

In all of the football talk I don’t want us to forget them.

formerdukeathlete
07-15-2008, 04:29 PM
You ........don't move it unless you have a place to put it. I hate the track and the faster it is gone the better.

However, we have to think about the athletes who work hard and play on it. I spoke with one today and our conversation went around to the fact that they can have no home indoor track meets due to not having a facility. They should be just as valued as the other athletes. They work just as hard and take just as much pride in their sport and how they represent Duke University.

In all of the football talk I don’t want us to forget them.

This sort of objection raised by track folks is what happened last year when Alleva timidly released the artistic renderings of a cosmetically enhanced Wade. The renderings did show Wade without a track, but not a lowered field, and with field level bleachers - kind of a limp-wristed approach in my view to the track issue, and then Joe quickly back peddled when some folks objected to removing the track.

To his credit, Joe continued to speak about removing the track provided certain objectives were met by the Football program. He told me in a e-mail he liked the idea. It was a question of treading softly through mildly treacherous political waters.

I understand the track guys and girls thoughts. They might have had the same type of objections at Pitt over the idea of bulldozing Pitt Stadium, at Ohio State, when they fairly recently 86 ed the track in Ohio Stadium, or at USC when losing the Coliseum for track meets. In each case these types of objections were overruled because of the need/desire to improve each schools' football stadium situation. Regarding an indoor track facility, sure, maybe that could be part of the equation for the new track, set aside more space for an indoor facility (beside the new track) down the road. Hey, I'd like to eat at Ruth Criss every night (even though I rarely eat beef anymore:)), but that does not mean I get to. The mens and womens swimming team cannot practice at the same time in the same pool (they have the same coach) because it is a 25 yard long pool, rather than a 50 meter long and 25 yard wide pool like a number of other d1 programs. That does not mean the U has to make building a new pool right now a university priority just because we are doing something nice for another sport.

But, the track team would be more lucky. Removing the track as part of a remodel of Wade gets them a new track, with maybe room for a indoor practice facility. That is a pretty good deal for a non-rev. sport which could not compete in the ACC, or for that matter, perhaps even exist, but for Duke's long neglected, with the worst stadium in bcs, Football team.

We have several places where the track can go. I dont see finding another place for it as an impediment to moving forward. Kevin White would just have to make the decision, present his reasons why to Brodhead and the Trustees, fundraise and getrdone. I also believe White may be rethinking what the seating capacity of Wade should be as we plan on a successful program. Removing the track helps us there.

devilirium
07-15-2008, 06:05 PM
And I'll play big brother here....basketball and football (granted to a lesser extent) pay the bills....I love to watch lacrosse, but let's face facts: it would be reduced to a club sport if this weren't the case. See NC State if you would like an example with lacrosse.

The track team has benefitted for a long, long time with this current arrangement of the track. Other university track teams have done well without the "benefit" of running in a stadium. The track athletes are big boys and girls. They're tremendous in what they do, and they will manage with the new arrangement at some point in time--whenever that may occur.

formerdukeathlete
07-15-2008, 07:39 PM
And I'll play big brother here....basketball and football (granted to a lesser extent) pay the bills....I love to watch lacrosse, but let's face facts: it would be reduced to a club sport if this weren't the case. See NC State if you would like an example with lacrosse.

The track team has benefitted for a long, long time with this current arrangement of the track. Other university track teams have done well without the "benefit" of running in a stadium. The track athletes are big boys and girls. They're tremendous in what they do, and they will manage with the new arrangement at some point in time--whenever that may occur.

Conference revenue sharing - majority is related to football. Yes, we currently are a large part of the tv package for basketball. Duke Football on its own loses money, but add back revenue sharing attributable to conference football and it does not.

The Lacrosse anology I think might be better suited if made with respect to another non-rev. sport. In the case of Lacrosse, I think the Athletic Department is on its way to receiving endowments for all of the Lacrosse scholarships. Next might be to endow coaching. And, there are some revenue opportunities in Lacrosse related to equipment and some tv and other gate.

Lacrosse and soccer have a nice stadium, thanks to an Athletic Dept. benefactor. No doubt track can get some of their own.

For really small money, we can convert WW into a real football stadium. Might cost 6-8 million to lower the field, form up new permanent concrete based stands and carry down the existing structure of the stadium in a seamless way, and intall Field Turf.

You may know more of this, but I understand Brodhead and Alleva got calls from Swofford that the league was concerned about the poor state of Duke Football. You know what that might mean....some down years in hoops and then the Conference might want to amend the charter (if not kick us out) to change the way conference football rev. is shared, that is, unless we look like we have a real Football program.

Its there on a silver platter...we can make Wade into a real Football stadium for not that much money...even when adding the cost of a new track. Hopefully, our powers that be can be pursuaded to set this as a priority near term.

Inonehand
07-15-2008, 08:43 PM
Conference revenue sharing - majority is related to football. Yes, we currently are a large part of the tv package for basketball. Duke Football on its own loses money, but add back revenue sharing attributable to conference football and it does not.

The Lacrosse anology I think might be better suited if made with respect to another non-rev. sport. In the case of Lacrosse, I think the Athletic Department is on its way to receiving endowments for all of the Lacrosse scholarships. Next might be to endow coaching. And, there are some revenue opportunities in Lacrosse related to equipment and some tv and other gate.

Lacrosse and soccer have a nice stadium, thanks to an Athletic Dept. benefactor. No doubt track can get some of their own.

For really small money, we can convert WW into a real football stadium. Might cost 6-8 million to lower the field, form up new permanent concrete based stands and carry down the existing structure of the stadium in a seamless way, and intall Field Turf.

You may know more of this, but I understand Brodhead and Alleva got calls from Swofford that the league was concerned about the poor state of Duke Football. You know what that might mean....some down years in hoops and then the Conference might want to amend the charter (if not kick us out) to change the way conference football rev. is shared, that is, unless we look like we have a real Football program.

Its there on a silver platter...we can make Wade into a real Football stadium for not that much money...even when adding the cost of a new track. Hopefully, our powers that be can be pursuaded to set this as a priority near term.

FDA, I was slowly starting to believe you are really an insider and knew what you were talking about until I read this post. No longer the case. Other than men's hoops and women's golf there are no sports even close to having all their scholarships endowed. Lax included.

Then the "kick us out of the conference" bit. Please. Let's stick to facts and not float this kind of stuff out there.

Inonehand
07-15-2008, 08:48 PM
the track we have is not that good. It's a good performance track but not a great training track. From what I've heard from coaches and athletes, the track is too hard for heavy training. Build a nice track elsewhere and make sure there is a decent amount of space and seating and I think we would be doing a good thing for our track athletes and not simply kicking them out. I would just as soon not kill much more of the Duke Forest and utilize some flat parking lots instead.

Indoor66
07-15-2008, 08:53 PM
the track we have is not that good. It's a good performance track but not a great training track. From what I've heard from coaches and athletes, the track is too hard for heavy training. Build a nice track elsewhere and make sure there is a decent amount of space and seating and I think we would be doing a good thing for our track athletes and not simply kicking them out. I would just as soon not kill much more of the Duke Forest and utilize some flat parking lots instead.

I understand the forest concern but parking is already a real problem for athletic contests. As football improves the crowds will also grow. This will only put more pressure on the parking issues. Present parking areas will have to be turned into parking structures to handle the crowds. New facilities will not, practically, be able to be placed in present parking lots.

