PDA

View Full Version : wilbon disses wally wade



grossbus
09-03-2008, 05:55 PM
on PTI just now, wilbon called kenan the most beautiful place to watch college football in america and then called wallace wade a "dump" and a high school dump at that.

i recall a lot of talk about renovations. but have not heard much more than talk.

have not been there since 65. how bad is it?

Oriole Way
09-03-2008, 06:29 PM
What was the context of the discussion? Why did he bring up Wallace Wade?

juise
09-03-2008, 06:45 PM
What was the context of the discussion? Why did he bring up Wallace Wade?

I have to assume that any national conversation about Kenan/Wade would be related to the parachute mishap on Saturday.

Oriole Way
09-03-2008, 06:54 PM
I have to assume that any national conversation about Kenan/Wade would be related to the parachute mishap on Saturday.

Ah yes, stupid me for not figuring that out.

grossbus
09-03-2008, 07:10 PM
"I have to assume that any national conversation about Kenan/Wade would be related to the parachute mishap on Saturday."

correct, wilbon's point was how could someone mistake one for the other.

Ignatius07
09-03-2008, 08:07 PM
on PTI just now, wilbon called kenan the most beautiful place to watch college football in america and then called wallace wade a "dump" and a high school dump at that.

i recall a lot of talk about renovations. but have not heard much more than talk.

have not been there since 65. how bad is it?

I don't really mind this because Wilbon is certainly not a stereotypical Duke hater. Neither is Kornheiser for that matter. Actually, considering all the hatred for Duke in the DC area, the biggest sports journalists have always been neutral-to-slightly-positive about Duke.

Edouble
09-03-2008, 08:36 PM
I don't really mind this because Wilbon is certainly not a stereotypical Duke hater. Neither is Kornheiser for that matter. Actually, considering all the hatred for Duke in the DC area, the biggest sports journalists have always been neutral-to-slightly-positive about Duke.

I agree. Both have shown respect for Duke and Coach K in the past.

As far as the DC media, I agree there too. The Post really loved Duke for years in the 80s/90s. They're not as enamored anymore, but they're nothing like that ... from the AJC (I know his name, I'm just not mentioning it because he stinks :mad:).

CameronCrazy'11
09-03-2008, 09:09 PM
I don't know. Wallace Wade certainly isn't a great stadium, but it's not really unpleasant. Calling it a "dump" is a bit of an overreach.

Devilsfan
09-03-2008, 09:14 PM
Finally something honest about Duke from an Espn commentator. Duke is such a fine school. We should be ashamed of ourselves to have such a facility.

Scorp4me
09-03-2008, 09:20 PM
I've been to quite a few Duke games at Wallace Wade so I definately feel qualified to say this. I agree that Duke needs to do some work there, the bathrooms are quite frankly ridiculous. How they have let this go for so long is beyond me. And they could certainly do some work, but I hate the train of thought that new is always better. Thank goodness we have K to look over Cameron, but there is nothing wrong with Wallace Wade that can't be fixed.

So if you're saying it needs some work I agree completely. But if you're saying we need a new facility completely I'd have to disagree.

arnie
09-03-2008, 09:51 PM
I've been to quite a few Duke games at Wallace Wade so I definately feel qualified to say this. I agree that Duke needs to do some work there, the bathrooms are quite frankly ridiculous. How they have let this go for so long is beyond me. And they could certainly do some work, but I hate the train of thought that new is always better. Thank goodness we have K to look over Cameron, but there is nothing wrong with Wallace Wade that can't be fixed.

So if you're saying it needs some work I agree completely. But if you're saying we need a new facility completely I'd have to disagree.

How Duke could let the bathrooms could go for so long is a great question for our previous AD of 10+ years. And of course, the admin at Duke couldn't figure out how to renovate without screwing it up - so nothing has happened except for yellow tape across the cess pool in the woods behind the far end section (30?).

Anyway, I think our new AD is on the right track and the above post is right on. Simple things (at least to most admins) including a new concession system and stands will make a huge difference. However, I was amused that the stand nearest the taped off cess pool was out of bottled water in the third quarter last Saturday - seems they would have plenty of a high profit item that doesn't require any prep. Go figure.

grossbus
09-03-2008, 10:18 PM
what is the cess pool? is it sewage, runoff from the stadium?

sounds bad.

Acymetric
09-03-2008, 10:19 PM
what is the cess pool? is it sewage, runoff from the stadium?

sounds bad.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the set of restrooms that were in the worst condition, sort of off behind the home side past the end of the shoe.

formerdukeathlete
09-04-2008, 08:42 AM
I've been to quite a few Duke games at Wallace Wade so I definately feel qualified to say this. I agree that Duke needs to do some work there, the bathrooms are quite frankly ridiculous. How they have let this go for so long is beyond me. And they could certainly do some work, but I hate the train of thought that new is always better. Thank goodness we have K to look over Cameron, but there is nothing wrong with Wallace Wade that can't be fixed.

So if you're saying it needs some work I agree completely. But if you're saying we need a new facility completely I'd have to disagree.

