New article on Dudy-Noble Field- TAKE THIS TO THE MEETINGS WITH YOU!

[Todd4State]

http://maroonandwhitenation.com/2013/10/13/restore-carnigie-hall-baseball-dudy-noble-field/


And a very special thanks to our own engie for the images. And yes, they will look familiar.

[Will James]

The meetings are probably going to be focused on the stadium but can you people that attend really harp on the need to implement the honor system for the grandstand

[War Machine Dawg]

Shhhhh.........We can't replace the grandstand!!! It awsum!!!!

/MSU "Baseball fan" that has never watched a pitch of baseball elsewhere or in another stadium.

[smootness]

You're going to have to fix those images before you present them to anybody who knows what they're doing. Just a quick glance will tell you that:

a) Those outfiled 'sightlines' are far closer to the foul pole for the DNF picture than the rest, so obviously the point at which they meet will be much further back. It is trying to mislead to make a point, and it hurts the overall point.

b) The 'sightlines' are not at 90 degree angles to the lines at the edge of the bleachers. It looks like the DNF picture has been edited since I saw the initial one, but its lines are still closer to 90 degrees than the rest (check out Alex Box, for example).

If these issues are corrected, and the pictures are analyzed consistently across the board, then it can be an honest discussion. But anyone who knows what they're doing will laugh those pictures away instantly.

[messageboardsuperhero]

That was awesome. Thanks for writing it.

That article echo's pretty much everything that we have been saying about the changes that need to be made for Dudy-Noble.

[Maroonthirteen]

What smoothness said. I have been to plenty of baseball stadiums in which the infield seats/structure is parallel with the base paths. However as you move to the outfield foul line, the structure angles in and the rows and seats are turned and angled to face towards the infield. What they did at USC, can be done at DNF.

[engie]

You're going to have to fix those images before you present them to anybody who knows what they're doing. Just a quick glance will tell you that:

a) Those outfiled 'sightlines' are far closer to the foul pole for the DNF picture than the rest, so obviously the point at which they meet will be much further back. It is trying to mislead to make a point, and it hurts the overall point.

b) The 'sightlines' are not at 90 degree angles to the lines at the edge of the bleachers. It looks like the DNF picture has been edited since I saw the initial one, but its lines are still closer to 90 degrees than the rest (check out Alex Box, for example).

If these issues are corrected, and the pictures are analyzed consistently across the board, then it can be an honest discussion. But anyone who knows what they're doing will laugh those pictures away instantly.

Once again, feel free to fix them. Open invitation. You've wrote countless paragraphs complaining about this -- yet you haven't even ATTEMPTED to lift a finger in any productive manner yet on the topic. All that was done in my free screenshot software IN A THREAD ON HERE. I'm not looking at individual pictures to compare and contrast and be sure they are identical when I do it. The goal was to make a point that EVERYONE else has basically understood -- other than you.

Surely, you wouldn't join this conversation, once again, simply to be counterproductive and argumentative -- with no positive input to the cause whatsoever?

[engie]

What smoothness said. I have been to plenty of baseball stadiums in which the infield seats/structure is parrell with the base paths. However as you move to the outfield foul line, the structure angles in and the rows and seats are turned and angled to fade towards the infield. What they did at USC, can be done at DNF.

Sigh

This is nowhere close to parallel. It's already angled directly at the foul poles in the main grandstand. That's the problem. More than any other park you will find anywhere. Steeper grandstands too.

http://my.jetscreenshot.com/12222/m_20131010-50ov-149kb.jpg (http://my.jetscreenshot.com/12222/20131010-50ov-149kb)

[ScoobaDawg]

What smoothness said. I have been to plenty of baseball stadiums in which the infield seats/structure is parrell with the base paths. However as you move to the outfield foul line, the structure angles in and the rows and seats are turned and angled to fade towards the infield. What they did at USC, can be done at DNF.

NO it cannot. The only way you can angle the seats in is by building into foul territory. We have less than 15 feet of foul territory down the lines and there is NO ROOM to angle the grandstand down the lines.
You can't do it.
If Scott cares at all about a quality stadium, the Grandstand HAS TO BE REBUILT.

[smootness]

I promise you, I'm not just trying to be argumentative. I would be fine with us building a new grandstand, I'm sure it would be sweet. I'd also be ok if we found a way to upgrade the current facility (if possible) and make it a first-class stadium.