Inonehand
07-15-2008, 09:50 PM
I understand the forest concern but parking is already a real problem for athletic contests. As football improves the crowds will also grow. This will only put more pressure on the parking issues. Present parking areas will have to be turned into parking structures to handle the crowds. New facilities will not, practically, be able to be placed in present parking lots.

Go to some other stadiums and see how far from the stadium you park. Go to UVa without a parking pass and you'll get your exercise. Is the experience worth it? You bet it is. Go to (well not anymore) the Orange Bowl and you park nowhere near the stadium. The list goes on and on. And I'm not talking about using all the lots...mostly the ones behind the IM Building. The practice facility is going on one. There's plenty of more room. And if we are going to kill trees, then do it along Towerview...not 751. There's plenty of room there.

dukie8
07-15-2008, 09:52 PM
the track we have is not that good. It's a good performance track but not a great training track. From what I've heard from coaches and athletes, the track is too hard for heavy training. Build a nice track elsewhere and make sure there is a decent amount of space and seating and I think we would be doing a good thing for our track athletes and not simply kicking them out. I would just as soon not kill much more of the Duke Forest and utilize some flat parking lots instead.

what are you talking about? it's a mondo track and it used to be one of the best in the world (i'm not sure how many better tracks have been built in the past few years but it still is a world class track).

who does "heavy training" on a track? it's great for speed workouts. if you want to go for a 10-mile run, you have 2000 acres of duke forest surrounding you. nobody in his/her right mind would run a lot of miles on any track -- nevermind a mondo track. i'm not sure what your point is.

Inonehand
07-15-2008, 10:10 PM
what are you talking about? it's a mondo track and it used to be one of the best in the world (i'm not sure how many better tracks have been built in the past few years but it still is a world class track).

who does "heavy training" on a track? it's great for speed workouts. if you want to go for a 10-mile run, you have 2000 acres of duke forest surrounding you. nobody in his/her right mind would run a lot of miles on any track -- nevermind a mondo track. i'm not sure what your point is.

Actually, it is not great for speed workouts. It is great for speed. Go ask the coaches, I have. They've blamed it on a number of different injuries. My point is we can build a better surface for the track program that fits what we need...a 299 day top notch practice facility as opposed to a 6 day high performance (or two meet) facility.

dukie8
07-15-2008, 10:50 PM
Actually, it is not great for speed workouts. It is great for speed. Go ask the coaches, I have. They've blamed it on a number of different injuries. My point is we can build a better surface for the track program that fits what we need...a 299 day top notch practice facility as opposed to a 6 day high performance (or two meet) facility.

um, yes, i have asked the coaches and actually have done plenty of workouts on it myself. have you? it's hard and fast and a world class track. if you believe that a hard fast track has caused injuries that a cheaper slower track would not have, then i have a bridge in arizona to sell you. harvard had the same track put in in the 1980s and i haven't heard random complaints about it causing injuries.

lastly, what on earth is a "top notch practice facility?" we don't need to rip up one of the best tracks in the world and then install a track your typical high school has on some remote part of campus. also, it may come as a surprise, but the track and xc teams actually use more than just the track. are their locker rooms, weight room and training room facilities also supposed to be located on central or east with the new track or do you expect those athletes to commute back and forth between the track and those other facilities?

i don't know why the track even is an issue. it's not like WW even remotely comes close to being sold out. moreover, since when is being close to the action that big of a deal? the majority of the people at one of those monster stadiums is very far away from the field because most seats aren't in the front row. i was at a ny giants game last year and there is an enormous space between the sideline and the first row of seats (how else do you expect to fit all of the hangers on on the sidelines?) nobody in new york seems to have a problem being that far away from the field because i've never heard or read about that being an issue. why is it an issue for duke?

Inonehand
07-15-2008, 11:13 PM
um, yes, i have asked the coaches and actually have done plenty of workouts on it myself. have you? it's hard and fast and a world class track. if you believe that a hard fast track has caused injuries that a cheaper slower track would not have, then i have a bridge in arizona to sell you. harvard had the same track put in in the 1980s and i haven't heard random complaints about it causing injuries.

lastly, what on earth is a "top notch practice facility?" we don't need to rip up one of the best tracks in the world and then install a track your typical high school has on some remote part of campus. also, it may come as a surprise, but the track and xc teams actually use more than just the track. are their locker rooms, weight room and training room facilities also supposed to be located on central or east with the new track or do you expect those athletes to commute back and forth between the track and those other facilities?

i don't know why the track even is an issue. it's not like WW even remotely comes close to being sold out. moreover, since when is being close to the action that big of a deal? the majority of the people at one of those monster stadiums is very far away from the field because most seats aren't in the front row. i was at a ny giants game last year and there is an enormous space between the sideline and the first row of seats (how else do you expect to fit all of the hangers on on the sidelines?) nobody in new york seems to have a problem being that far away from the field because i've never heard or read about that being an issue. why is it an issue for duke?


Ok, no getting through to you. That's fine. The track will go eventually even though I don't think it is the highest of priorities. When it is moved I would hope there will be locker rooms and a a training area to go along with it. Look, I for one, believe the track team deserves a top-notch facility, just as I believe all of our athletes deserve the same. I am embarrassed by our baseball facility at least as much as the football stadium.

The track I am suggesting is not less in quality. It would be at least as good. However, unless Coach Ogilvie has told you something different than he has me, any new track WILL be different. As for your reference to fans at NY Giants games...they will be very happy when they have a new stadium. Bet the first row is even closer than it is now...which is a lot closer than Wally Wades. For reference point, look at this site of the 'monster' stadiums as you call them and see if there's room for a track around the field. http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/

dukie8
07-15-2008, 11:32 PM
my point is that MOST seats in those big stadiums aren't anywhere near the field so what does it matter that maybe 1000 seats get a little closer to the action? the fact that a couple of rows are 10 feet closer doesn't have any bearing on the tens of thousands of seats elsewhere that still are very far away from the field. even been to the upper deck at an nfl stadium? better bring the opera binoculars. moreover, the front row seats aren't even the premium seats at most stadiums. you want to be higher up to see the field better. why are we so concerned about creating a few hundred more seats that at best are mediocre?

i always liked going to games in WW because it seemed like there wasn't a bad seat in the house (everyone is close) and one usually could get one fairly easily. it would seem like closing in the far side of the stadium would be a much easier way to boost capacity. is that even being considered?

formerdukeathlete
07-15-2008, 11:39 PM
i don't know why the track even is an issue. it's not like WW even remotely comes close to being sold out. moreover, since when is being close to the action that big of a deal? .............. why is it an issue for duke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Stadium

Dukie8, Duke routinely drew 45k fans in the 1950s and 1960s, when Duke was a much younger school - fewer alums - and the Triangle Area barely an area population wise. Today, with what 6 times the population, or is it 10 times, with good Football again, we need more than 33k seats. With the track, Duke's is the least impressive stadium in the ACC and all of bcs, many think. Without the track, with the field lowered and permanent seating looking like the rest of the stadium brought down close to the field, we are at perhaps as much as 44k capacity (or less and we lose capacity if we go to chair back seating), and our stadium becomes one of the more impressive, and beautiful smaller stadiums in bcs. I think this helps attendance, recruiting, chances of sustaining the program, attracting coaches, etc. The list of schools which have moved the track out of the football stadium is a long one. Read a bit about Ohio State, for example.

inone, I mentioned that there might be a better example of a non-rev sport as being entirely dependent upon football and basketball for its existence. I thought mens lax had 4 -6 schollys endowed out of 12 allowed. This is on its way, which was my comment. I understand the risk that Duke with dismal football and basketball for a period of years might face additional pressures from the ACC. My point is why take that risk, however remote, that we could be another Temple (booted from the Big East)? Fix the stadium (sans track). It will help sustain the Football program in the long run.

formerdukeathlete
07-15-2008, 11:48 PM
my point is that MOST seats in those big stadiums aren't anywhere near the field so what does it matter that maybe 1000 seats get a little closer to the action? the fact that a couple of rows are 10 feet closer doesn't have any bearing on the tens of thousands of seats elsewhere that still are very far away from the field. even been to the upper deck at an nfl stadium? better bring the opera binoculars. moreover, the front row seats aren't even the premium seats at most stadiums. you want to be higher up to see the field better. why are we so concerned about creating a few hundred more seats that at best are mediocre?

i always liked going to games in WW because it seemed like there wasn't a bad seat in the house (everyone is close) and one usually could get one fairly easily. it would seem like closing in the far side of the stadium would be a much easier way to boost capacity. is that even being considered?