What can be done with Wade is precisely what Kevin White is studying. Focus on bathrooms and concessions is simply superficial - much more determines whether a stadium is a good venue for Football. Among the more important factors:

pitch of the stands and sightlines;

proximity of seats to the playing field;

raw seating capacity;

premium seating.

Wade's stands are pitched relatively softly, which is less than ideal. This means that as seats go up, seats move away further from the action than say at a Wake Forest, Clemson.

The running track compounds the effect of softly pitched seats.

Wade is one of the quietest stadiums, if not the quietest, in 1-A because of the soft pitch, separation of fans by the running track and open end.

Raw seating capacity is too small at Wade, unless we plan on struggling in Football. As recently as 1994 we drew 40k for a home game (even though official attendance was 37k) with many standing along the concourse. When RDU had no people and 4 big 4 football teams we drew 50k for home games. 50 k is about what you need to be able to offer guarantees without losing your shirt on home games.

Premium seating could be addressed by the proposed new President's Box / Iron Dukes Building.

The question for the architects, is it cheaper to build new, or can Wade be renovated to be a sufficiently good d-1 stadium?

My guess is that it probably can be renovated in this fashion and capacity eventually brought up to about 50k (tops) with removing he running track and doing something with the open end at some point.

I trust our new AD is focusing on the raw capabilities of the structure, rather than accepting a bandaid approach such as the RATIO proposal.

CathyCA
09-04-2008, 09:02 AM
I've been to quite a few Duke games at Wallace Wade so I definately feel qualified to say this. I agree that Duke needs to do some work there, the bathrooms are quite frankly ridiculous. How they have let this go for so long is beyond me. And they could certainly do some work, but I hate the train of thought that new is always better. Thank goodness we have K to look over Cameron, but there is nothing wrong with Wallace Wade that can't be fixed.

So if you're saying it needs some work I agree completely. But if you're saying we need a new facility completely I'd have to disagree.

Regarding the bathrooms: I went to the portable bathrooms prior to the game, before the rain. Although the facilities were quite cramped, it was heavily air-conditioned, and that part was nice. Not so nice was that the flushing mechanism (a pedal to the right of the base of the toilet) wasn't marked, and some of the women had a hard time figuring that out because some of the toilets hadn't been flushed when I got there. Another woman and I went through the stalls and flushed the toilets for those women before us who couldn't quite figure it out.

At halftime, I went to another of the port-a-potties. This one was marked for women, and it was air-conditioned, but it only had 2 stalls with doors and the rest were urinals. It was as cramped as the first tinkle trailer I visited.

These potties weren't as nice as the ones they bring out by the soccer fields for the Big Dance at the Duke reunions.

Atldukie79
09-04-2008, 10:29 AM
I love Wallace Wade Stadium. There...I have said it. And there is my personal torment. I am a traditionalist in many things, and the CIS and WW are two of my favorites. Yet I recognize the need to move forward with WW, but not move on.

I think WW is a pretty venue...the curves of the stadium are quite pleasing and the sight of trees (albeit fewer all the time) nice too. The natural bowl and proximity to campus (you can still see the chapel) are irreplacable at any other location. It ain't moving any where else folks!

Yet I am reminded that this very stadium was once the fresh and new thing that helped contribute to attracting a different coach with ties to Alabama.
(If you think attracting Cutcliff was a coup, consider the success and profile Wallace Wade had when he left Alabama for Duke). SO clearly DUke has played the enhanced facilities game in the past (nearly 80 years ago!)

I think we need a plan to keep WW and modernize the stadium in 3 steps.

1) Fix the modernization problems: Scoreboards, bathrooms, concessions. This is a no brainer. I know this is planned.
2) Prepare to extend seating with temporary bleachers. I think with a more competitive team and continued marketing, we can cycle into 50k crowds without dropping the playing field and adding luxury suites. Temporary bleachers used to be a permanent feature around the top of the stadium. And they also fit nicely in the open end of the stadium.
3) Then, and only then, when the demand is there, drop the field and extend seating down. Also add luxury boxes...why not.


I think I can swallow my traditionalist tendancies and support such a plan.

Classof06
09-04-2008, 10:33 AM
For a college stadium, Wallace Wade is not that nice, guys. As an alum, it's where I had my graduation ceremony and I actually like the stadium. But for a BCS conference football program, it's at or near the bottom of the list. There's no way around it.

What does it hold, like 35,000 people? Granted, Duke only has 6,600 undergrads but if we want to take the program to that next level, the stadium has to hold more.

That being said, I am looking forward to the renovations. As Duke's program returns to respectability, the Stadium should as well.

killerleft
09-04-2008, 11:04 AM
I love Wallace Wade Stadium. There...I have said it. And there is my personal torment. I am a traditionalist in many things, and the CIS and WW are two of my favorites. Yet I recognize the need to move forward with WW, but not move on.

I think WW is a pretty venue...the curves of the stadium are quite pleasing and the sight of trees (albeit fewer all the time) nice too. The natural bowl and proximity to campus (you can still see the chapel) are irreplacable at any other location. It ain't moving any where else folks!