I want a fantastic baseball facility, however we get there.

I just want an honest discussion about it. I feel like these pictures have been used to sway people's opinions on the subject, and a quick glance at them initially showed some issues. If those issues are corrected, we can get a better sense of exactly what we're working with.

I'll be honest, I don't have the software to do that; I'm sure it's not difficult to find, but even a quick google image search made it difficult to find new pictures of the stadiums without the lines already drawn on them. I can spend some time doing it if you really want me to, but it should be easy enough for you to fix on your own.

The main correction would be to figure out a place along the foul line that is fairly consistent across each field at which to draw the outfield sightlines. Surely you can see that the DNF lines almost begin at the foul pole, where on the others they are far closer to the infield. This has a large effect on how someone views the sightlines and forms an opinion, especially if they aren't thinking about it too much. It looks like people sitting in the same place are looking at the CF wall at DNF, where they're almost looking at the infield at the others, yet that isn't the case at all.

The easiest way to determine how different the sightlines are is to measure the angle of the bleachers vs. the foul line. I don't know an easy way to do this, but just by looking, it doesn't seem to be much different at DNF than the others, outside of SC.

[messageboardsuperhero]

What smoothness said. I have been to plenty of baseball stadiums in which the infield seats/structure is parrell with the base paths. However as you move to the outfield foul line, the structure angles in and the rows and seats are turned and angled to fade towards the infield. What they did at USC, can be done at DNF.

No, what USCe did absolutely cannot be done at DNF. Our stands down the line can't be angled in because there is no foul territory to work with. If we did try to angle them in, al a USCe or LSU, the stands would end up in fair territory because of how close the base of our current grandstand is to the playing field.

If we extend the grandstand down the line, here is exactly what will happen: 1) People who have to sit in those seats will get really sore necks and backs, 2) They will then complain for years about it while I (and many others here) say "I told you so," 3) Stricklin (or whoever our AD is at the time) will end up having to spend millions of more dollars by tearing up the grandstand and starting from scratch. Now we can skip this step by starting over right now, or we can waste years of time, resources, and millions of dollars worth of finances if we extended the current grandstand.

[Maroonthirteen]

Don't get me wrong, I would be all for a completely new stadium. I am just saying that with the angle that DNF is built, you could slightly turn in the next few sections and dog ear a section at the foul pole. Every baseball stadium in America is about that close to the foul line and they make it work. Also, all baseball stadiums have outfield sight lines in which you have to turn your head to see home plate. This reminds me of "don't sit on the east side. You will be in the sun." You would think we are the only football stadium on earth to have a section of seats facing the sun. We would not be the only baseball stadium without a direct sight line to the pitchers mound

[Todd4State]

You're going to have to fix those images before you present them to anybody who knows what they're doing. Just a quick glance will tell you that:

a) Those outfiled 'sightlines' are far closer to the foul pole for the DNF picture than the rest, so obviously the point at which they meet will be much further back. It is trying to mislead to make a point, and it hurts the overall point.

b) The 'sightlines' are not at 90 degree angles to the lines at the edge of the bleachers. It looks like the DNF picture has been edited since I saw the initial one, but its lines are still closer to 90 degrees than the rest (check out Alex Box, for example).

If these issues are corrected, and the pictures are analyzed consistently across the board, then it can be an honest discussion. But anyone who knows what they're doing will laugh those pictures away instantly.

It sounds to me like you think there is some sort of agenda against tearing down the grandstand and you feel as if there is some sort of a need to take a stand against it. The only agenda here is to make MSU the best that there is.

Engie illustrations show the general idea of what we are talking about. I don't think it needs to be precisely to the exact point since I'm not presenting this to architects who get what I'm talking about.

I also understand that MSU is always going to have a few vocal fans who attempt to hold us back so that they can say that they had some say in whatever plan they are fouling up.

[MsStateBaseball]

Extend grandstand all the way to foul poles---install swivel seats so they can see infield!!

[Todd4State]

Don't get me wrong, I would be all for a completely new stadium. I am just saying that with the angle that DNF is built, you could slightly turn in the next few sections and dog ear a section at the foul pole. Every baseball stadium in America is about that close to the foul line and they make it work. Also, all baseball stadiums have outfield sight lines in which you have to turn your head to see home plate. This reminds me of "don't sit on the east side. You will be in the sun." You would think we are the only football stadium on earth to have a section of seats facing the sun. We would not be the only baseball stadium without a direct sight line to the pitchers mound

The only feasible way I could see doing that would be to build three separate sections totally apart from each other. That would not look good.