Dukie8, when Wisconsin removed their track from their horseshoe stadium, they added 11k seats. Geometry is similar in Wade. Presently, the first row in Wade is 6 feet above the field. If you lowered the field so that the first row remained 6 feet above the field, the seats added would be excellent seats. re closing in the open end of the horseshoe, that might be left for another expansion if needed. If you do up the concourse, the only expansion possible beyond lowering the field would be closing the open end.

Qwerty
07-15-2008, 11:54 PM
Interestingly, Kevin White started his coaching career in track and field. Although I expect he's not going to play favorites, I'm guessing he disagrees with the notion that runners should just be "big boys and girls" and put up with whatever abuse they get.

dukie8
07-16-2008, 12:25 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Stadium

inone, I mentioned that there might be a better example of a non-rev sport as being entirely dependent upon football and basketball for its existence. I thought mens lax had 4 -6 schollys endowed out of 12 allowed. This is on its way, which was my comment. I understand the risk that Duke with dismal football and basketball for a period of years might face additional pressures from the ACC. My point is why take that risk, however remote, that we could be another Temple (booted from the Big East)? Fix the stadium (sans track). It will help sustain the Football program in the long run.

why do you insist on fear mongering that duke somehow will get booted out of the acc if basketball declines? temple isn't even remotely similar to duke. temple is in the A-10, which doesn't have D1 football, so only its football team joined the big east. their football team stunk for years and finally got kicked out. that's it.

how is that even remotely similar to duke, which has been in the acc for decades, fields ranked teams in many many sports, has a basketball team that has generated millions of dollars for the other schools and is the biggest game for many schools in many sports? duke could lose every basketball game and football game over the next 5 years and there wouldn't even be a whiff of it getting kicked out of the acc.

also, your examples of ohio state and wisconsin as models for what we need to do for a football stadium are laughable. they are the #1 and #10 sized universities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_United_States_universities_by_enro llment

with 53K and 42K students, respectively. duke has less than 12K students, has most alums leave the area after graduation and has 2 larger state schools within 45 minutes to compete with for "independent" locals. could you pick 2 schools that are even more different than duke?

WW holds 34K. i think looking at a school like wake (small, private and traditionally terrible in football but on the rise) is much more instructive than looking at what ohio st and wisconsin are doing. do you know what wake averaged last year, after 2 stellar seasons? 32,595. worrying about boosting up WW's seating capacity to 40-50K is ridiculous at this point. do i think that it is a great place? no. does it need work done? yes, but vastly increasing the seating, particularly at the expense of a world class track, isn't something that should be done in the near future.

devilirium
07-16-2008, 12:33 AM
You may know more of this, but I understand Brodhead and Alleva got calls from Swofford that the league was concerned about the poor state of Duke Football. You know what that might mean....some down years in hoops and then the Conference might want to amend the charter (if not kick us out) to change the way conference football rev. is shared, that is, unless we look like we have a real Football program.

Absolutely, correct. Frank Dascenzo told me that an official in the ACC office (Mike Finn--I believe he was a former associate AD at Duke) basically approached him and told him that the conference was extremely concerned about Duke's lackadaisical approach to football. Word got to the administration, and that spurred them to get going. Basically, it was the threat of embarrassment and heavier sanctions. It was the right move by the league. Joe Alleva may have claimed that Duke had spent a lot of money on football (which he never revealed how much--and that is in keeping with Duke's privacy policy, I s'pose), but the proof was in the pudding with the million dollar salary increase for the HC and then further spending on the assistants.

I wonder if Joe is checking out hydroplanes with kegs down in the Bayou?

devilirium
07-16-2008, 12:40 AM
Duke isn't talking about vastly increasing the seating....White briefly touched on 40 K, that puts Duke in line with a school like ECU.

The track needs to be relocated. You can hem and haw about the glory days, but it's leaving. I like using it......it's been a benefit to the Duke community and the teams, but when done, tis done, 'twere better to be done quickly.

Inonehand
07-16-2008, 06:04 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Stadium

Dukie8, Duke routinely drew 45k fans in the 1950s and 1960s, when Duke was a much younger school - fewer alums - and the Triangle Area barely an area population wise. Today, with what 6 times the population, or is it 10 times, with good Football again, we need more than 33k seats. With the track, Duke's is the least impressive stadium in the ACC and all of bcs, many think. Without the track, with the field lowered and permanent seating looking like the rest of the stadium brought down close to the field, we are at perhaps as much as 44k capacity (or less and we lose capacity if we go to chair back seating), and our stadium becomes one of the more impressive, and beautiful smaller stadiums in bcs. I think this helps attendance, recruiting, chances of sustaining the program, attracting coaches, etc. The list of schools which have moved the track out of the football stadium is a long one. Read a bit about Ohio State, for example.

inone, I mentioned that there might be a better example of a non-rev sport as being entirely dependent upon football and basketball for its existence. I thought mens lax had 4 -6 schollys endowed out of 12 allowed. This is on its way, which was my comment. I understand the risk that Duke with dismal football and basketball for a period of years might face additional pressures from the ACC. My point is why take that risk, however remote, that we could be another Temple (booted from the Big East)? Fix the stadium (sans track). It will help sustain the Football program in the long run.

Temple was never a full member of the Big East, FDA. In fact they were ONLY a football member. They left because Villanova (a team that does not play BCS football) would not give them their vote to become a full member. While pathetic at football, they were never booted from a conference tghey were truly never in.

formerdukeathlete
07-16-2008, 07:21 AM
Temple was never a full member of the Big East, FDA. In fact they were ONLY a football member. They left because Villanova (a team that does not play BCS football) would not give them their vote to become a full member. While pathetic at football, they were never booted from a conference tghey were truly never in.

If you google all things temple big east conference, you will find mentioned in about 20 different articles that the big east decided to boot Temple in March 2001. Reasons poor attendance and poor progress of the football program.

Interesting paralells with Duke. Temple Stadium was completed in 1928, a horseshoe design with a track around the field built in a natural ravine, 34k capacity. Sound familiar. Temple felt they were suffering from track itis for years. And, finally they demo-ed the stadium around 1980. The league used against Temple its lack of a suitable home for its Football games - playing smaller expected crowd games in Franklin Field, led to even smaller crowds (Franklin Field also suffers from track itis), and larger expected crowds in Vet, which did not materialize often due to the inconvenience, or lack of progress in the program. Temple should have done what I recommend for Duke, remove the track, lower the field and connect the crowd to the game.

formerdukeathlete
07-16-2008, 07:40 AM
[url]

.................WW holds 34K. i think looking at a school like wake (small, private and traditionally terrible in football but on the rise) is much more instructive than looking at what ohio st and wisconsin are doing. do you know what wake averaged last year, after 2 stellar seasons? 32,595. worrying about boosting up WW's seating capacity to 40-50K is ridiculous at this point. do i think that it is a great place? no. does it need work done? yes, but vastly increasing the seating, particularly at the expense of a world class track, isn't something that should be done in the near future.

