Tulsa's strategy is, it appears, is to downsize the current Skelly Stadium by eliminating seats....and then upgrading and improving everything else to make it first class. This has set off a surge of negative posts and comments. A big part of the problem is that TU officials (who have been tight lipped for as long as I followed TU atheltics) have not released detailed info. This has frustrated everyone and it has led to the (negative) questions being raised.

Basically, the top stands on the west side (Sections AA thru HH) are being removed. The west stands, which are not modern and need updating, still retains its majesty but that is my opinion.

I am in the group that thinks tearing down the west stands is a mistake. I would rather just put a tarp or something over the south end zone.

Past attendance figures are being used to justify TU's downsizing. I think that is a mistake...but it is just an opinion. I am no expert here. But I go back to 1991 when Tulsa had that marveouls Freedom Bowl team. That team came out of the blue and, with no marketing, had many crowds over 30,000. And that attendance went into the first couple years of 1992 before Tulsa fizzled as a FB team. I feel the new interest generated by CUSA membership, tv, bowls, etc is something Tulsa never had before. And, therefore, I don't think anyone, including me, can make a judgment about future attendance. I think that judgment can be made after this year when Tulsa will have a competitive football team and a very nice home schedule...which I believe will be the future. So, IMO, and it is just an opinion, is that TU should wait after this season is over before making a decision.

http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/colle.../tulsa.htm

That picture was an artist's rendering of what they want to happen to the stadium.

Nothing has been set in stone yet.

They had to give the fans something to look forward to, and the administration has done amazing things since they have been here at TU.

I have a hard time believing that they dont know what they are doing

Tulsa' most recent attendance in the last two years is far from what I had hoped but I think there is a reson for this.

Minnesota, two seasons ago, rammed a hot rod up our butt by scoring touchdowns on the first two plays the Gophers ran. The fan turnout in Skelly was pretty good that night but the blowout Gopher victory was a marketing disaster.

Then, last season, with Tulsa expectations and fan excitement obvously very high, BYU pounded our azz into the ground in Provo. If Tulsa played competitively against BYU and lost, I think the enthusiasm would have remained and the attendance gone up. But the azz pounding by BYU had the same effect as the Minnesota game the year before. It was another marketing disaster.

I forgot to include in my post above....there are also questions being raised about whether the small stadium size will allow TU to continue to bring in teams like Oklahoma, Okla State, Kansas, Texas Tech, etc. TU officials announced that the seating capacity would be 31,000...but, looking at and counting the seats in Skelly, many of us are bewildered where the 31,000 is? The current seating capacity is about 35,000...some TU fans, based on what TU announced, put the new seating capacity at somewhere around 26,000 not counting luxury box seats.

Tallgrass Wrote:Tulsa' most recent attendance in the last two years is far from what I had hoped but I think there is a reson for this.

Minnesota, two seasons ago, rammed a hot rod up our butt by scoring touchdowns on the first two plays the Gophers ran. The fan turnout in Skelly was pretty good that night but the blowout Gopher victory was a marketing disaster.

Then, last season, with Tulsa expectations and fan excitement obvously very high, BYU pounded our azz into the ground in Provo. If Tulsa played competitively against BYU and lost, I think the enthusiasm would have remained and the attendance gone up. But the azz pounding by BYU had the same effect as the Minnesota game the year before. It was another marketing disaster.

I forgot to include in my post above....there are also questions being raised about whether the small stadium size will allow TU to continue to bring in teams like Oklahoma, Okla State, Kansas, Texas Tech, etc. TU officials announced that the seating capacity would be 31,000...but, looking at and counting the seats in Skelly, many of us are bewildered where the 31,000 is? The current seating capacity is about 35,000...some TU fans, based on what TU announced, put the new seating capacity at somewhere around 26,000 not counting luxury box seats.

I guess all your time spent on the Tulsa Rivals board was spent picking your azz vs reading posts huh?

Otherwise you wouldn't have to go ask the same questions on a conference board that were answered on a Tulsa board.

BTW...
Tallgrass forgot to put a disclaimer in his signature that he really isn't a Tulsa fan. He just likes to b1tch about anything they do. From coaches, to mascots, to nicknames, to school colors, to stadium redesign.

TG, I'm sure Tulsa would love for you to kick in an additional 15 million to rebuild the upper deck on the west to maintain seating capacity per your opinion. Heck, I bet with an additional 10 million promised over the next 20 years they may even change the nickname to the Tulsa Fighting Grass Prairies and change the school colors to green and brown!