[Todd4State]

Aside from the illustrations- people can nitpick at the pictures all day- that still doesn't address the fact that there is no way to build an open concourse in the current grandstand.

[smootness]

I don't think there is an agenda; I just think engie purposefully drew the lines in a way that would make his point indisputable when it isn't.

I quickly edited the pictures in paint (just threw some new lines on there and angled them all somewhat similarly), but I'm not sure how to paste pictures in a post that are just saved on my computer...any help with that?

Anyway, they show that they are all roughly similar (I didn't include SC, there's no reason, it's obviously the best); because of the crudeness of the illustrations, you're obviously not going to be able to examine it exactly, but there certainly isn't a huge difference in sightlines.

Again, I'm all for a new baseball stadium if we can do it. And you certainly can make the sightlines better than they currently are; but they're not really worse (at least not in any meaningful way) than most of the other fields shown. I think that's a weak argument. I think there are better arguments as to why building a new grandstand is a good idea. And if anyone's going to be actually arguing for that with the AD, I don't think it would be a very effective argument to focus on sightlines.

[messageboardsuperhero]

Extend grandstand all the way to foul poles---install swivel seats so they can see infield!!

The problem with this is you will end up staring at the back of the head of the person you're sitting next to. This isn't the case normally because the people who are in your line of sight are in front of you rather than next to you, and there is a difference in elevation there that doesn't exist between you and the person you're sitting next to.

Basically, if you were sitting next to a tall person, it would be like trying to see the chalkboard while sitting behind the tall kid in grade school.

[messageboardsuperhero]

Look, I don't think engie was making those to show a group of architects at a business presentation. He was just trying to make a point on a message board. If you don't think his lines are drawn perfectly right, just use your imagination. I thought they displayed the point we're making with the sightlines pretty well.

[CadaverDawg]

Good article. I enjoyed it, Todd.

[engie]

Don't get me wrong, I would be all for a completely new stadium. I am just saying that with the angle that DNF is built, you could slightly turn in the next few sections and dog ear a section at the foul pole.
You can't do that.

Sure, you can turn it in at the end of the existing grandstand location. Imagine it in terms of a semicircle on all levels. Now think about it -- you can only go 5-10 seats wide at the bottom before you are in fair territory(and that's if you do it just past the existing grandstand before it gets really narrow. Keeping in mind that the existing grandstand is only 20+- rows high. So, it's going straight up from the point to the height of the existing grandstand. In order for this to extend to the foul pole, it would need to go 50-60 rows "high" -- thus why it won't be aesthetically pleasing even if you can make it "work". You could be in a seat as close to the field of play as possible in deep right -- and be 60+ feet above the field of play. That's why it can't be done aesthetically pleasing in a way where we maintain our place among the elites.


Every baseball stadium in America is about that close to the foul line and they make it work.
No they aren't. Our grandstand is 41 foot from the foul line at the back of the infield. Alex Box is 56(at a better angle). Carolina Stadium is at 49 feet -- also with a much better angle.


Also, all baseball stadiums have outfield sight lines in which you have to turn your head to see home plate. This reminds me of "don't sit on the east side.
No, they really don't -- and have NOTHING in common with your other analogy. How many games in modern stadiums have you attended around the country? My guess is not many -- because if you had, you'd realize that the sightlines down the foul lines at Dudy Noble are the worst you will ever find.


We would not be the only baseball stadium without a direct sight line to the pitchers mound
Poor ole MSU.

You are right -- we wouldn't be the only one.

You know what else we wouldn't be? The BEST in something we EXPECT to be the best in...

[messageboardsuperhero]

Another thing that engie has said that limits our options is the steepness of the current grandstand, combined with the overhanging structure above the skyboxes. We couldn't build below, because then people down the line would be blocked by the current grandstand. We also couldn't build even with or above the current grandstand, because then people's view would be blocked by the overhang.

At the end of the day, I can't see any way that we could renovate or expand and not have a stadium that was still outdated and second rate. I truly just want Mississippi State baseball to be the best that it can be, and this is how I feel that we could maximize our facilities, revenue, and game-day experience for everyone in the stadium.