Were I in White's shoes, with what I expect is his perspective coming from where he came, I might be looking at all of these factors, and thinking about the following:

1. Duke was good, at times very good in Football from the 1930s through the 1960s. It drew routinely 45k for home games. NC State, UNC and even Wake Forest were all in the Triangle area at the time. The Triangle area now has 10 times the population. You want pro football, drive 3 hours to Charlotte. Duke alum retirees are flooding the area.

2. We just got a wake up call from Swofford, who suggested grumblings among members that Duke was not carrying its weight vis a vis Football. But, I dont want to just get by. I think Duke is a more attractive University than it was back when it was good in Football. I think and plan on winning in Football at Duke.

3. WW does not pass the laugh test, the smell test, and the problem is not that the bathrooms are old, the problem is the track hurts game day and makes the place look very unimpressive. I know from my days at Notre Dame that the football stadium influences recruiting.

4. I know Duke can win in Football. When we start doing this, what would be our expected crowds? I think 40k is a slam dunk. We are a larger school, and with the Hospital, have many more employees than Wake. Our extended metropolitan area is much larger. Look at the history of Duke attendance. And, I think we need to be drawing more crowds to both keep in good standing with the Conference, as well as to find the revenue to help support the program.

5. Intermediate term we will need a slightly bigger stadium.

6. Immediately, we need a remodled more impressive stadium.

7. We get better and bigger for $6 - 8 million and that includes Field Turf. It will cost us $6 million to build a new track on West. It needs to be on West to be close to all of the other training facilites.

8. I am going to pick a spot for the track, and get on the phone with some donors who might like to name the new track after a family member.

9. We will locate the track by where there would be room to build also an indoor track down the road, as fundraising suggest allows.

10. I would start 7-16-08, and plan on working on building the new track as soon as commitments and permits were obtained. Get the new track constructed, so that we start on Wade at the latest after the 09 season.

Inonehand
07-16-2008, 08:07 AM
If you google all things temple big east conference, you will find mentioned in about 20 different articles that the big east decided to boot Temple in March 2001. Reasons poor attendance and poor progress of the football program.

Interesting paralells with Duke. Temple Stadium was completed in 1928, a horseshoe design with a track around the field built in a natural ravine, 34k capacity. Sound familiar. Temple felt they were suffering from track itis for years. And, finally they demo-ed the stadium around 1980. The league used against Temple its lack of a suitable home for its Football games - playing smaller expected crowd games in Franklin Field, led to even smaller crowds (Franklin Field also suffers from track itis), and larger expected crowds in Vet, which did not materialize often due to the inconvenience, or lack of progress in the program. Temple should have done what I recommend for Duke, remove the track, lower the field and connect the crowd to the game.

Again, Temple was never a full member of the Big East. Villanova kept them out. There is no parallel. The fact I agree with you that we should do the field lowering and track removal does not change the fact that you throw out reasons for it that don't hold water.

dukie8
07-16-2008, 08:13 AM
Again, Temple was never a full member of the Big East. Villanova kept them out. There is no parallel. The fact I agree with you that we should do the field lowering and track removal does not change the fact that you throw out reasons for it that don't hold water.

it's laughable that FDA used temple as an example of a school in a similar situation as duke, it was pointed out that temple has NOTHING to do with duke and then FDA continues on his diatribe. what to do with WW is a very important issue. completely ignoring other posters correcting you doesn't help the discussion.

formerdukeathlete
07-16-2008, 09:16 AM
it's laughable that FDA used temple as an example of a school in a similar situation as duke, it was pointed out that temple has NOTHING to do with duke and then FDA continues on his diatribe. what to do with WW is a very important issue. completely ignoring other posters correcting you doesn't help the discussion.

I present all the reasons why, which Dukie8 neither acknowledges nor understands - he completely ignores the rationale in his response and feels free to levy an insult while doing what he accuses me of doing.

inone, you may be correct that Villanova kept Temple out from becoming a full member of the Big East. But you are incorrect in what you imply, that Villanova was the reason (preventing Temple from becoming a full member was the reason) why Temple left the Big East as a Football Member. Temple was perfectly happy staying in the Big East as (just) a Football Member. Temple was booted. The lack of a suitable football venue was cited as a reason, poor attendance another, and lack of progress on the field. Villanova is not a Football member of the Big East. They had no vote in this.

Duke just got a wake up call from Swofford and the Conference due to lack of progress on the field and poor attendance.

The paralells between the schools, their football programs, include poor attendance, lack of success on the field, and identical football stadiums (until Temple moved to the Vet and Franklin Field in 1978) with the identical problem of fans complaining about the track.

It is also laughable that anyone thinks if Duke goes for a period of time stinking in Basketball and Football that we would not risk sanctions or worse. There is a chance for this.

Part of the solution to mitigate this risk is simple: remove the track from Wade, lower the field, bring permanent seats to the field. This has been done many times before in similar situations, and these sorts of objections have been overruled in as many times.

Indoor66
07-16-2008, 09:23 AM
with the identical problem of fans complaining about the track.

I, basically, agree with the remodel of WW and, probably, moving the track to another site. I also see the difficulty with the situs issues and a desire to maintain the relative compactness of Duke's athletic facilities. That said, the only person complaining about the track on a regular basis is FDA. The above quoted statement is, IMO, a red herring.

roywhite
07-16-2008, 09:29 AM
My .02 on the location of the track---there was some real benefit to the location of the track a number of years ago. Duke was home to some major track competitions, including the Pan-African games and an NCAA championship. Attendance was very good, and Wallace Wade was a good venue for major competition. Track in the area was at a high point in the early 1970's with Coach Buehler's teams being strong (there was some scholarship money available and some outstanding peformers, esp. in middle and long distance), and Dr. Walker at NC Central.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. There have been some good individual track athletes (esp. women) but no scholarship money for men has had a major effect. So we are not seeing major national or international competitions at Wade.

Seems to me there would be a real benefit to the football setting to remove the track, and that a good track facility could be built elsewhere on West Campus for a reasonable cost.

formerdukeathlete
07-16-2008, 09:42 AM
I, basically, agree with the remodel of WW and, probably, moving the track to another site. I also see the difficulty with the situs issues and a desire to maintain the relative compactness of Duke's athletic facilities. That said, the only person complaining about the track on a regular basis is FDA. The above quoted statement is, IMO, a red herring.


Maybe, one of a few "complaining" through posting on DBR. I would not call it complaining; I would call it bringing up the problem and offering a solution to the problem.

About, Temple....I recall you are from PA...with some checking you will find that one of the reasons Temple agitated to move out of the old Temple Stadium, also known as Owl Stadium, was that folks did not like the track.