Tallgrass Wrote:And that attendance went into the first couple years of 1992 before Tulsa fizzled as a FB team.

I realize that 1992 felt like a long time -- what with Ross Perot buying all the prime time TV out, taking away our summer re-runs of "Blossom" and "Jake and the Fat Man" -- but I'm pretty sure 1992 only lasted one year. (Though it was a leap year)

[quote=Tallgrass]
........ TU officials announced that the seating capacity would be 31,000.../quote]

When was this announcement made. You said in your original post TU had not released any information.....

nobody has made any announcements yet. TU wanted to give the public(fans/recruits) something to look forward too. they had an artist/architect draw up this proposal, TU liked what they saw. everyone else is making their own opininons about it before they can even draw the blueprints.

There were two Tulsa World articles and I cannot find the one with the seating capacity. But we know the funds available are approximately $18 million, the public announced seating capacity as per Tulsa Worl 31,000, the work is supposed to start after football season and be ready to go for 2008 season, and we have the one rendering....that's about all we know at this point. By the artist's rendering, you can see how more than half of the west stands are gone. I hope TU can get some info out soon but TU has historically played it very close to the vest, announcing things when it is a done deal. As one Tulsa fan said, if the attendance goes up and TU continually sells out the stadium, it would be very easy to fill in the corners (sort of like UCF's new stadium) and/or expand east stands to accomodate.

The opposite way to go would be like TCU, where they are doing some renovations now...and will do some work later when they can get more money together. TCU is not selling out their stadium (unless it is a team like Texas Tech) but the Frogs are not down sizing.

http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/stor...07abj.html

Quote:if the attendance goes up and TU continually sells out the stadium, it would be very easy to fill in the corners

I agree with that 100%

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. The "controversy" and "surge" of negative posts are Tallgrass and 2 other posters on the Tulsa Rivals board pissing and moaning back and forth amongst themselves. TG might be painting the "controversy" as a tornado, but it's about as windy as a fly's fart in reality.

Okla State went thru the seating capacity with the renovation and expansion of Gallagher-Iba basketball arena. OSU opted for a smaller size, even though many OSU fans wanted something like a 20,000 seat arena similar to Kansas or North Carolina.

On the other hand, OSU went for a larger, expanded football stadium to be done in stages, because OSU did not have the money. The south stands were finished and the work started on the north stands....when Pickens made his colussus donation and it is getting it done all once. But, nevertheless, OSU's original plan was to do it in stages as the money became available.

TCU had adopted the same strategy as OSU, do some improvements now; do the other improvements later but don't tear anything down. TCU, like OSU, are going for expanded stadiums even though they are not selling out their current stadiums.

Then there is Virginia Tech. School officials decided to expand their stadium substantially, I think about a 50% increase (not real sure here) and Va Tech fans thought the school administration crazy. Thus, the Va Tech situation is 100% opposite of Tulsa's strategy.

Va Tech has been successful in filling their stadium; we shall see about OSU and TCU. But I bring these three schools up to illustrate that there are different opinions and, therefore, different strategies. In reality, OSU, TCU, and Va Tech made their decisions based on a guess of the future and, as I recall, the OSU Atheltic Director stated you must create that larger vision and make it reality.

A stadium does not have to be large in order to be classy or majestic. The Navy Stadium is a good example. I like it because it has all these memorials and plagues and statues scatted inside the stadium and on the stadium walls.

I would look very hard at preserving the majestic (yes, they are outdated and need updating) west stands. To reduce seating capacity, I would put in more up and down aisles. It is like boarding an airplance and everyone is jammed in the aisles. I would double or triple the number of ailes and people could sit down and/or leave their seat in an efficient very much less troublesome way.

I am assuming Tulsa will be putting in theater seates. Well, then, I would put in very wide and very comfortable seats with trays/cup holders. I have seen theater type seats in stadiums. Some of these theater seats are narrow and uncomfortabel. Some are very nice.

Large seats with many aisles would help bring down the number of seats. I recognize the vailidity that too many seats in Skelly help depress ticket prices and depress season ticket sales.

I would ask Michael Case, a Tulsa builder and very large TU donor, to look at the top rows of the west side and ask him what would you, as a very successful home builder/developer do with those seats. Remove them and knock down the west stands? Or, what can we do them to give the TU stadium a uniqueness and maybe a different twist...and further TU's cause?

