Turf

[ChiRish]

I'd love to have it by September 2012...Jumbotron hopefully sometime soon after that.

Agreed. At least it seems that at this point it isn't a question of whether they are going to do it, just when they will. Good.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

In all fairness, I think the scUM stadium is beautiful. The jumbotrons are gorgeous and the press boxes go nicely with the brick exterior. The only thing that ruins their atmosphere are the 80% of Michigan fans that think their team is all-powerful and act rudely and violently toward their opponent's fans. As far as renovations to ND's stadium, I'm definitely down with turf and classy jumbotrons, but I don't want a logo on the field. That would definitely detract from the feel of the stadium in a way that a jumbotron and turf would not.

+1... Turf and Trons (done tastefully with no logos of course).... No logo on field.

 

[BobD]

How would having a logo in the middle of the field detract from anything?

I'm not saying I'm for or against it yet but I would like to hear what others have to say.

 

[returnofthemack]

How would having a logo in the middle of the field detract from anything?

I'm not saying I'm for or against it yet but I would like to hear what others have to say.

For the monogram ND to show up well on the the field, it would have to be huge. It works well on the lax field because the complex isn't that large. I feel it would be garish. Also, I love the clean, classic look of the field with the stripes in the end zones and no logos on the field. Obviously, that's my opinion, and I have no idea how it would look in real life, it's just that it would offer no advantage. The advantage with turf is obvious, as is the advantage of having a jumbotron (easy viewing of replays), but having the logo on the field has no advantage, and is a debatable upgrade in aesthetics.

 

[Wolverine1997]

For the monogram ND to show up well on the the field, it would have to be huge. It works well on the lax field because the complex isn't that large. I feel it would be garish. Also, I love the clean, classic look of the field with the stripes in the end zones and no logos on the field. Obviously, that's my opinion, and I have no idea how it would look in real life, it's just that it would offer no advantage. The advantage with turf is obvious, as is the advantage of having a jumbotron (easy viewing of replays), but having the logo on the field has no advantage, and is a debatable upgrade in aesthetics.

 

[UmphreakDomer]

^ correct.
but everyone has to admit that purcell pavilion was done tastefully; modern yet traditional.

this can be accomplished on the football field as well.

i love the lines in the endzone. i wouldnt be opposed to a shamrock or the monogram on the 50. im sure it could be done tastefully.

as far as the 'tron issue. i just really dont see this happening. i believe we do get turf this year.
i made a post about this in the other thread. my cousin in law has a pretty high position at nd. at thanksgiving, i asked, "ok, what are we getting? turf tron or both." she said she couldnt say officially. but, would be surprised if we ever see a tron as the super high ups at ND are vehemently against the idea.
her silence and the look on her face, a sly smirk, made me believe we would have turf.

 

[Wolverine1997]

^ correct.
but everyone has to admit that purcell pavilion was done tastefully; modern yet traditional.

this can be accomplished on the football field as well.

i love the lines in the endzone. i wouldnt be opposed to a shamrock or the monogram on the 50. im sure it could be done tastefully.

as far as the 'tron issue. i just really dont see this happening. i believe we do get turf this year.
i made a post about this in the other thread. my cousin in law has a pretty high position at nd. at thanksgiving, i asked, "ok, what are we getting? turf tron or both." she said she couldnt say officially. but, would be surprised if we ever see a tron as the super high ups at ND are vehemently against the idea.
her silence and the look on her face, a sly smirk, made me believe we would have turf.

I just don't understand why people at ND are against having a video board. It improves the fan experience, you can give other sports exposure by running short promos of them which generates revenue, you can show a pregame coaches show on it before warmups.

My only question is, what are the negatives of having a scoreboard with a video screen? I can't think of any. They especially are nice when people are trying to get through the aisle back to their seat/exit the stadium, and they are blocking your view.

It would also eliminate a lot of the "down in front" shouts.