It is eerie that the stadium was virtually identical to Wade, same design, same track, same capacity. Folks thought it both unimpressive (too small) and not fan friendly (the track). Check with your contacts, re back in the day at Temple, and then reconsider "red herring" comment.

dukie8
07-16-2008, 09:44 AM
you present ridiculous ideas and arguments and completely ignore responses that refute what you post. this isn't rocket science. comparing what ohio st and wisconsin have done in football is ridiculous to the point that it shouldn't even require a response. comparing temple's boot from the nonsensical hodgepodge big east football league is even more ridiculous. you simply don't read posts. temple was booted out because, contrary to what you posted, its only team in the league (where are all of its other top 25 non revenue teams in the big east as well as the highest profile basketball team?) was terrible and wasn't contributing anything to the league kitty. if its small stadium was even a remotely key issue for why it got booted, then what was the big east thinking accepting uconn with its 40K stadium, allowing a truly deplorable team for decades (rutgers) to remain in the league with its 41K stadium and, drumroll please, cincinnati into the league with its robust 35K stadium??? note that all of those schools have SIGNIFICANTLY larger student bodies than duke.

you keep on harping back to the fact that duke used to be able to draw 40-50K in the 1950s. could you cite any more meaningless (and exaggerated) data? drive thrus were popular then. university of chicago used to be a power in football. so were the ivies. there was no internet, cable or satellite tv then either. to conclude that there are a few more options for the casual sports fan on a saturday afternoon in the triangle area may be the understatement of the year.

wake should be the blueprint that we follow because i can't think of a school more similar (small, private, no football tradition, no football success, academics not thrown out the window, in nc, etc) that has turned around a floundering football program as successfully (and quickly) as wake. the fact that wake, with the top team in the acc 2 years ago, drew 32K/game each of the last 2 seasons should be extremely instrumental in guiding how big WW realistically needs to be. we do not need a 50K stadium that will be half full most of the time and never full.

formerdukeathlete
07-16-2008, 09:59 AM
..........
wake should be the blueprint that we follow because i can't think of a school more similar (small, private, no football tradition, no football success, academics not thrown out the window, in nc, etc) that has turned around a floundering football program as successfully (and quickly) as wake. the fact that wake, with the top team in the acc 2 years ago, drew 32K/game each of the last 2 seasons should be extremely instrumental in guiding how big WW realistically needs to be. we do not need a 50K stadium that will be half full most of the time and never full.


Wake's is a changing blueprint, and Wake has what Duke will achieve in removing the track, seats right up to the field. Wake will be at 40k within a decade. Washington and Kansas will remove their tracks within that time. Duke sold out games with Spurrier and Goldsmith and comes in at over 30k when playing State, UNC, and close when playing V Tech, with horrible teams. My point is that the stadium as reconfigured will help sell seats. Every first row seat moves down to the field, second row and so on. We are probably talking 40-44k, take 15% off when coverting to seat backs, and we are back at around 36k. I can tell from attending games at the LA Coliseum before and after the track was removed and additional seating brought down to a lowered field, that it helps the atmosphere a lot. I can tell you that watching a game at Cal is a hell of a lot more exciting than watching a game at the old Pitt stadium - similar footprint, Cals just does not have a track and you are right up on the field.

Ultimately, if we cant fill 40k in the exploding area of RDU, then we should de-emphasize Football. We wont have the revenue to justify keeping it up. But, I think it is highly rational and prudent to fix the stadium, bring seats to the field, and address this problem Duke has vis a vis our facilties and give it our best shot.

Indoor66
07-16-2008, 10:38 AM
Wake's is a changing blueprint, and Wake has what Duke will achieve in removing the track, seats right up to the field. Wake will be at 40k within a decade. Washington and Kansas will remove their tracks within that time. Duke sold out games with Spurrier and Goldsmith and comes in at over 30k when playing State, UNC, and close when playing V Tech, with horrible teams. My point is that the stadium as reconfigured will help sell seats. Every first row seat moves down to the field, second row and so on. We are probably talking 40-44k, take 15% off when coverting to seat backs, and we are back at around 36k. I can tell from attending games at the LA Coliseum before and after the track was removed and additional seating brought down to a lowered field, that it helps the atmosphere a lot. I can tell you that watching a game at Cal is a hell of a lot more exciting than watching a game at the old Pitt stadium - similar footprint, Cals just does not have a track and you are right up on the field.

Ultimately, if we cant fill 40k in the exploding area of RDU, then we should de-emphasize Football. We wont have the revenue to justify keeping it up. But, I think it is highly rational and prudent to fix the stadium, bring seats to the field, and address this problem Duke has vis a vis our facilties and give it our best shot.

Now I am back to disagreeing, FDA. The fans come to see winning football, not because of the configuration of the stadium! I attended games at WW in the 60's when Bill Murray was coach and thereafter until moving away in the 70's. The fans came to see the games to see the games, not the stadium. There were rare full stadiums, though the crowd was signifantly larger than the game I attended last year.


That said, your fear-mongering about being kicked out of the ACC is absolute bull. Duke will not de-emphisize and the ACC will never consider dismissing Duke.

Make your arguments but don't go off the deep end. Keep real and others may agree. Your "sky is falling" rhetoric gets real old.

formerdukeathlete
07-16-2008, 11:19 AM
Now I am back to disagreeing, FDA. The fans come to see winning football, not because of the configuration of the stadium! I attended games at WW in the 60's when Bill Murray was coach and thereafter until moving away in the 70's. The fans came to see the games to see the games, not the stadium. There were rare full stadiums, though the crowd was signifantly larger than the game I attended last year.


That said, your fear-mongering about being kicked out of the ACC is absolute bull. Duke will not de-emphisize and the ACC will never consider dismissing Duke.

Make your arguments but don't go off the deep end. Keep real and others may agree. Your "sky is falling" rhetoric gets real old.

Indoor, feel free to disagree, but I must take issue with your characterization of the risks I have suggested as fear mongering.

Also, back in the day, in the 60s, Pitt had a track, Penn State, Temple, Ohio State, Texas Tech, Wisconsin had just gotten rid of theirs. None of these schools have tracks in their football stadiums today.

As for fear mongering or sky is falling, none of my posts have suggested that getting kicked out of the ACC was imminent. I can tell you it caught our admin by surprise that the Conference office brought up the sad state of Football as an issue - read between the lines - that is step one.

Wade is the worst stadium in BCS, of course the worst stadium by far in the ACC. IMO, the stadium hurts recruiting, hurts our ability to attract coaches, hurts our ability to sell tickets.

This is very easy to see that it is a problem, one which is best fixed by first removing the track.

You dont think so, fine. But, be decent on this board not to mischaracterize posts. Read some of the other information, before just summarily concluding that the track does not need to go. Why have so many other schools gotten rid of theirs? Why are the only two remaining BCS schools with tracks planning to get rid of theirs - Washington imminently. It hurts the look of the stadium, its a 100 year old design, diminishes the game day experience. Fans have other ways to watch a game. Got to make it enjoyable to make the effort to be there, to fill the seats. Bathrooms and hot dog stands are less important imo than being right up there on the action. You have concluded otherwise. But, note that your conclusions run counter to those of so many other programs which did what Duke could easily do.

crimsonandblue
07-16-2008, 12:47 PM
Well, every situation is different. But as FDA mentioned, Kansas is moving towards finally doing away with its track (http://www2.kusports.com/news/2008/jul/15/kansas_relays_ending_run_memorial_stadium_or_it/). Right now, it's not clear that the field will be lowered. Instead, Kansas may initially go with some sort of club seating we're testing out this fall in the open end of the horseshoe. Here's an early example of the club chairs that also have flat screen tvs in front and will have an exclusive concession tent.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2008/06/24/ku_luxury_section_09_t800.jpg?