Yet I am reminded that this very stadium was once the fresh and new thing that helped contribute to attracting a different coach with ties to Alabama.
(If you think attracting Cutcliff was a coup, consider the success and profile Wallace Wade had when he left Alabama for Duke). SO clearly DUke has played the enhanced facilities game in the past (nearly 80 years ago!)

I think we need a plan to keep WW and modernize the stadium in 3 steps.

1) Fix the modernization problems: Scoreboards, bathrooms, concessions. This is a no brainer. I know this is planned.
2) Prepare to extend seating with temporary bleachers. I think with a more competitive team and continued marketing, we can cycle into 50k crowds without dropping the playing field and adding luxury suites. Temporary bleachers used to be a permanent feature around the top of the stadium. And they also fit nicely in the open end of the stadium.
3) Then, and only then, when the demand is there, drop the field and extend seating down. Also add luxury boxes...why not.


I think I can swallow my traditionalist tendancies and support such a plan.

I can agree with that 100%. The restrooms look like something from a county fair from yesteryear. The concessions not only need to be upgraded, a line-control feature needs to be implemented to keep the customers from clogging up the concourse.

Once that is done, Wade is just concrete and seats like any other stadium, but with a charm and historical significance that can't be replaced. I sure hope the powers that be don't lose that during renovations. Although our winning heritage may be ancient to most of us, the work should be done with as much care as was shown during the Cameron renovations.

Jarhead
09-04-2008, 11:14 AM
I am surprised that there has been no mention of lowering the field. That, I believe, will be necessary, eventually. It is the only way to expand and/or improve seating comfort. New/improved bathroom facilities would be part of that. All that other stuff is fluff. Making us more comfortable, and preparing for increased attendance at football games should be top priority. The only concession I would make to fluff is... uh, the concessions. They need improvement, and are related to the comfort factor. Closing the open end of Wade is for the future, if needed. Save it for later.

Why in heaven do we need an Iron Duke building, or luxury seating. Building a needed building and naming it with the Iron Duke label is okay, though, but luxury boxes? The only luxury seats I go for are seats of the same type as in Cameron, upstairs. If a building an Iron Duke building turns out to be needed, maybe building it in the open end, and attaching some seats to it would do. If we really need to build a new stadium, and I doubt that, then we should do it. Forget Wade and get on with it. If we are realistic, that won't be necessary. Oh, yeah, whatever is done, it has to be done between seasons, and in stages. There should be no interference during the seasons, or with spring and pre-season practice.

Jarhead
09-04-2008, 11:21 AM
I second your motion. That pretty much implements the kind of staged renovations I have been thinking about. I am not much in favor of luxury boxes, though. The people in them seem to rarely watch the game.

Devil in the Blue Dress
09-04-2008, 12:05 PM
Take a look at the article by Al Featherston on the front page. He discusses the condition of the then Indoor Stadium when the basketball program was down and the sequence of events which led to some updates. It's both instructive and incisive as a backdrop to the same situation in Wallace Wade Stadium today. The first step to improving the venue occurred Saturday night.

Atldukie79, you're in good company! Many of us have spent untold hours in the football stadium over the years and have strong connections to all that the football stadium symbolizes on the Duke campus. I'm all for improvements, just as in Cameron, but believe the essential character should not be lost. And as for the restrooms, they weren't much better when I attended one of the last Texas - Arkansas games in Austin..... before the massive renovations which have since taken place. Despite all the rumble and vibrations caused by the 2001 theme played at Brice - Williams Stadium in Columbia, the restrooms were spartan.

I can't wait for the game Saturday!

Olympic Fan
09-04-2008, 12:39 PM
First, we all agree that concession and rest rooms are an immediate priority. As long as those two areas are as they are now, I won't speak up when anybody calls the place a dump.

But I think our experience with Cameron ought to remind us that there is value in history and that an old facility can be something special when spruced up.

To me, the big debate is over removing the track and lowering the field, expanding capacity by bringing the seats down another 5-10 rows.

I believe this is the way to do. Who else has a track these days surrounding their football stadium? And why -- it's not like Duke has a world-class track program. So we get a big international meet or the NCAA championships once every decade or so ... that's not worth keeping the track at Wade. Build a nice track facility with a first-class surface, decent locker rooms and a few thousand seats somewhere else on campus (maybe Hanes Field on East?)

I'm not enthusiastic about luxury boxes either, but I know they are a fact of life -- you've got to pay for the improvements (and the new track facility) somehow. Boxes are a big source of revenue.

Of course, the biggest source of revenue would be to increase the average paid attendance in Wade from the current 15,000 or so (what it is if you factor in the students) to 35,000 or so -- THAT would pay for a lot of improvments.

If the program ever takes off, THEN we can talk about closing the end zone. After that, we can talk about erecting a second deck. But first things first:

1 -- Restrooms and concession stands
2 -- remove the track, lower the field and extend the stands lower.
3 -- replace the president's box with a building to house luxury boxes facing the field (and maybe new rest rooms and concession stands on the concourse side).