 

[woolybug25]

I just don't understand why people at ND are against having a video board. It improves the fan experience, you can give other sports exposure by running short promos of them which generates revenue, you can show a pregame coaches show on it before warmups.

My only question is, what are the negatives of having a scoreboard with a video screen? I can't think of any. They especially are nice when people are trying to get through the aisle back to their seat/exit the stadium, and they are blocking your view.

It would also eliminate a lot of the "down in front" shouts.

Because we leave the loud, tacky, obnoxious team experiences to starter-jacket wearing scUM fans.

 

[Wolverine1997]

Because we leave the loud, tacky, obnoxious team experiences to starter-jacket wearing scUM fans.

I guess I should get off your lawn.

 

[returnofthemack]

I guess I should get off your lawn.

Please do.

 

[returnofthemack]

Again, I acknowledged that the ND logo looked good on the lax field. It serves no purpose. ND fans, unlike the average scUM fan, don't forget what team they're rooting for during the game.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

I guess I should get off your lawn.

You're fine... You haven't done anything wrong other than having to look at that obnoxious signature pic. Keep posting.

 

[returnofthemack]

^ correct.
but everyone has to admit that purcell pavilion was done tastefully; modern yet traditional.

this can be accomplished on the football field as well.

i love the lines in the endzone. i wouldnt be opposed to a shamrock or the monogram on the 50. im sure it could be done tastefully.

as far as the 'tron issue. i just really dont see this happening. i believe we do get turf this year.
i made a post about this in the other thread. my cousin in law has a pretty high position at nd. at thanksgiving, i asked, "ok, what are we getting? turf tron or both." she said she couldnt say officially. but, would be surprised if we ever see a tron as the super high ups at ND are vehemently against the idea.
her silence and the look on her face, a sly smirk, made me believe we would have turf.

I'm sure they could do it tastefully. As you said, they've done a fantastic job with Purcell, Arlotta, etc. The only thing is, I think there is a great amount of understated elegance in the field without logos, and I think I'd prefer that to having the logo at the 50. Just my personal opinion. And honestly, turf is a far more pressing need than the jumbotron. If Kelly wins a BCS bowl, I guarantee the administration will install trons.

 

[returnofthemack]

You're fine... You haven't done anything wrong other than having to look at that obnoxious signature pic. Keep posting.

I'm pretty sure he was trying to convey that woolybug is a crotchety old man. But so was Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino.

 

[BobD]

I can't make up my mind how I feel about field turf, jumbotrons and a logo on the field. I love tradition but I don't live in a log cabin. I'm glad my home has indoor plumbing and electricity.

 

[Rocket89]

1) Many of the higher ups at ND don't want a video board because they want to maintain the traditional look and feel of the stadium. I agree with the posters who think that it will be incredibly difficult to ever get a board (or multiple smaller ones) in the stadium. There is still widespread support for no video board among the powers that be, and probably among the majority of alumni, including those of advanced age.

I've always argued that technology and progress will eventually force something into the stadium. I think Swarbrick will continue to dance around the subject, but I believe we're still 5 years---even 10 years---from seriously having a discussion that would lead to video board(s).

There's also a huge fear of advertising in the stadium and many simply equate video board=cheesy advertising. In fact, I think there's a very vocal section of the fan base that is obsessed with this topic---and it's really weird and sometimes borderline conspiratorial. I think there's a lot of people who would prefer a advertisement-free stadium but wouldn't be horrified by SOME advertising, but there's others who just can't deal with anything of the sort. I'm talking about the people who flipped out when the NBC Sports logo was put on the scoreboard and when "IRISH" was put at the end of the tunnel. I think some people have issues when that kind of stuff is making them pull their hair out.

Also, the conspiratorial aspect (NDNation) thinks it costs $9 billion to build and maintain video boards and the University would be FORCED to sell copious amounts of advertising just to keep up. It's a topic in which they get to have their cake and eat it too because they can always revert back to the stance that the University wants video boards SPECIFICALLY to add advertising and to make more money. Either way works!