For example, instead of putting the food stands under the stadium, could we put them on the top of the west stands, where you could get something to eat, still watch the football game? Here, the model would be the Minneapolis Dome which, I think, even features a hotel.

If you could find an alternative use for the top rows rather than demolishing them, then those top rows could be brought back as seats if and when Tulsa's attendance demanded that.

Now we've devolved into TG talking to himself...

You and the 2 other posters over on Rivals just need to dislodge the stick up your arses over the fact we're reducing capacity. Have a little more self-esteem than to think we're losing some kind of mythical pissing contest. Not only is it the right call, it's happening. Deal with it. End of story. Get over it. Finito. Over. Buh-bye. Adios.

Cane Gang Wrote:Now we've devolved into TG talking to himself...

You and the 2 other posters over on Rivals just need to dislodge the stick up your arses over the fact we're reducing capacity. Have a little more self-esteem than to think we're losing some kind of mythical pissing contest. Not only is it the right call, it's happening. Deal with it. End of story. Get over it. Finito. Over. Buh-bye. Adios.

As one of the other posters who is concerned about reducing the capacity of the stadium I wonder how much you know about TU's problems in the past with attracting teams to Skelly because of small capacity ? Were you a TU fan when Skelly seated 14,500...or was expanded to 20,000 but could still not even keep Arkansas who had been an annual fixture in Skelly from 1933 thru 1947. As other schools enlarged the capacities of their stadiums, TU had to move the game to Ark to even keep them on the schedule. We had to schedule home games with Hardin Simmons, Idaho, Montana, Tampa, etc. Increasing the capacity to 40,000 allowed us to host Fla. St, Va Tech, Miami, Tex A&M, Minn, Mo. etc. even though we did not attract capacity crowds. We have now removed 5000 seats to build the Case Center which is a great addition to the athletic program. Now, according to published drawings, we are going to remove another 9000 seats which will lower capacity to 26,000. We are told that capacity will be 31,000......but no one will say how those extra 5000 seats will magically appear. Some have said it will be luxury boxes but I don't believe you can get 5000 seats in luxury boxes from a combination of the Case Center and a new press box. I have not proposed ADDING seats to Skelly Stadium, just not tearing out important seats that we already have in place and that will be expensive to replace. I don't want to see our program take a step backward.

"KTulsafan"

It is to my knowledge that everyone is making the assumption that we are drastically decreasing seats due to the article in the Tulsa World.

They got their information the same way everyone else did, from looking at that drawing. Until someone from the Administration at TU tells me what the official capacity will be, I'm going to put that TW article in the same trash pile I put all the others they write about TU.

My guess is that Press Release was to thank the Chapman for the very large and most generous donation as well as to give Tulsa fans some information as soon as possible....such as right now. That Press Release probably should not have included that artiist's rendering....that is where all the questions are being raised about capacity.

I would like to make three clarifications here:

First, I don't care too much for the nickname Hurricane and have/will continue to suggest that TU look for a better alternative. FYI, the University of Tulsa has held two internal reviews about the nickname. In his letter to me, former Coach David Rader wrote on this subject that, while TU has had internal reviews that "Old traditions die hard." So this issue of an inppropriate nickname is not just me and it appears to be a long running issue.

Second, I have never criticized a Tulsa Coach or player. For example, TU fans probably raked former Basketball Coach John Phillips thousands of times on rivals board. I never did. It was obvious it wasn't working but I saw no need to pile on Coach Phillips.

I never criticized former star freshman basketball player James McLean. But, if you look on the rivals board, many, many TU fans chastised this kid. I didn't. McLean is a 19 year old kid. What's the point?

Nor did I criticize Todd Gramham. CaneGang ripped this guy into bits over and over. I regret the circumstances for this hiring and obviously Graham said things to Rice fans and then reversed himself. The reason I bring this up is that CaneGang was severedly ostracized by his fellow TU colleagues. CaneGang made an impassioned plea for the tolerance of other opinions over on the Tulsa board....in fact, I think I still have that thread which I printed out. CaneGang wants to express his opinion and did on Graham....but I note that CaneGang remains like he always has been....very, very intolerant of others expressing their opinion.

For the record, I never criticized CaneGang on his criticisms of coach Graham. This is a board in which you can express your opinion. I have and will always continue to honor that.

So, in summary, I don't care for the Hurricane Nickname and, for the time being, I don't approve of tearing down the west stands. If those two positions makes me a monster and a person full of hate and a non supporter of Tulsa athletics in the eyes of some Tulsa "fans" well, I think you are the one with a problem.