Scorp4me
09-04-2008, 12:56 PM
Personal story. In college we had an old gymnasium to play basketball in. And I do mean old, I mean it wasn't even charm. 3 rows of seating I believe, which did put you right on the court I suppose. I mean my high school gymnasium was bigger than this. But despite this it was hot, it was loud, and it was always packed to capacity. My junior year they added a new gym. Seating went from the hundreds to the thousands. I'd say a modest gain in this day and time. Now for games there were fans seated here and there. It was ridiculously empty, even with a few more fans. Quite frankly, it sucked and if I understand correctly it still does. The problem wasn't so much the support, or even the big new gym. It was that it was a smaller private institution that had built larger than it needed. You'd have to sell out Wallace Wade for quite a few years to convince me we need more seating capacity. And even then you never know when it'll take a down turn again. It's easier for a small school to fill a smaller stadium.

Now if you want to lower the stadium perhaps you could do that to fix the sight lines as someone said, personally I don't think there is a bad seat in the place but that's personal opinion. Remove the track if you must, I never really considered it a detriment to the gamen, but apparently it affects the sound level. What I'm saying is that while many of you brought up some good structural issues(I may disagree with the need for them, I may not), seating capacity is one I think is important not to change for a smaller school like us with less local support. Fill the stadium for a few years, add temporary seating after that...then convince me of the need for more seating, but by then Wade will be quite a bit older.

phaedrus
09-04-2008, 01:05 PM
And why -- it's not like Duke has a world-class track program.

Whereas the football program is...?



So we get a big international meet or the NCAA championships once every decade or so ... that's not worth keeping the track at Wade.


But winning 2 football games a year is worth removing a world-class facility that consistently hosts world-class competitors and the second-biggest track meet on the East Coast?

I support our football program, and I'm amenable to moving the track. But first you need to show me that both programs will benefit from the change (that means adding another world-class track facility elsewhere on campus), and the football program needs to earn that extra investment. Saturday was a good start, but it was just that - a start.

Devil in the Blue Dress
09-04-2008, 01:07 PM
First, we all agree that concession and rest rooms are an immediate priority. As long as those two areas are as they are now, I won't speak up when anybody calls the place a dump.

But I think our experience with Cameron ought to remind us that there is value in history and that an old facility can be something special when spruced up.

To me, the big debate is over removing the track and lowering the field, expanding capacity by bringing the seats down another 5-10 rows.

I believe this is the way to do. Who else has a track these days surrounding their football stadium? And why -- it's not like Duke has a world-class track program. So we get a big international meet or the NCAA championships once every decade or so ... that's not worth keeping the track at Wade. Build a nice track facility with a first-class surface, decent locker rooms and a few thousand seats somewhere else on campus (maybe Hanes Field on East?)

I'm not enthusiastic about luxury boxes either, but I know they are a fact of life -- you've got to pay for the improvements (and the new track facility) somehow. Boxes are a big source of revenue.

Of course, the biggest source of revenue would be to increase the average paid attendance in Wade from the current 15,000 or so (what it is if you factor in the students) to 35,000 or so -- THAT would pay for a lot of improvments.

If the program ever takes off, THEN we can talk about closing the end zone. After that, we can talk about erecting a second deck. But first things first:

1 -- Restrooms and concession stands
2 -- remove the track, lower the field and extend the stands lower.
3 -- replace the president's box with a building to house luxury boxes facing the field (and maybe new rest rooms and concession stands on the concourse side).

There was a time when the President's Box was filled with folks the president of the university was honoring for various reasons.... filled at each game.... donors, employees, alums, etc. This sort of process or ceremony still has a place though more recently it's been lost in the shuffle of admins and others as they work to be more ivy than the Ivies.

SharkD
09-04-2008, 03:06 PM
Raw seating capacity is too small at Wade, unless we plan on struggling in Football. As recently as 1994 we drew 40k for a home game (even though official attendance was 37k) with many standing along the concourse. When RDU had no people and 4 big 4 football teams we drew 50k for home games. 50 k is about what you need to be able to offer guarantees without losing your shirt on home games.

....

My guess is that it probably can be renovated in this fashion and capacity eventually brought up to about 50k (tops) with removing he running track and doing something with the open end at some point.

Considering that WW only holds 33,941, I sincerely doubt that 40-50K people were ever in attendance, no matter how rosy your recollection, or how many bleachers were added.


I think we need a plan to keep WW and modernize the stadium in 3 steps.

1) Fix the modernization problems: Scoreboards, bathrooms, concessions. This is a no brainer. I know this is planned.
2) Prepare to extend seating with temporary bleachers. I think with a more competitive team and continued marketing, we can cycle into 50k crowds without dropping the playing field and adding luxury suites. Temporary bleachers used to be a permanent feature around the top of the stadium. And they also fit nicely in the open end of the stadium.
3) Then, and only then, when the demand is there, drop the field and extend seating down. Also add luxury boxes...