Basically, trying to do some stop gap things in lieu of the expense of digging down and lowering the field to add seats to a 44,000 seat facility that's only now regularly filled to capacity.

But tons of money has been and is being spent on upgrading (http://kuathletics.cstv.com/facilities/anderson-complex.html)what were fairly poor facilities by BCS standards.

formerdukeathlete
07-16-2008, 02:01 PM
Thank you for the post re Kansas. Kansas has perhaps the most storied track in the country, yet they are proceeding with removing it from the football stadium.

Kansas stadium is a bit different - its above ground, whereas all of Wade's underlying structure, as it carries down to the field is already sitting on the ground / dirt (concrete). In the case of Wade, excavation would be a simpler matter than at Kansas and ought to be less expensive. As you excavate and lower, you form up the concrete carrying down the existing pitch., eliminating the need for retaining walls, etc.

dukie8
07-16-2008, 02:17 PM
Kansas has perhaps the most storied track in the country, yet they are proceeding with removing it from the football stadium.

what on earth are you smoking? ever hear of hayward, millrose or franklin field? the days of jim ryan are ancient history.

kansas has a student body of 30K and a stadium that holds 50K, which sells out. duke has a student body of 11K and a stadium that holds 34K, which never sells out. do you need me to help you with the numbers to see how kansas is in just a slightly different situation in terms of need to add seating capacity?

roywhite
07-16-2008, 02:26 PM
what on earth are you smoking? ever hear of hayward, millrose or franklin field? the days of jim ryan are ancient history.

kansas has a student body of 30K and a stadium that holds 50K, which sells out. duke has a student body of 11K and a stadium that holds 34K, which never sells out. do you need me to help you with the numbers to see how kansas is in just a slightly different situation in terms of need to add seating capacity?

This exchange is getting nasty and repetitive. I personally believe it makes sense to re-locate the track and enhance the Wallace Wade football situation, but after a while we are just repeating an opinion here. No sense beating it to death.

dukie8
07-16-2008, 02:35 PM
This exchange is getting nasty and repetitive. I personally believe it makes sense to re-locate the track and enhance the Wallace Wade football situation, but after a while we are just repeating an opinion here. No sense beating it to death.

agreed. we are basically going around in circles. hopefully white will put together a plan for WW that will have positive results for everyone. the first order of business is to win some football games this year.

formerdukeathlete
07-16-2008, 02:40 PM
what on earth are you smoking? ever hear of hayward, millrose or franklin field? the days of jim ryan are ancient history.

kansas has a student body of 30K and a stadium that holds 50K, which sells out. duke has a student body of 11K and a stadium that holds 34K, which never sells out. do you need me to help you with the numbers to see how kansas is in just a slightly different situation in terms of need to add seating capacity?


I got it, you dont want to move the track, and no I dont need help with the numbers, as you imply difficulty. I am quite sure that my professional accreditations and educational background suggest otherwise.

Wash and Kansas are getting rid of their tracks to improve the game experience as much as anything.

crimsonandblue
07-16-2008, 02:59 PM
Not my fight. We've had our own lengthy arguments over track removal.

But the reasoning for the track removal at Kansas is largely aesthetics and recruiting. As noted earlier, tracks around fields are seen as high schoolish. Not sure what will be immediately done about lowering the field, but eventually, it will be done. Likely in conjunction with other expansion (needed only for revenue) and updates (needed on the upper east concourse of KU's Memorial for basic hygiene and acceptable standards of modern sanitation).

Anyway, I wouldn't think the point of lowering WW and adding seats would truly be to expand capacity. Instead, the reason most schools have done this is to: (1) expand the number of really good seats that bring in substantial revenue; (2) aesthetics of ridding yourself of a track that looks dated and unsophisticated; and (3) give a better gameday atmosphere, by bringing the fans right on top of the field.

Kansas fans want to lower the field and square off the bowl in hopes of getting good seats closer to the field that will make the stadium look better, the crowd sound better and the revenues increase.

Anyway, looking forward to the KU-Duke game in '09 in WW.

jimsumner
07-16-2008, 03:30 PM
May I respectfully suggest that we may be past the point of diminishing returns on this discussion.

Inonehand
07-16-2008, 04:56 PM
I present all the reasons why, which Dukie8 neither acknowledges nor understands - he completely ignores the rationale in his response and feels free to levy an insult while doing what he accuses me of doing.

inone, you may be correct that Villanova kept Temple out from becoming a full member of the Big East. But you are incorrect in what you imply, that Villanova was the reason (preventing Temple from becoming a full member was the reason) why Temple left the Big East as a Football Member. Temple was perfectly happy staying in the Big East as (just) a Football Member. Temple was booted. The lack of a suitable football venue was cited as a reason, poor attendance another, and lack of progress on the field. Villanova is not a Football member of the Big East. They had no vote in this.

Duke just got a wake up call from Swofford and the Conference due to lack of progress on the field and poor attendance.

The paralells between the schools, their football programs, include poor attendance, lack of success on the field, and identical football stadiums (until Temple moved to the Vet and Franklin Field in 1978) with the identical problem of fans complaining about the track.

It is also laughable that anyone thinks if Duke goes for a period of time stinking in Basketball and Football that we would not risk sanctions or worse. There is a chance for this.

Part of the solution to mitigate this risk is simple: remove the track from Wade, lower the field, bring permanent seats to the field. This has been done many times before in similar situations, and these sorts of objections have been overruled in as many times.

Last post on this because it is boring me. I implied nothing of the sort. I stated why Temple did not become a full member of the Big East. It was not because of football. They were dumped from football only status because of football. And that made absolute sense. Because Nova would not allow them to come in full-fledged it made it clear that they brought nothing to the table with just football. Clear? Final? Not a comparable in any way to Duke and the ACC. Now please go ahead and encourage the removal of the track without throwing out stuff that has no bearing on Duke at all. Hope it happens to the betterment of football and track. Later.

Devil in the Blue Dress
07-16-2008, 08:33 PM
Well, every situation is different. But as FDA mentioned, Kansas is moving towards finally doing away with its track (http://www2.kusports.com/news/2008/jul/15/kansas_relays_ending_run_memorial_stadium_or_it/). Right now, it's not clear that the field will be lowered. Instead, Kansas may initially go with some sort of club seating we're testing out this fall in the open end of the horseshoe. Here's an early example of the club chairs that also have flat screen tvs in front and will have an exclusive concession tent.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2008/06/24/ku_luxury_section_09_t800.jpg?

Basically, trying to do some stop gap things in lieu of the expense of digging down and lowering the field to add seats to a 44,000 seat facility that's only now regularly filled to capacity.

But tons of money has been and is being spent on upgrading (http://kuathletics.cstv.com/facilities/anderson-complex.html)what were fairly poor facilities by BCS standards.

Would you want to sit in these in August and September in Durham?

I hope each of you who has been so passionate on this thread will be at the first game on August 30 and continue to attend and cheer the team on for the remainder of the season. It's time we all showed up to support our team and expect more from the program. The kids who devote their college careers to going to school while playing football at Duke deserve better than they've received in the past three decades. Coach Cutcliffe has stated that it's not just the players who have to work their way into a winning program. The fans must work their way back into a winning program, too.

Jarhead
07-16-2008, 10:30 PM
Would you want to sit in these in August and September in Durham?