[Todd4State]

I don't think there is an agenda; I just think engie purposefully drew the lines in a way that would make his point indisputable when it isn't.

I quickly edited the pictures in paint (just threw some new lines on there and angled them all somewhat similarly), but I'm not sure how to paste pictures in a post that are just saved on my computer...any help with that?

Anyway, they show that they are all roughly similar (I didn't include SC, there's no reason, it's obviously the best); because of the crudeness of the illustrations, you're obviously not going to be able to examine it exactly, but there certainly isn't a huge difference in sightlines.

Again, I'm all for a new baseball stadium if we can do it. And you certainly can make the sightlines better than they currently are; but they're not really worse (at least not in any meaningful way) than most of the other fields shown. I think that's a weak argument. I think there are better arguments as to why building a new grandstand is a good idea. And if anyone's going to be actually arguing for that with the AD, I don't think it would be a very effective argument to focus on sightlines.

Exactly- you think engie has an agenda. He says in his illustration that the sightlines of the grandstand as they are are not bad- but it's the bleachers that are the issue. How is that misleading people? Because it's not down to the inch to your impeccible satisfaction?

I wrote an article that is over 2600 words long- and you are choosing to focus on one paragraph of the entire article. Sightlines are not the only issue with the grandstand- aside from the sightlines again- there is no way that we can put an open concourse. And you can't dispute that- although I'm sure you might try now.

So, don't sit there and pretend like I wrote an article focusing only on sightlines as the only reason why we should tear down the grandstand when I addressed multiple issues so you can try to cover your ass for wanting to get into an internet fight with engie for whatever God unknown reason.

[engie]

I don't think there is an agenda; I just think engie purposefully drew the lines in a way that would make his point indisputable when it isn't.
So, you don't think there is an agenda. Yet you just accused me of having one. What gives?

You are correct about one thing -- I do have an agenda. it's making sure that my future kids grow up knowing that Dudy Noble and Mississippi State are THE BEST at something -- that they've already been the BEST at for most of my and my father's lifetimes, which is a RARE point of pride for someone born and raised in Mississippi.

So, in "fighting" me on this -- when MY ONLY "agenda" is to ensure that reality continues -- what you are really saying is that NOT ONLY are you OK with mediocrity in this process -- it's what you actually want. Since you are arguing against doing something that would make us the best AGAIN -- why?


I quickly edited the pictures in paint (just threw some new lines on there and angled them all somewhat similarly), but I'm not sure how to paste pictures in a post that are just saved on my computer...any help with that?
You've got to host them online.


Anyway, they show that they are all roughly similar (I didn't include SC, there's no reason, it's obviously the best); because of the crudeness of the illustrations, you're obviously not going to be able to examine it exactly, but there certainly isn't a huge difference in sightlines.
Again. YES, there is. A HUGE difference. You make it more and more obvious in every post that you have NEVER actually watched a game from the cheap seats at Baum, Swayze, or Alex Box -- and I'm not even sure you've watched them from the bleachers at Dudy Noble to be honest with you.


Again, I'm all for a new baseball stadium if we can do it. And you certainly can make the sightlines better than they currently are; but they're not really worse (at least not in any meaningful way) than most of the other fields shown. I think that's a weak argument. I think there are better arguments as to why building a new grandstand is a good idea. And if anyone's going to be actually arguing for that with the AD, I don't think it would be a very effective argument to focus on sightlines.
You've made your point. Argued, even. It's a bad one -- and no one that's EVER watched games from any of these other places are going to agree with you. No one. Sightlines ARE the best reason for everything. The SECNetwork will be started by next baseball season(2015). We'll be able to watch many of our baseball games on TV. Why would anyone want to come sit in a seat that literally hurts them to watch live? The correct answer is that they wouldn't -- and expanding at all with the current grandstand beyond MAYBE 1k additional seats in a short turn in(keeping in mind that you now can't halfway see the outfield corners from these seats given the steepness of the grandstand) is a total wasteful proposition. No one will sit there but 2-3 weekends a year. SBW, Regionals, Super Regionals. That's it. EXACTLY like the current bleachers.