Most of this is in the official plan, except dropping the field -- as there's a crunch for space required by a dedicated T&F facility.

---

As for the 'tear it down' fans -- need I remind you what Cameron looked like before the late 80s renovation? It was a hole -- now, it's considered a "national treasure." (Read Featherston's article for more on the comparison.)

Also, take a gander at this thread, which should probably be resurrected: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3001

Acymetric
09-04-2008, 03:11 PM
Considering that WW only holds 33,941, I sincerely doubt that 40-50K people were ever in attendance, no matter how rosy your recollection, or how many bleachers were added.



Most of this is in the official plan, except dropping the field -- as there's a crunch for space required by a dedicated T&F facility.

---

As for the 'tear it down' fans -- need I remind you what Cameron looked like before the late 80s renovation? It was a hole -- now, it's considered a "national treasure." (Read Featherston's article for more on the comparison.)

Also, take a gander at this thread, which should probably be resurrected: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3001

You're wrong. They used to have temporary bleachers set up to seat more people.

formerdukeathlete
09-04-2008, 03:20 PM
Whereas the football program is...?



But winning 2 football games a year is worth removing a world-class facility that consistently hosts world-class competitors and the second-biggest track meet on the East Coast?

I support our football program, and I'm amenable to moving the track. But first you need to show me that both programs will benefit from the change (that means adding another world-class track facility elsewhere on campus), and the football program needs to earn that extra investment. Saturday was a good start, but it was just that - a start.

People rave about the difference at Ohio State since the track was removed in 1999 - 2000. K. White describes Wade as worse than "antiquated." I believe he is not talking about the bathrooms, but rather the basic design. It is just about coming up with the phases, hiting some attendance targets, getting the plan approved. If we draw well this season, it might be approved by season's end.

Scoring Point
09-04-2008, 03:20 PM
Took an old, dilapidated and widely criticized facility (though one with lots of history) and totally remade it:

http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/misc/index.htm

scroll down for comparison photos of old and new

I don't know if Duke would ever do anything this ambitious, but it does make for an interesting precedent, especially when you consider how often the university uses Stanford as a benchmark

EDIT - you make have to toggle from the main menu - choose NCAA, then Pac-10, then Stanford Stadium

Scoring Point
09-04-2008, 03:24 PM
another, better link

http://gostanford.cstv.com/facilities/stan-stadium.html

Devil in the Blue Dress
09-04-2008, 03:28 PM
Considering that WW only holds 33,941, I sincerely doubt that 40-50K people were ever in attendance, no matter how rosy your recollection, or how many bleachers were added.

I must respectfully point out that when the 1942 Rose Bowl was played in Durham, there were a number of additional bleachers constructed in what is now the stadium concourse. The attendance that day was 56,000. The seats including the Rose Bowl bleachers were filled when Duke played the Army team in 1959, the year the end didn't come into the huddle. There were other games with very high attendance. Oftentimes many people found ways to get in without a ticket; the official numbers don't account for those folks.

Olympic Fan
09-04-2008, 03:32 PM
Considering that WW only holds 33,941, I sincerely doubt that 40-50K people were ever in attendance, no matter how rosy your recollection, or how many bleachers were added.[/url]

Acymetric, you are wrong ...

In the 30's, 40's and '50s, the concourse was ringed by a row permanent bleachers, seating between 10,000-12,000 fans. For big games, temporary bleachers were stretched around the interior at ground level (those were terrible seats -- I know, I sat in one for the 1963 Duke-UNC game) and in the end zone.

The first really big crowd at Wade was Nov. 36, 1935 when 46,680 showed up for the Dukje-UNC game ... UNC was unbeaten and touted as Rose Bowl bound, but Ace Parker had his greatest day in a 25-0 Duke win.

That crowd was topped in 1938, when defending national champ Pitt visited and there was an official count (not an estimate) of 49,138. Erip Tipton put on what Grantland Rice called the greatest punting exhibition in history and Duke won 7-0.

A new record was set when the Rose Bowl game to Durham on Jan. 1, 1942. Duke borrowed bleachers from Chapel Hill and drew a crowd estimated (by Rose Bowl officials) at 56,000.

That record was topped in 1947 when UNC with Choo Choo Justice came to Durham for the finale and beat Duke 21-0 in front of a crowd estimated at 56,500.

Two years later, Justice and company drew 57,500 for a great game that UNC won 21-20 when All-American Art Weiner blocked a last second field goal try by future PGA star Mike Souchak (he should have used a wedge).

That crowd remained the official record for football attendance in North Carolina until it was topped by a State-ECU game in Carter-Finley Stadium in the mid-1970s.

Crowds of 40,000-plus were common in the 1950s and 1960s. There were some smaller crowds, but the big games drew more -- No. 4 Navy in 1960 drew 46,000 ... that UNC game I mentioned earlier in 1963 drew 47,500. If you can find pictures of games from that era you can see the ring of bleachers around the top that made those crowds possible -- and maybe the lower bleachers and end-zone bleachers that made the 50,000-plus possible.