All I know is not many people are alive who have ever seen advertising inside ND Stadium, and the University is simultaneously as wealthy as it's ever been. Meanwhile, certain people point to Sprint logos on rally towels as "evidence" that the school is whoring itself out to advertisers and the stadium itself is next.

2) If I was a betting man I would not put down money that any new FieldTurf is going to be put in the stadium during this offseason. I do think the discussions with the higher ups on this topic is more serious, and the renovations going on now may be a good time to make a move, but I still doubt it. The field has been somewhat improved since Kelly took over (I think it's still subpar) and I think Kelly will have to put together a great season (10+ wins) or two before they make a move. If we're talking hybrid Desso GrassMaster then I think the odds are a little higher here.

3) I wouldn't mind doing something to the field paint. I've never really been that enamored with the empty midfield or the slash mark endzones. I can't imagine going to MSG, Joe Louis Arena, or some other historical venue and being too excited about a blank floor or ice. I understand football is a little different, but this has always been one of those traditions that I've yawned big time about.

I'd support a ND at midfield for sure. I've always liked the practical purpose of having something there as watching on TV it is easier to know where the ball is, especially after a longer play. Sometimes depending on what the cameras are showing you're in a no-man's land near midfield and you're at the mercy of Hammond to know where the ball is. I know this is weird but I like to know right away where the ball is and even a small logo would help.

I guess you could say I'm for doing things a little different, doing them tastefully, and favoring a Notre Dame that doesn't feel the need to show how different it is because of its football stadium.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

1) Many of the higher ups at ND don't want a video board because they want to maintain the traditional look and feel of the stadium. I agree with the posters who think that it will be incredibly difficult to ever get a board (or multiple smaller ones) in the stadium. There is still widespread support for no video board among the powers that be, and probably among the majority of alumni, including those of advanced age.

I've always argued that technology and progress will eventually force something into the stadium. I think Swarbrick will continue to dance around the subject, but I believe we're still 5 years---even 10 years---from seriously having a discussion that would lead to video board(s).

There's also a huge fear of advertising in the stadium and many simply equate video board=cheesy advertising. In fact, I think there's a very vocal section of the fan base that is obsessed with this topic---and it's really weird and sometimes borderline conspiratorial. I think there's a lot of people who would prefer a advertisement-free stadium but wouldn't be horrified by SOME advertising, but there's others who just can't deal with anything of the sort. I'm talking about the people who flipped out when the NBC Sports logo was put on the scoreboard and when "IRISH" was put at the end of the tunnel. I think some people have issues when that kind of stuff is making them pull their hair out.

Also, the conspiratorial aspect (NDNation) thinks it costs $9 billion to build and maintain video boards and the University would be FORCED to sell copious amounts of advertising just to keep up. It's a topic in which they get to have their cake and eat it too because they can always revert back to the stance that the University wants video boards SPECIFICALLY to add advertising and to make more money. Either way works!

All I know is not many people are alive who have ever seen advertising inside ND Stadium, and the University is simultaneously as wealthy as it's ever been. Meanwhile, certain people point to Sprint logos on rally towels as "evidence" that the school is whoring itself out to advertisers and the stadium itself is next.

2) If I was a betting man I would not put down money that any new FieldTurf is going to be put in the stadium during this offseason. I do think the discussions with the higher ups on this topic is more serious, and the renovations going on now may be a good time to make a move, but I still doubt it. The field has been somewhat improved since Kelly took over (I think it's still subpar) and I think Kelly will have to put together a great season (10+ wins) or two before they make a move. If we're talking hybrid Desso GrassMaster then I think the odds are a little higher here.

3) I wouldn't mind doing something to the field paint. I've never really been that enamored with the empty midfield or the slash mark endzones. I can't imagine going to MSG, Joe Louis Arena, or some other historical venue and being too excited about a blank floor or ice. I understand football is a little different, but this has always been one of those traditions that I've yawned big time about.