[smootness]

Dude, just take a quick look at the DNF picture and where those 'sightlines' in the outfield begin, then compare it to the others. He clearly purposefully drew the DNF lines as close as possible to the foul pole so that it would appear that the sightlines are far worse than the others. It isn't an 'agenda', it's just trying to make a point, but it's exaggerating the issue to do it.

I know the article wasn't all about sightlines. I said that there are better reasons as to why building a new grandstand is a good option, and you outlined some of them. It's a good article overall.

I'm not looking to pick a fight with anyone. I don't know why anyone on this board is, and you'll probably find that over time, I will agree and also disagree with just about everyone on different issues.

The reason I initially said anything about the pictures was because engie posted them to show that the sightlines are awful at DNF and worse than other stadiums, and then threw those up as an illustration trying to provide evidence of that...and everyone just saw them and said, 'Oh yeah, great pictures, you're right'; and I thought the pictures were misleading, so I said something.

It would be akin to discussing the height of two basketball players, without knowing already how tall they were. If I said Player A is taller than Player B and thus was clearly the better option to play down low, then showed a picture where they weren't standing side by side, one was slightly crouched, etc. as proof, it would be misleading and wouldn't really prove anything. It wouldn't make me wrong that Player A was taller or wrong that he is the better option to play down low, but it certainly wouldn't prove I was right, either. You would need a much better picture or an actual measurement. That's all I'm saying. I just want to make sure we're actually comparing apples to apples when specifically talking about the sightlines so that we can figure out if, indeed, the point is correct.

I brought it up in this thread because I don't think including them in the article helps your point when specifically talking about the sightlines. That's it. I realize this has gone on for too long and is now becoming tedious, and it appears I'm beating a dead horse over a small issue, but I never meant for it to become a big debate. I just thought the pictures were misleading and said so, and engie took offense to that. It was nothing personal, I just want a more accurate and honest discussion.

[War Machine Dawg]

I don't think there is an agenda; I just think engie purposefully drew the lines in a way that would make his point indisputable when it isn't.

I quickly edited the pictures in paint (just threw some new lines on there and angled them all somewhat similarly), but I'm not sure how to paste pictures in a post that are just saved on my computer...any help with that?

Anyway, they show that they are all roughly similar (I didn't include SC, there's no reason, it's obviously the best); because of the crudeness of the illustrations, you're obviously not going to be able to examine it exactly, but there certainly isn't a huge difference in sightlines.

Again, I'm all for a new baseball stadium if we can do it. And you certainly can make the sightlines better than they currently are; but they're not really worse (at least not in any meaningful way) than most of the other fields shown. I think that's a weak argument. I think there are better arguments as to why building a new grandstand is a good idea. And if anyone's going to be actually arguing for that with the AD, I don't think it would be a very effective argument to focus on sightlines.

That's called accusing someone of having an agenda. But you're smart and I'm sure your passive-aggressive approach is fully aware of that. Now, do you have a productive point to bring to this discussion or will you once aGAIN continue arguing just to argue?

[smootness]

You are correct about one thing -- I do have an agenda. it's making sure that my future kids grow up knowing that Dudy Noble and Mississippi State are THE BEST at something -- that they've already been the BEST at for most of my and my father's lifetimes, which is a RARE point of pride for someone born and raised in Mississippi.

So, in "fighting" me on this -- when MY ONLY "agenda" is to ensure that reality continues -- what you are really saying is that NOT ONLY are you OK with mediocrity in this process -- it's what you actually want. Since you are arguing against doing something that would make us the best AGAIN -- why?

I'm not arguing against building a new grandstand. I fully agree with what you're saying about wanting State to be the best in all things baseball. The specific issue was with the pictures themselves, and it's developed into much more of an argument than I ever intended for it to, so it now appears this is something I'm specifically trying to fight about. I'm sorry about that, and I never should have brought it up again.

I haven't seen games at the other stadiums, you're right, so I'll trust you that the sightlines are better. If building a new grandstand is better for our baseball program, then I want it.

I'm certainly not OK with mediocrity, and the current state of DNF isn't acceptable. Fortunately, our administration seems to realize that. Let's hope they choose the right plan, whatever that may be.

Again, it was a specific issue about the way the pictures were drawn, and it's gone on for too long already. I'll drop it, though i would like to post the pictures to at least have what I feel is a better reference. I'm just still not sure how to go about it.