I hope each of you who has been so passionate on this thread will be at the first game on August 30 and continue to attend and cheer the team on for the remainder of the season. It's time we all showed up to support our team and expect more from the program. The kids who devote their college careers to going to school while playing football at Duke deserve better than they've received in the past three decades. Coach Cutcliffe has stated that it's not just the players who have to work their way into a winning program. The fans must work their way back into a winning program, too.
In Durham, if you stand up to watch the kick-off, those UK seats will be too hot to sit on when you want to sit. I don't think they'll sell at Duke. Look, folks, we've had a pretty good discussion here, and some very good points were made. Some of us feel very passionately about the football program at Duke, and about the track program. Comparing Duke to any other program such as Wake Forest University or Kansas, or Wisconsin, is a red herring in that none of them match our situation.

Ours is a lot simpler than most of you are seeing. We need to make improvements at Wade, and we don't need a full scale high maintenance Olympic size track in the stadium. The biggest crowds we ever get there are the 20,000 or so we get for football, and the few thousand less that we get for commencement. Even those track meets of the past didn't get the crowds some of us remember. Maybe we fans were bunched together near the finish line, but the seats were generally empty elsewhere in the stadium. but we did get crowds for football. The current capacity is about 34k, and it was higher when the seats were wood. That's not the point. The point is to improve the facilities, including the seating areas. The reasons are more commercial than any other. To sell more seats, we need to improve the product. That means improve the team, and the stadium in which they play. If we can improve quality of the game we present, we can sell more seats. If we can improve the quality of the seating area, we will also sell more seats. But we cannot sell more seats than we have in inventory.

Now how are we going to do that. Renovate the stadium, of course, and the quality of the football program. Spare me the arguments to save the trees, or to not offend the track teams, or anywhere you put the track would be inconvenient. These issues should be treated fairly, and that doesn't require a track in the football stadium. I imagine that some sort of feasibility study will be directed by White and the University, and they would consider all of that plus the financial requirements, and the requirements for membership in the BCS (formerly known as division 1A). That's where the issue of ACC membership hangs. As I recall, in the ACC, we must field a Division 1A football team to retain membership. If we lose that, forget our entire athletic program, and any revenue the University gets from it.

OK, now let's hire an architect with stadium design credentials. What would be the first recommendation? Well this will be a football stadium, so let's get rid of those features that don't need to be in the football stadium. Can we put a track of equal or better quality somewhere else? Of course we can. Would keeping the track in the football stadium help increase revenue from ticket sales? I can't believe anybody would say yes to that. So there we are. Decision time, folks. We try to maximize the return on investment on everything we do. Everything, including recruitment of players, of research scholars, of medical students, of undergraduates, of health care staff. Everything, in some of which we are very successful.
Let's do that for football. It will pay off. Trust me.

Verga3
07-16-2008, 11:01 PM
My .02 on the location of the track---there was some real benefit to the location of the track a number of years ago. Duke was home to some major track competitions, including the Pan-African games and an NCAA championship. Attendance was very good, and Wallace Wade was a good venue for major competition. Track in the area was at a high point in the early 1970's with Coach Buehler's teams being strong (there was some scholarship money available and some outstanding peformers, esp. in middle and long distance), and Dr. Walker at NC Central.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. There have been some good individual track athletes (esp. women) but no scholarship money for men has had a major effect. So we are not seeing major national or international competitions at Wade.

Seems to me there would be a real benefit to the football setting to remove the track, and that a good track facility could be built elsewhere on West Campus for a reasonable cost.

I was in the stands in 1971 at Duke for the Pan-Arfrica Games......unforgettable. Read this. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E0DA1439F932A1575BC0A9629582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

What if the 2017 Duke Relays were the premier track and field competition in the Eastern US. If Eugene can do it in the West.....

It will most certainly take a financial commitment (gift) to jumpstart, but I will bet there are donors willing to dream on this one. How about a breathtaking, state-of-the-art indoor and outdoor complex in the woods on 751?

Duke has the perfect profile to recruit the best track and field student-athletes in the country (look out, Stanford....we want a Director's Cup). I'll never forget the excitement of that 1971 event at Duke. Only an Olympic Games compared.

gep
07-17-2008, 12:18 AM
What would be the first recommendation? Well this will be a football stadium, so let's get rid of those features that don't need to be in the football stadium.

This is the best reason I've heard yet. WW was, is, and will be a "football" stadium. So, make it a "football" stadium.

I'm sure that once the decision is made to make WW a "football" stadium, creative minds will come up with a first-class "track" stadium, worthy of major track events in the US.

GO DUKE!!!!!

hughgs
07-17-2008, 07:41 PM
Well, you have now written enough that your agenda is clear. You dont want to move the track. Jarhead puts up a specific area across 751, which is accessible, and you do not even mention or discuss this specific location, but rather rhetorically exclaim that across 751 is a big area and that this this marginalizes the track team? That this is reaching for staws? Well, I dont think so. And, I do not think you extend Jarhead the courtesy of analyzing what he put forth for purposes of this discussion, this Board. I dont think it marginalizes the swimming team to indicate a new varsity pool on Central Campus, yet this takes it away from the rest of the athletic complex on West.

I removed myself from this thread for awhile because everything I had to say I ahd said and some were obviously not following my logic. So I came back to see how things were going and I'm not surprised. However, I did see this paragraph and thought I needed to respond.

First, FDA, if you read my posts you will see that I have no agenda about the track and have explicitly stated such. I expect an apology for that.

Second, if you read my posts, I explicitly responded to jarhead's suggestion about the track being moved across 751. My concerns were access for the athletes and spectators. In fact, jarhead responded to my post agreeing that it wasn't an ideal situation (jarhead, please correct me if I'm wrong) but that he thought that the administration would be able to solve that issue. So, I expect an apology for lying about that also.

Third, the idea that I said would marginalize the track team was that the idea put forward by Ozzie4Duke. He may have been trying to be rhetorical, but I took it as a serious idea. So nice try there.

I can only gather from those three points that you're either deliberately misconstruing my posts or that you are so wedded to your ideas that you can't actually comprehend what I've posted. In either case you fail to debate in good faith and dance dangerously close to my understanding of the line separating acceptable posting practices.

Once again, you mis-characterize all arguments, yours and others. I've pointed out three specific examples of my posts. And I've continued to point out how you mis-characterize your own posts. Someone else noted that they originally thought that you had some inside information and now finally realizes that you are just another poster on this board with as much access to Duke Sports information as the rest of us. If only one poster on this board realizes that I'll be happy.

formerdukeathlete
07-17-2008, 08:51 PM
.......some were obviously not following my logic. So I came back to see how things were going and I'm not surprised. However, I did see this paragraph and thought I needed to respond.

First, FDA, if you read my posts you will see ...... expect an apology for that.

......

So nice try there.

I can only gather from those three points that you're either deliberately misconstruing my posts or that you are so wedded to your ideas that you can't actually comprehend what I've posted. In either case you fail to debate in good faith and dance dangerously close to my understanding of the line separating acceptable posting practices.

Once again, you mis-characterize all arguments, yours and others. I've pointed out three specific examples of my posts. And I've continued to point out how you mis-characterize your own posts. Someone else noted that they originally thought that you had some inside information and now finally realizes that you are just another poster on this board with as much access to Duke Sports information as the rest of us. If only one poster on this board realizes that I'll be happy.

Well, hughhgs, just about everthing you have written above is demeaning, insulting, arrogant.

My interest is conveying information, a point of view. What is in the best interests of the U, and I believe it is in the best interests of our U to really renovate Wade and remove the track.