When Tom Butters spruced up the stadium in the mid-1970s, he removed the permanent bleachers (and paved the concourse, which had been dirt). The seats in the concrete bowl indeed seat just over 33,000 ... but with 10-12 permanent bleacher seats, the stadium did easily accomodate crowds of 45,000-plus in the old days .... and those are not just rosy memories.

PS If any of you have access to the 2008 Duke football brochure, check out page 163 and you'll see what I'm talking about -- an aerial view of the 1942 Rose Bowl with 30 sections of bleachers around the top (each one seating approximately 500), about five rows of temporary seats around the bottom of the stands on the track and a huge bleacher section in the open end zone. That 56,000 estimate was not bogus.

killerleft
09-04-2008, 03:44 PM
Acymetric, you are wrong ...

In the 30's, 40's and '50s, the concourse was ringed by a row permanent bleachers, seating between 10,000-12,000 fans. For big games, temporary bleachers were stretched around the interior at ground level (those were terrible seats -- I know, I sat in one for the 1963 Duke-UNC game) and in the end zone.

The first really big crowd at Wade was Nov. 36, 1935 when 46,680 showed up for the Dukje-UNC game ... UNC was unbeaten and touted as Rose Bowl bound, but Ace Parker had his greatest day in a 25-0 Duke win.

That crowd was topped in 1938, when defending national champ Pitt visited and there was an official count (not an estimate) of 49,138. Erip Tipton put on what Grantland Rice called the greatest punting exhibition in history and Duke won 7-0.

A new record was set when the Rose Bowl game to Durham on Jan. 1, 1942. Duke borrowed bleachers from Chapel Hill and drew a crowd estimated (by Rose Bowl officials) at 56,000.

That record was topped in 1947 when UNC with Choo Choo Justice came to Durham for the finale and beat Duke 21-0 in front of a crowd estimated at 56,500.

Two years later, Justice and company drew 57,500 for a great game that UNC won 21-20 when All-American Art Weiner blocked a last second field goal try by future PGA star Mike Souchak (he should have used a wedge).

That crowd remained the official record for football attendance in North Carolina until it was topped by a State-ECU game in Carter-Finley Stadium in the mid-1970s.

Crowds of 40,000-plus were common in the 1950s and 1960s. There were some smaller crowds, but the big games drew more -- No. 4 Navy in 1960 drew 46,000 ... that UNC game I mentioned earlier in 1963 drew 47,500. If you can find pictures of games from that era you can see the ring of bleachers around the top that made those crowds possible -- and maybe the lower bleachers and end-zone bleachers that made the 50,000-plus possible.

When Tom Butters spruced up the stadium in the mid-1970s, he removed the permanent bleachers (and paved the concourse, which had been dirt). The seats in the concrete bowl indeed seat just over 33,000 ... but with 10-12 permanent bleacher seats, the stadium did easily accomodate crowds of 45,000-plus in the old days .... and those are not just rosy memories.

PS If any of you have access to the 2008 Duke football brochure, check out page 163 and you'll see what I'm talking about -- an aerial view of the 1942 Rose Bowl with 30 sections of bleachers around the top (each one seating approximately 500), about five rows of temporary seats around the bottom of the stands on the track and a huge bleacher section in the open end zone. That 56,000 estimate was not bogus.

A great story by Jim Sumner and a small photo showing the crowd at the 1942 Rose Bowl:

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22672&SPID=1843&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=735947

Carlos
09-04-2008, 06:35 PM
The problem in trying to expand Wallace Wade is that the proximity of many of the buildings make it almost impossible to add on a second deck. The Yoh Building is pretty tight with the stadium right now. I suppose the Finch-Yeager building could be incorporated into the stadium but it would take some work to make it work (would seats on the side of the building be blocked).

Duvall
09-04-2008, 06:36 PM
The problem in trying to expand Wallace Wade is that the proximity of many of the buildings make it almost impossible to add on a second deck. The Yoh Building is pretty tight with the stadium right now. I suppose the Finch-Yeager building could be incorporated into the stadium but it would take some work to make it work (would seats on the side of the building be blocked).

The other problem is the lack of ticket demand that would justify a major expansion like adding a second deck.

Carlos
09-04-2008, 07:29 PM
So you're saying that one almost-sellout in a row doesn't justify doubling the size of the stadium?

phaedrus
09-04-2008, 07:47 PM
Nah, I think he's saying they should add at least two or three more decks. Go big or go home.

jimsumner
09-04-2008, 08:00 PM
I suspect I'm one of the bigger t&f supporters on the board. But Duke hasn't been in the big-time-track-and-field business for some time and isn't planning on getting back in the game for the forseeable future.

In fact, the game has pretty much disappeared, except for a few holdouts, like Eugene. Track and field is a troubled sport in the U.S. Maybe it's Title IX, maybe it's performance-enhancing drugs, maybe it's institutional incompetence, all of the above, none of the above. That's another discussion. But I'm pretty sure Duke is a lot more likely to put 35,000 fannies in the seats for a football game than a track meet.