I'd support a ND at midfield for sure. I've always liked the practical purpose of having something there as watching on TV it is easier to know where the ball is, especially after a longer play. Sometimes depending on what the cameras are showing you're in a no-man's land near midfield and you're at the mercy of Hammond to know where the ball is. I know this is weird but I like to know right away where the ball is and even a small logo would help.

I guess you could say I'm for doing things a little different, doing them tastefully, and favoring a Notre Dame that doesn't feel the need to show how different it is because of its football stadium.

Good post Rocket. Thanks for your input

 

[NDOM]

I guess I should get off your lawn.

You don't have to. You are fine. You never cause any trouble and usually give good input. Feel free to stay on our lawn.

 

[returnofthemack]

You don't have to. You are fine. You never cause any trouble and usually give good input. Feel free to stay on our lawn.

Again, he is not being obsequious and cowering. He is trying to make fun of woolybug.

 

[returnofthemack]

1) Many of the higher ups at ND don't want a video board because they want to maintain the traditional look and feel of the stadium. I agree with the posters who think that it will be incredibly difficult to ever get a board (or multiple smaller ones) in the stadium. There is still widespread support for no video board among the powers that be, and probably among the majority of alumni, including those of advanced age.

I've always argued that technology and progress will eventually force something into the stadium. I think Swarbrick will continue to dance around the subject, but I believe we're still 5 years---even 10 years---from seriously having a discussion that would lead to video board(s).

There's also a huge fear of advertising in the stadium and many simply equate video board=cheesy advertising. In fact, I think there's a very vocal section of the fan base that is obsessed with this topic---and it's really weird and sometimes borderline conspiratorial. I think there's a lot of people who would prefer a advertisement-free stadium but wouldn't be horrified by SOME advertising, but there's others who just can't deal with anything of the sort. I'm talking about the people who flipped out when the NBC Sports logo was put on the scoreboard and when "IRISH" was put at the end of the tunnel. I think some people have issues when that kind of stuff is making them pull their hair out.

Also, the conspiratorial aspect (NDNation) thinks it costs $9 billion to build and maintain video boards and the University would be FORCED to sell copious amounts of advertising just to keep up. It's a topic in which they get to have their cake and eat it too because they can always revert back to the stance that the University wants video boards SPECIFICALLY to add advertising and to make more money. Either way works!

All I know is not many people are alive who have ever seen advertising inside ND Stadium, and the University is simultaneously as wealthy as it's ever been. Meanwhile, certain people point to Sprint logos on rally towels as "evidence" that the school is whoring itself out to advertisers and the stadium itself is next.

2) If I was a betting man I would not put down money that any new FieldTurf is going to be put in the stadium during this offseason. I do think the discussions with the higher ups on this topic is more serious, and the renovations going on now may be a good time to make a move, but I still doubt it. The field has been somewhat improved since Kelly took over (I think it's still subpar) and I think Kelly will have to put together a great season (10+ wins) or two before they make a move. If we're talking hybrid Desso GrassMaster then I think the odds are a little higher here.

3) I wouldn't mind doing something to the field paint. I've never really been that enamored with the empty midfield or the slash mark endzones. I can't imagine going to MSG, Joe Louis Arena, or some other historical venue and being too excited about a blank floor or ice. I understand football is a little different, but this has always been one of those traditions that I've yawned big time about.

I'd support a ND at midfield for sure. I've always liked the practical purpose of having something there as watching on TV it is easier to know where the ball is, especially after a longer play. Sometimes depending on what the cameras are showing you're in a no-man's land near midfield and you're at the mercy of Hammond to know where the ball is. I know this is weird but I like to know right away where the ball is and even a small logo would help.

I guess you could say I'm for doing things a little different, doing them tastefully, and favoring a Notre Dame that doesn't feel the need to show how different it is because of its football stadium.