Jarhead
07-17-2008, 10:06 PM
Sorry, but I cannot rush to your defense. I do not remember stating that the area across 751 was not ideal. I went through the entire thread looking for it, but I couldn't find it, unless you are talking about the post in which I mentioned an option for pedestrian traffic across 751. In fact, I have reached the conclusion that the ideal spot is that acreage across 751, but the University may have already designated it for some other purpose.

I have just spent some time looking at Google Earth images of the entire area, and I see no other area with as much space. The only thing that area has against it is the stream that ambles across it, but that stream may be useful to a landscape architect. If you had viewed my post (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=166713#post166713) that includes a Google Earth image of that area, you may see what I see in its value. Also, if you read my post from last night (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=167485#post167485) you will get a better idea of my position.

If you haven't already done it, I suggest that you download Google Earth 4.3 (http://earth.google.com/) and install it on your computer. With it you can wander the whole world, and the Duke Campus. Just enter a zip code, and fly there. It's a pretty easy application to use, and it is free.

RainingThrees
07-17-2008, 10:15 PM
maps.live.com is a better site. just type in wallace wade stadium or whatever then click for birds eye view. plus no download.

Jarhead
07-18-2008, 01:19 PM
Sorry, but all I got at maps.live was a map of the area. From Google Earth you get a satellite photo image in which you can even see cars parked in the parking lots. For that you need to download Google Earth.

Bluedog
07-18-2008, 01:30 PM
Sorry, but all I got at maps.live was a map of the area. From Google Earth you get a satellite photo image in which you can even see cars parked in the parking lots. For that you need to download Google Earth.

maps.live actually is pretty neat with the bird's eye view. Didn't know about that site before, thanks for the link! Works great for me. Although the direct above aerial views are crap and I'm not the biggest fan of the interface, but the bird's eye view is far superior to maps.google.com satellite views, and maybe even better than Google Earth's. And you don't even have to download the application so it's a bit more convenient. Although Durham now has streetview on maps.google.com, so that's helpful as well. I think a combination of the three is best! :D

RainingThrees
07-18-2008, 01:33 PM
did you try the aerial view and the birds eye? i can see individual yard marks.

Jarhead
07-18-2008, 09:22 PM
Thanks, RainingTrees. Yeah, I figured it out. Thanks for the info, and please accept my sincerest apologies. As Bluedog states, there are advantages either way. For the purposes of this thread, we can see that there is plenty of room just 500 yards away from Wade for a relocated track facility including support buildings, and even an indoor practice facility for the track teams. A picture is worth a thousand words, or more.

formerdukeathlete
07-21-2008, 07:30 AM
Thanks, RainingTrees. Yeah, I figured it out. Thanks for the info, and please accept my sincerest apologies. As Bluedog states, there are advantages either way. For the purposes of this thread, we can see that there is plenty of room just 500 yards away from Wade for a relocated track facility including support buildings, and even an indoor practice facility for the track teams. A picture is worth a thousand words, or more.

Another benefit of locating the track on West, where Jarhead has indicated, is that overflow parking, were we to host larger events, can go in nearby Football lots - eliminating the need for taking more forest to accommodate the facility.

What we need to do for Football, imo, remove the track and convert Wade to a football only stadium, is a function of a lot of things, including what other schools are doing or planning to do. With the only 2 other BCS schools with tracks deciding to get rid of their to improve the viewing experience, do we really want to be the only school with a track? What will, would that say about Duke's commitment to Football?

Speaking of Football, we open soon with JMU. Schools like JMU may aspire to join the bowl championship division in football. The aspirations of such schools, and their successes, can encourage other schools already there to take action and upgrade old stadiums.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxibToE1S7A

this video highlights JMU Football stadium expansion plans.

Here's to hoping that we show JMU something formidable in our opener.

RPS
07-21-2008, 10:13 AM
wake should be the blueprint that we follow because i can't think of a school more similar (small, private, no football tradition, no football success, academics not thrown out the window, in nc, etc) that has turned around a floundering football program as successfully (and quickly) as wake. the fact that wake, with the top team in the acc 2 years ago, drew 32K/game each of the last 2 seasons should be extremely instrumental in guiding how big WW realistically needs to be. we do not need a 50K stadium that will be half full most of the time and never full.

Wake is a good bit smaller than we are but is a good model I think. Wake is in the middle of a major upgrade of its football "experience" and stadium. The project is summarized here (http://wakeforestfacilities.com/about_phases.htm). As Wake Forest University Assistant Athletic Director of Marketing Geoff Lassiter recently stated (http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=107003&catid=57), "We needed to upgrade our amenities and give our fans the opportunities to have a first class experience on Saturday when they come to the football games."

We can argue about seating capacity, but if WW is going to be a decent stadium and if fans are going "to have a first class experience on Saturday," then major upgrades are imperative. In my view, priority one is obviously to improve the quality of play on the field. But if we want to give Coach Cut the best opportunity to do that (and we should, even if we care nothing for football, because of its marketing and revenue potential), then WW must be dramatically upgraded and the track has to go.

jmb
07-21-2008, 10:48 AM
keep in mind it's not beneficial to the track teams either to be located in a facility where they are treated as second-class citizens.

IMHO, had the university, athletic department, and track programs not each contributed a lot of money to resurfacing the track in 2003, this wouldn't even be a discussion

formerdukeathlete
07-21-2008, 03:59 PM
keep in mind it's not beneficial to the track teams either to be located in a facility where they are treated as second-class citizens.

IMHO, had the university, athletic department, and track programs not each contributed a lot of money to resurfacing the track in 2003, this wouldn't even be a discussion

Yes, some dough went to redo-ing the track, as well as the football field drainage plumbing - but this is small potatoes in the scheme of things - renovating versus building a new Football stadium.

Men's track, wrestling, men's swimming have no scholarships. Part of the reason is we do not draw for home Football games. Iron Dukes only can do so much. Yes, the U could just pay out of the operating budget for all athletic scholarships, and its annual subsidy to athletics (net of what the athletic scholarships save in financial aid awards) might still be lower than at a few of the Ivy League schools. Conference revenue sharing sure is a good thing.

If we improve the Football stadium through removing the track, we might just recruit more successfully, draw more fans into a more fan friendly environment, win more with better talent, draw even more fans, and, then, we might just have additional revenue to fund men's track scholarships. This would be first class, dont you think?

Bear in mind that in a year or two Duke with be the only BCS school with a track in its Football stadium.

RPS
07-21-2008, 05:49 PM
As Wake Forest University Assistant Athletic Director of Marketing Geoff Lassiter recently stated (http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=107003&catid=57), "We needed to upgrade our amenities and give our fans the opportunities to have a first class experience on Saturday when they come to the football games."

I should have added what is beyond obvious to anyone who has attended games in both venues. Even before the upgrades (and putting aside the quality of play), Wake's Groves Stadium provided a far better fan experience than WW in every respect.

OZZIE4DUKE
07-21-2008, 06:52 PM
I haven't read posts 81-119, page 3 if you will. I see that reading the above 3 posts I have missed nothing new.

LetItBD08
07-21-2008, 07:38 PM
To go a bit off topic (or to get back on topic depending on the perspective), check out the view of K-ville with the maps.live.com bird's eye view:

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=pzzn148dndzq&style=b&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=19037209&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

It's a cool view. I'm already nostalgic, and I haven't even been an alum for three months. Seems like they took these images during white tenting.

RainingThrees
07-22-2008, 11:15 AM
i love how you can even see people!