So, whatever the merits of keeping or moving the track, I think we can remove future U.S-Pan-Africa track meets from the discussion. It just ain't gonna happen.

And yes, by all means, don't abandon the track team. Make sure they have first-rate facilities, now and forever. But it's hard to make a compelling case that those facilties need to be wrapped inside a 35,000-seat stadium.

DU82
09-04-2008, 08:09 PM
I'll repeat my comment from the previous thread last winter. Removing the track does very little for getting people closer to the field. Much of the track area on the sidelines is used for equipment, people, etc. at the football game. (Take a look at it this Saturday.) It is wider than, say, NC State, but you won't get many rows of seats there at all. You can perhaps fill in the center "wedge" around the 50, and the end zone, but not completely around. I don't see it worth the cost of construction of those seats, including lowering the field and building a new track elsewhere.

(The open end zone, of course, is different, and the track would need to be removed to fill it in close enough to make a difference.)

Devilsfan
09-04-2008, 08:15 PM
Forget the Central Campus renewal. Forget remodeling of WW. Tear Down WW and start over.

formerdukeathlete
09-04-2008, 09:00 PM
I'll repeat my comment from the previous thread last winter. Removing the track does very little for getting people closer to the field. Much of the track area on the sidelines is used for equipment, people, etc. at the football game. (Take a look at it this Saturday.) It is wider than, say, NC State, but you won't get many rows of seats there at all. You can perhaps fill in the center "wedge" around the 50, and the end zone, but not completely around. I don't see it worth the cost of construction of those seats, including lowering the field and building a new track elsewhere.

(The open end zone, of course, is different, and the track would need to be removed to fill it in close enough to make a difference.)

the just endzone approach was what Missouri did when removing the track and fans still complain about it - lowering the field like Wisconsin, Ohio State, Navy, Texas Tech, the LA Coliseum (and the list goes on) has resulted in better reviews.

Ohio State added 12 rows of seats close to the field when removing the track and lowering the field. Scroll down, a picture is worth a thousand words - adding 9k in seats.

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

At Wade removing the track gives us much better acoustics, 8 to 10 k in seats (without closing in the endzone), and closer to a critical capacity, which I submit is about 50k.

fwiw, Kansas and Washington have also recently approved removing their tracks. Duke is the only school without immediate (approved) plans to eliminate, to use K. Whites words, this "antiquated design."

phaedrus
09-04-2008, 09:15 PM
I suspect I'm one of the bigger t&f supporters on the board. But Duke hasn't been in the big-time-track-and-field business for some time and isn't planning on getting back in the game for the forseeable future.

In fact, the game has pretty much disappeared, except for a few holdouts, like Eugene. Track and field is a troubled sport in the U.S. Maybe it's Title IX, maybe it's performance-enhancing drugs, maybe it's institutional incompetence, all of the above, none of the above. That's another discussion. But I'm pretty sure Duke is a lot more likely to put 35,000 fannies in the seats for a football game than a track meet.

So, whatever the merits of keeping or moving the track, I think we can remove future U.S-Pan-Africa track meets from the discussion. It just ain't gonna happen.

And yes, by all means, don't abandon the track team. Make sure they have first-rate facilities, now and forever. But it's hard to make a compelling case that those facilties need to be wrapped inside a 35,000-seat stadium.

I agree with you, with the qualification that we should still seek to be in the "big time" business of hosting NCAA and ACC championships, which would still require a large number of seats (Ohio State's track stadium has 10,000 seats).

I just think we're putting the cart before the horses when we talk about removing the track. Removing the track and putting in those extra seats is the easy part; finding a new place and securing funding for a new track stadium might be more elusive.

gep
09-05-2008, 12:18 AM
Ohio State added 12 rows of seats close to the field when removing the track and lowering the field. Scroll down, a picture is worth a thousand words - adding 9k in seats.

Hey... what about creating the "student section" in those first 10-12 rows... just like in Cameron. Takes the students out of the "main" sections for the paying public:)

CameronBornAndBred
09-05-2008, 12:36 AM
I'm late in this discussion, but here's my 2 cents. I don't see any value of removing anything for more seats, until we actually sell out a game. And in our future, hopefully near future, I really hope this happens. And if/when we do, it will be much more economically reasonable to add seats above, then remove the track and add them below. If you do add them below, then you have to lower the field. Unless you enjoy watching games from over a player's helmet. When you shout "down in front", I don't expect the team to duck.
Seats have been up top before, it just makes more sense to me. Keep the track we have, and don't spend a ton of money building new facilities when they aren't needed. Get us the restrooms, fill the stands regurlarly, and go bowling. Then..after you console your tarhole buddy that at least the victory bell is still blue, and in North Carolina, and that there is always next year, we can talk about what to do with the track.
GO DUKE and fill Wallace Wade!

SharkD
09-05-2008, 09:32 AM
Acymetric, you are wrong ...
{snip}


Actually, I was wrrr... wrrr... wrrr... I was incorrect. (That's what I get for relying on fuzzy memories going to games as a kid -- before last Saturday, I hadn't been to a game at Wallace Wade since the early Goldsmith era.)