[engie]

Just found more pictures I've done in the past in a search for "Dudy Noble grandstand" in bing. Unfortunately, my "hosted" screenshots expire after a month -- so these no longer show in their full versions. Just cached thumbnails.

I've been through this what feels like 100s of times now -- and have had to explain the exact same problems over and over and over again. I'm sorry that you find the pictures "exaggerated and thus unacceptable". It's just NOT the first time I've done them. Probably more like the 25th(at least). I simply WANT people to "get" my viewpoint as quickly, simply, and easily as possible.

I don't mind it when people are receptive for what I'm saying(even when/if they disagree) -- and the levels to which I've thought about it -- and can provide further insight. But it gets tiresome when people want to argue about the most minute' of details without providing perspective in the opposing viewpoint.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4627227156547310&w=228&h=179&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4627227156547309&w=228&h=179&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4627227156547311&w=250&h=173&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4627227156547308&w=261&h=173&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

[Maroonthirteen]

I would list where I have watched baseball. However I am sure you will disagree.

East side sun = ridiculous whine of MSU fans.

Sight line of a expanded DNF = ridiculous whine of MSU fans.

Yeah, I agree the bleachers suck. But I always felt it was because you are sitting low and looking over railings, heads and a fence.

[smootness]

That's called accusing someone of having an agenda. But you're smart and I'm sure your passive-aggressive approach is fully aware of that. Now, do you have a productive point to bring to this discussion or will you once aGAIN continue arguing just to arguing?

For me, it was akin to someone saying, 'Shaq is taller than Dwight Howard; see, look at the two of them':

http://www.truthaboutit.net/pictures/manute-bol-muggsy-bogues-2.jpg

I just wanted to say, 'That's not accurate', but it blew up from there. I wasn't arguing just to argue, I just didn't drop it when I should have.

[messageboardsuperhero]

I would list where I have watched baseball. However I am sure you will disagree.

East side sun = ridiculous whine of MSU fans.

Sight line of a expanded DNF = ridiculous whine of MSU fans.

Yeah, I agree the bleachers suck. But I always felt it was because you are sitting low and looking over railings, heads and a fence.

"Ridiculous whine?" Really? So actually wanting to be able to see the game from your seat is a "ridiculous whine?" What's hilarious is that if they do decide to extend the grandstand, you're going to be one of the people who will whine about how bad the sightlines are.

And again, that's not the only issue with DNF. There are several more very good reasons that Todd touches on in his article.

[engie]

I would list where I have watched baseball. However I am sure you will disagree.
Because you will be lying.


East side sun = ridiculous whine of MSU fans.
K


Sight line of a expanded DNF = ridiculous whine of MSU fans.
Laughable.


Yeah, I agree the bleachers suck. But I always felt it was because you are sitting low and looking over railings, heads and a fence.
You wouldn't be looking over, around, and through heads with an extended grandstand? How do you figure?

No. The single largest problem with the bleachers is turning your head so far to the side consistently for an extended period of time. The same exact problem that would exist with an extended grandstand down there. Again -- if you had actually watched a game from the bleachers down the lines at Alex Box -- you would fully understand that the bleachers, themselves, aren't our problem. Our stadium design is.

[engie]

For me, it was akin to someone saying, 'Shaq is taller than Dwight Howard; see, look at the two of them':

http://www.truthaboutit.net/pictures/manute-bol-muggsy-bogues-2.jpg

I just wanted to say, 'That's not accurate', but it blew up from there. I wasn't arguing just to argue, I just didn't drop it when I should have.

YET you STILL haven't dropped it and have derailed MULTIPLE great threads in this process. You'd rather "be right" in ANOTHER derailing of a tremendous thread about something that is of the UTMOST importance to us as a fanbase -- where several of us have put in significant effort both currently and in the past -- than actually having a SEMBLANCE of caring about what's ACTUALLY best for MSU -- and jumping on that bandwagon thus HELPING a cause rather than hindering it.

If you aren't part of the solution, what do you think you are? You are part of the problem. All this arguing -- and derailing -- for something you claim here to actually support? Make that make sense for me. Because it doesn't. Actually, no. Don't. Because it's ridiculous and nothing you can say will make it better.