I am getting ready to leave town. When I get back, I am going to go thru all my papers to see if I can find CaneGang's post about his plea for tolerance and understanding when someone posts a different opinion.

KTulsafan Wrote:

Cane Gang Wrote:Now we've devolved into TG talking to himself...

You and the 2 other posters over on Rivals just need to dislodge the stick up your arses over the fact we're reducing capacity. Have a little more self-esteem than to think we're losing some kind of mythical pissing contest. Not only is it the right call, it's happening. Deal with it. End of story. Get over it. Finito. Over. Buh-bye. Adios.

As one of the other posters who is concerned about reducing the capacity of the stadium I wonder how much you know about TU's problems in the past with attracting teams to Skelly because of small capacity ? Were you a TU fan when Skelly seated 14,500...or was expanded to 20,000 but could still not even keep Arkansas who had been an annual fixture in Skelly from 1933 thru 1947. As other schools enlarged the capacities of their stadiums, TU had to move the game to Ark to even keep them on the schedule. We had to schedule home games with Hardin Simmons, Idaho, Montana, Tampa, etc. Increasing the capacity to 40,000 allowed us to host Fla. St, Va Tech, Miami, Tex A&M, Minn, Mo. etc. even though we did not attract capacity crowds. We have now removed 5000 seats to build the Case Center which is a great addition to the athletic program. Now, according to published drawings, we are going to remove another 9000 seats which will lower capacity to 26,000. We are told that capacity will be 31,000......but no one will say how those extra 5000 seats will magically appear. Some have said it will be luxury boxes but I don't believe you can get 5000 seats in luxury boxes from a combination of the Case Center and a new press box. I have not proposed ADDING seats to Skelly Stadium, just not tearing out important seats that we already have in place and that will be expensive to replace. I don't want to see our program take a step backward.

You have described my concerns 1,000%. Tulsa U, a small private university with a small enrollment, does not and will not have the financial capability to replace those 10,000 seats in the west stands, if those seats are taken out now. Once those west stands are torn down, it is forever. As I read the posts on this board from UCF and Southern Miss fans about their stadium and as I read the infor from TCU about remodeling part of their stadium (postponing other improvements until TCU has the money but don't tear out any current seats), I become even more uncomfortable with the idea of tearing down the west stands.

Tallgrass Wrote:I would like to make three clarifications here:

First, I don't care too much for the nickname Hurricane and have/will continue to suggest that TU look for a better alternative. FYI, the University of Tulsa has held two internal reviews about the nickname. In his letter to me, former Coach David Rader wrote on this subject that, while TU has had internal reviews that "Old traditions die hard." So this issue of an inppropriate nickname is not just me and it appears to be a long running issue.

Second, I have never criticized a Tulsa Coach or player. For example, TU fans probably raked former Basketball Coach John Phillips thousands of times on rivals board. I never did. It was obvious it wasn't working but I saw no need to pile on Coach Phillips.

I never criticized former star freshman basketball player James McLean. But, if you look on the rivals board, many, many TU fans chastised this kid. I didn't. McLean is a 19 year old kid. What's the point?

Nor did I criticize Todd Gramham. CaneGang ripped this guy into bits over and over. I regret the circumstances for this hiring and obviously Graham said things to Rice fans and then reversed himself. The reason I bring this up is that CaneGang was severedly ostracized by his fellow TU colleagues. CaneGang made an impassioned plea for the tolerance of other opinions over on the Tulsa board....in fact, I think I still have that thread which I printed out. CaneGang wants to express his opinion and did on Graham....but I note that CaneGang remains like he always has been....very, very intolerant of others expressing their opinion.

For the record, I never criticized CaneGang on his criticisms of coach Graham. This is a board in which you can express your opinion. I have and will always continue to honor that.

So, in summary, I don't care for the Hurricane Nickname and, for the time being, I don't approve of tearing down the west stands. If those two positions makes me a monster and a person full of hate and a non supporter of Tulsa athletics in the eyes of some Tulsa "fans" well, I think you are the one with a problem.

I am getting ready to leave town. When I get back, I am going to go thru all my papers to see if I can find CaneGang's post about his plea for tolerance and understanding when someone posts a different opinion.

Here's the thing TG -- I don't beat dead horses. I said my piece about the Graham situation and moved on. I have kept my word about doing just that. And I don't feel the least bit "ostracized" from the other Tulsa fans.