So you're saying that one almost-sellout in a row doesn't justify doubling the size of the stadium?

It's the first home winning streak in a while. (POTW, BTW)


Forget the Central Campus renewal. Forget remodeling of WW. Tear Down WW and start over. We should probably tear down that dilapidated 9,000 person basketball gym, too and that crusty old chapel, while we're at it.

Capn Poptart
09-05-2008, 09:32 AM
Wallace Wade isn't a "dump." In fact, I remember it being named by Sports Illustrated in the past ten years or so as "the most beautiful place to watch bad football" :o The setting, the intimacy, the natural bowl, the history, the art deco lines are all beautiful. But WW has been ignored for decades.

As noted Duke fan Linus Van Pelt said in A Charlie Brown Christmas, "I never thought it was such a bad little stadium. It's not bad at all, really. Maybe it just needs a little love."

kinghoops
09-05-2008, 04:52 PM
although i agree with the need to improve restroom and concessions, what does it say about interest when i bought tickets on stub hub in section 5 for 8 bucks apiece???? just a thought

Carlos
09-06-2008, 09:33 AM
Wallace Wade isn't a "dump." In fact, I remember it being named by Sports Illustrated in the past ten years or so as "the most beautiful place to watch bad football" :o The setting, the intimacy, the natural bowl, the history, the art deco lines are all beautiful. But WW has been ignored for decades.

I always heard that the quote was "the most beautiful stadium in America to watch bad football" and that some resourceful person in the Athletic Department just edited the "to watch bad football" part of the line away when adding it to the press guide.

Devil in the Blue Dress
09-06-2008, 10:18 AM
I always heard that the quote was "the most beautiful stadium in America to watch bad football" and that some resourceful person in the Athletic Department just edited the "to watch bad football" part of the line away when adding it to the press guide.
With Coach Cutcliffe in charge, looks as if the Athletic Department might edit that statement again: "The most beautiful stadium in America to watch some great football!"

devilirium
09-06-2008, 12:13 PM
Kevin White answered a lot of these questions at the end of his radio show(via the mailbag). No definitive time frames were given. By my recollection, this fell under Phase 1 :

1) Track will be removed, and the field will be lowered--he anticipates that 7000 additional seats will be added. White said that there are several possibilities for the track relocation. I'm quite happy about this development.

2) Said that he would love to write a big check and start over but that this isn't feasible.

3) Club seating and suites will be installed---he didn't indicate where this would be--some have suggested the open end.

4) Restrooms and concessions will be improved

Stated that these improvements were his "pedestrian architectural view", and that he would obviously bring in the architects to flesh out these improvements.

hughgs
09-06-2008, 12:50 PM
Kevin White answered a lot of these questions at the end of his radio show(via the mailbag). No definitive time frames were given. By my recollection, this fell under Phase 1 :

1) Track will be removed, and the field will be lowered--he anticipates that 7000 additional seats will be added. White said that there are several possibilities for the track relocation. I'm quite happy about this development.

2) Said that he would love to write a big check and start over but that this isn't feasible.

3) Club seating and suites will be installed---he didn't indicate where this would be--some have suggested the open end.

4) Restrooms and concessions will be improved

Stated that these improvements were his "pedestrian architectural view", and that he would obviously bring in the architects to flesh out these improvements.

Can you give a date on this radio show? There was a whole thread devoted to this topic based on some of White's previous comments and the consensus was that White was commenting on these points as brain-storming points. I'd be interested to hear if he's truly ready to remove the track.

devilirium
09-06-2008, 03:23 PM
Hughs,

I googled his show and found that GoDuke listed it as Sept 2. It will be broadcast every Tuesday on Durham's own 620 AM (WDNC) from 7:00-8:00 PM.

The above information was presented at the very end of the show.

Indoor66
09-06-2008, 04:28 PM
Kevin White answered a lot of these questions at the end of his radio show(via the mailbag). No definitive time frames were given. By my recollection, this fell under Phase 1 :

1) Track will be removed, and the field will be lowered--he anticipates that 7000 additional seats will be added. White said that there are several possibilities for the track relocation. I'm quite happy about this development.

2) Said that he would love to write a big check and start over but that this isn't feasible.

3) Club seating and suites will be installed---he didn't indicate where this would be--some have suggested the open end.

4) Restrooms and concessions will be improved

Stated that these improvements were his "pedestrian architectural view", and that he would obviously bring in the architects to flesh out these improvements.

Check out this clip. Watch the crowd at the beginning - the stands above permanent seats, stands on the field and stands in the open end of the horseshoe.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plNACl2086U&feature=user

hughgs
09-06-2008, 07:51 PM
Hughs,

I googled his show and found that GoDuke listed it as Sept 2. It will be broadcast every Tuesday on Durham's own 620 AM (WDNC) from 7:00-8:00 PM.

The above information was presented at the very end of the show.

Thanks.

grossbus
09-07-2008, 07:07 PM
well, for what little it is worth, i have always loved the look of ww and the way it is cut into the hillside.