Printable View
Provided by an elitedawgs user:
MSU owns this 30-something acres. Obviously there would be some dirt work as there is a pond there now, but there would be plenty of room to have a brand new stadium, with parking if they would dedicate this land to a baseball facility. Plus it would be kind of near the other stuff. Really it seems too easy?
Attachment 313
development of that area and turning the current field into a parking lot would help with football a lot too. lots of extra parking near the edge of campus.
Interesting. I'd be all for that, but most people think the administration wants to keep the same location.
I'm fine with pretty much anywhere, as long as it's on-campus.
Yeah, that's my opinion also. I would prefer the existing site, if at all possible. But only if we can demo and complete a new facility within an acceptable time frame. That is, starting demo within a week or two prior to completion of the regular season if we can finish conference play on the road the final weekend and host a potential regional at Trustmark Park if we are in the running for such. We could even play a few weekends to open the following season at Trustmark if needed, or at the new gulf coast park, as Todd has mentioned previously. Such a tight construction schedule will obviously up the costs somewhat, but if that is what it takes, so be it. I would love for a new, state-of-the-art facility to reside at the present site of college baseball's Carnegie Hall, uhhhh, I mean DNF!Quote:
Originally Posted by messageboardsuperhero
As far as a timeframe and all of that, building a new stadium across the street would be better as far as that aspect goes. Then we could use the existing stadium until the new one is ready and we wouldn't have to worry about rushing the workers, where we are going to play if the stadium isn't ready, etc. So, by building elsewhere, we may save more money because we won't have to worry about paying the M-Braves people, the Beau Rivage Stadium people, and travel and all of that. You also don't have to worry about the Hump, which is quite frankly in the way as far as new construction goes.
The advantage to building on the existing site is it's close to the Palmeiro Center and nostalgia.
Another thing that I believe makes people want to build on the current site is the fact that we have invested millions over the past few years in our playing surface. Obviously we just installed artificial grass down the lines, but we also put in a state-of-the-art drainage system for the real grass in the outfield just a couple of years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
I don't know that this will be a deciding factor, but it's something they'll be taking into consideration.
They wouldn't get rid of the lounges would they?
That's true. But to me, I consider those basic maintenance costs. So, all of that stuff is not wasteful to me. If our field doesn't drain and some SEC games had to be cancelled because of it and Slive looks into it and we say "well, we're building a new stadium in a few years, so we didn't won't to waste money"- that's not going to cut it. I would say in that case there's a better than average chance we would have to forfeit the games, and at a minimum it would be a black eye for our program.Quote:
Originally Posted by messageboardsuperhero
I highly doubt it. Everyone at the meetings wants the LFL to stay in some way, shape or form. That includes the administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by It_Could_Happen
Of course, if it's at a new location it would be a new LFL. And I imagine it would have some better safety standards.
This was sent to me from poster Sally Stansbury by the way. I think it's interesting