[Dawg61]

All of this is ridiculous imo. $40 million to RENOVATE a stadium! 17 that! Just build a brand new PERFECT one. Make a much better LFL. At a certain dollar amount if becomes RETARDED to only renovate a stadium. You guys are about $30M past that point. Is LFL awesome? Absolutely. Is DNF the best in the SEC? Not even close. The ONLY way to have MSU with the best stadium in college baseball is to build a brand 17ing new one.

[Todd4State]

Dude, just take a quick look at the DNF picture and where those 'sightlines' in the outfield begin, then compare it to the others. He clearly purposefully drew the DNF lines as close as possible to the foul pole so that it would appear that the sightlines are far worse than the others. It isn't an 'agenda', it's just trying to make a point, but it's exaggerating the issue to do it.

I know the article wasn't all about sightlines. I said that there are better reasons as to why building a new grandstand is a good option, and you outlined some of them. It's a good article overall.

I'm not looking to pick a fight with anyone. I don't know why anyone on this board is, and you'll probably find that over time, I will agree and also disagree with just about everyone on different issues.

The reason I initially said anything about the pictures was because engie posted them to show that the sightlines are awful at DNF and worse than other stadiums, and then threw those up as an illustration trying to provide evidence of that...and everyone just saw them and said, 'Oh yeah, great pictures, you're right'; and I thought the pictures were misleading, so I said something.

It would be akin to discussing the height of two basketball players, without knowing already how tall they were. If I said Player A is taller than Player B and thus was clearly the better option to play down low, then showed a picture where they weren't standing side by side, one was slightly crouched, etc. as proof, it would be misleading and wouldn't really prove anything. It wouldn't make me wrong that Player A was taller or wrong that he is the better option to play down low, but it certainly wouldn't prove I was right, either. You would need a much better picture or an actual measurement. That's all I'm saying. I just want to make sure we're actually comparing apples to apples when specifically talking about the sightlines so that we can figure out if, indeed, the point is correct.

I brought it up in this thread because I don't think including them in the article helps your point when specifically talking about the sightlines. That's it. I realize this has gone on for too long and is now becoming tedious, and it appears I'm beating a dead horse over a small issue, but I never meant for it to become a big debate. I just thought the pictures were misleading and said so, and engie took offense to that. It was nothing personal, I just want a more accurate and honest discussion.

Of course he is trying to make a point. Did you ever think that if he made it down to exact specification, the common person might not be able to understand it as well? Even if engie did draw it to specification and completely accurate, the sightlines are still bad.

It's not at all like comparing Dwight Howard and Shaq's height. What you are doing would be like someone bitching about a map that's not quite exactly to scale- and thus "misleading" even though it serves it purpose fully.

[Todd4State]

All of this is ridiculous imo. $40 million to RENOVATE a stadium! 17 that! Just build a brand new PERFECT one. Make a much better LFL. At a certain dollar amount if becomes RETARDED to only renovate a stadium. You guys are about $30M past that point. Is LFL awesome? Absolutely. Is DNF the best in the SEC? Not even close. The ONLY way to have MSU with the best stadium in college baseball is to build a brand 17ing new one.

You are right about the dollar figure being high. It is called a renovation, but if it is done like it should be, it's essentially a new stadium. Basically the only thing that would stay mostly intact is the playing field- and that is good because it would bring the cost down.

To me, it's a renovation because it's on the same site vs. a new stadium which is normally built on a totally different site. But that's just me and I'm not a builder, architect, etc. and so I may not be using the technically "correct" terminology.

[smootness]

YET you STILL haven't dropped it and have derailed MULTIPLE great threads in this process. You'd rather "be right" in ANOTHER derailing of a tremendous thread about something that is of the UTMOST importance to us as a fanbase -- where several of us have put in significant effort both currently and in the past -- than actually having a SEMBLANCE of caring about what's ACTUALLY best for MSU -- and jumping on that bandwagon thus HELPING a cause rather than hindering it.

If you aren't part of the solution, what do you think you are? You are part of the problem. All this arguing -- and derailing -- for something you claim here to actually support? Make that make sense for me. Because it doesn't. Actually, no. Don't. Because it's ridiculous and nothing you can say will make it better.

Dude, chill. It isn't that serious, and I'm trying to drop it and apologize for bringing it up again. Just let me do it and let's all let it go.

[Ghost of Hank Flick]

Great article Todd. I really like the open concourse stuff. I would like to see that implemented more than extending the grandstand (if we have to choose).