You and a few others, however, have continued to beat the horse LONG after it died on the stadium thing. You and your group continue to throw around incorrect numbers like 26,000 that have no basis in fact. The final plans haven't been released -- only one rendering showing the BACK of the new press box. You don't know what the front is going to look like. You don't know if there will be rows of club seats built on the front side. You don't know how many suites, how many seats -- anything. You have no basis from which to even form the opinions you so vociferiously share on this matter. We've been told the final capacity will be 31,000. Are you saying the administration is lying about that?

Not to mention that you completely misrepresented the "controversy" with your post by blowing it completely out of proportion. Anyone on here is welcome to check the Tulsa Rivals board to see that the VAST majority of posters are on board with the plan, and that it's a tiny minority who is continuing to gripe. Pardon me for setting the record straight in front of our conference brethren.

Of course, the reason you came on this board to post this mess is because you yourself were ostracized from the Tulsa Rivals board this week for posting the same old nonsense for the umpteenth time. When Catbird calls you out, you've definitely stepped in it. Nobody over there wants to hear your mess, so you came over here to stir up trouble.

Those are the facts.

Cane Gang Wrote:

Tallgrass Wrote:I would like to make three clarifications here:

First, I don't care too much for the nickname Hurricane and have/will continue to suggest that TU look for a better alternative. FYI, the University of Tulsa has held two internal reviews about the nickname. In his letter to me, former Coach David Rader wrote on this subject that, while TU has had internal reviews that "Old traditions die hard." So this issue of an inppropriate nickname is not just me and it appears to be a long running issue.

Second, I have never criticized a Tulsa Coach or player. For example, TU fans probably raked former Basketball Coach John Phillips thousands of times on rivals board. I never did. It was obvious it wasn't working but I saw no need to pile on Coach Phillips.

I never criticized former star freshman basketball player James McLean. But, if you look on the rivals board, many, many TU fans chastised this kid. I didn't. McLean is a 19 year old kid. What's the point?

Nor did I criticize Todd Gramham. CaneGang ripped this guy into bits over and over. I regret the circumstances for this hiring and obviously Graham said things to Rice fans and then reversed himself. The reason I bring this up is that CaneGang was severedly ostracized by his fellow TU colleagues. CaneGang made an impassioned plea for the tolerance of other opinions over on the Tulsa board....in fact, I think I still have that thread which I printed out. CaneGang wants to express his opinion and did on Graham....but I note that CaneGang remains like he always has been....very, very intolerant of others expressing their opinion.

For the record, I never criticized CaneGang on his criticisms of coach Graham. This is a board in which you can express your opinion. I have and will always continue to honor that.

So, in summary, I don't care for the Hurricane Nickname and, for the time being, I don't approve of tearing down the west stands. If those two positions makes me a monster and a person full of hate and a non supporter of Tulsa athletics in the eyes of some Tulsa "fans" well, I think you are the one with a problem.

I am getting ready to leave town. When I get back, I am going to go thru all my papers to see if I can find CaneGang's post about his plea for tolerance and understanding when someone posts a different opinion.

Here's the thing TG -- I don't beat dead horses. I said my piece about the Graham situation and moved on. I have kept my word about doing just that. And I don't feel the least bit "ostracized" from the other Tulsa fans.

You and a few others, however, have continued to beat the horse LONG after it died on the stadium thing. You and your group continue to throw around incorrect numbers like 26,000 that have no basis in fact. The final plans haven't been released -- only one rendering showing the BACK of the new press box. You don't know what the front is going to look like. You don't know if there will be rows of club seats built on the front side. You don't know how many suites, how many seats -- anything. You have no basis from which to even form the opinions you so vociferiously share on this matter. We've been told the final capacity will be 31,000. Are you saying the administration is lying about that?

Not to mention that you completely misrepresented the "controversy" with your post by blowing it completely out of proportion. Anyone on here is welcome to check the Tulsa Rivals board to see that the VAST majority of posters are on board with the plan, and that it's a tiny minority who is continuing to gripe. Pardon me for setting the record straight in front of our conference brethren.

Of course, the reason you came on this board to post this mess is because you yourself were ostracized from the Tulsa Rivals board this week for posting the same old nonsense for the umpteenth time. When Catbird calls you out, you've definitely stepped in it. Nobody over there wants to hear your mess, so you came over here to stir up trouble.

Those are the facts.

When threads of Tulsa posters are locked by the board moderator, that is a not a controversery?