All good points. As far as advertising, I would mind a few small ads. But at most stadiums that succumb to advertising, they plaster ads all over. USC's Coliseum is disgusting because of the ads. ND has plenty of money and doesn't need ads to get by. If they did get advertising, I'm sure it wouldn't be bad. And I agree that for Kelly to get big changes, he's going to have to get big results on the field first. I think the turf will be easier to get because it saves money on maintenance and provides a better playing surface. I really think if Kelly wins a BCS bowl, a jumbotron will follow soon after. Also, I never thought of having the logo at midfield to judge where the ball is. There have definitely been times where I lose track of where the ball is on the field.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Until becoming a little more aware of the battle over video boards at Notre Dame, I had never associated video board with advertising. Ads just aren't something that I think of when I think about video boards. I think about being able to watch replays of great plays or close calls, being able to get a better view of a play happening at the other end of the field, or watching some produced pieces during breaks in play that add to the gameday experience.

I guess I can jump on board with the idea that the stadium should limit advertising to the absolute bare minimum, but it honestly isn't the end of the world to me either way. Maybe the reason why I never even realized that advertising was part of the video board experience is because I would never watch the board while it was running an ad. Just like when I'm watching TV at home - I haven't watched a commercial in like 20 years. As soon as they come on I either flip the channel or go to the kitchen or the bathroom. Even if I stay in my seat and don't change the channel, I sure as hell am not paying attention to the ads.

 

[woolybug25]

You don't have to. You are fine. You never cause any trouble and usually give good input. Feel free to stay on our lawn.

Oh contrare, my friend. Go back and read all the stuff he wrote when he and I first got into it. Or his game day antics. Or... and mostly... his blatant disregard for the board when he brandished a sig pic of several scoreboards of scUM wins over ND. When it got so heated that his hand was forced, he changed the pic. He chose one with the score of our last game right in the center. But I guess no one has a problem with him throwing last year's loss directly into our faces.

Now, some may think I don't like him simply because he is a scUM fan. But that is also not the entire story. Truth is, my best friend is a scUM fan and I get along with the other scUM poster on this board (GoBlue) splendidly. Wolverine's historic disrespect of our team on our board is why I dislike him. He'll act coy and try to make it like I am being unreasonable, which I am ok with, because at least I am not laying down to some idiot scUM fan trying to poke fun at us on our board.

But those of you who think him posting with our last score as his sig pic is cool just continue to lay down for this prick. But before you continue, I urge you to take a moment and go look how wolverine and his croanies treat the solitary ND fan on MGoblog.

The patience some of you have with this dude is astonishing.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Get it Wooly. Reps

 

[woolybug25]

For those that think that wolverine1997 is just some kind hearted fella wanting to talk football. Here is is a post from him in September telling us exactly why he is here.

I'm a fulltime MGoBlog and GoBlueWolverine member...

I come here to talk to people from the other side, to see what they have to say. Sometimes I bring stuff people say here back to MGoBlog. We've had some laughs.

I don't want to hear anyone saying that his intent is to be friends with us. His intent is to mock us in plain sight and then run back to MGoblog to laugh about it with his buddies.

Lap it up, my friends. Lap it up.

 

[clashmore_mike]

I hope he realizes how awful mgoblog is and how many people get a good laugh out of it.

 

[returnofthemack]

Oh contrare, my friend. Go back and read all the stuff he wrote when he and I first got into it. Or his game day antics. Or... and mostly... his blatant disregard for the board when he brandished a sig pic of several scoreboards of scUM wins over ND. When it got so heated that his hand was forced, he changed the pic. He chose one with the score of our last game right in the center. But I guess no one has a problem with him throwing last year's loss directly into our faces.

Now, some may think I don't like him simply because he is a scUM fan. But that is also not the entire story. Truth is, my best friend is a scUM fan and I get along with the other scUM poster on this board (GoBlue) splendidly. Wolverine's historic disrespect of our team on our board is why I dislike him. He'll act coy and try to make it like I am being unreasonable, which I am ok with, because at least I am not laying down to some idiot scUM fan trying to poke fun at us on our board.

But those of you who think him posting with our last score as his sig pic is cool just continue to lay down for this prick. But before you continue, I urge you to take a moment and go look how wolverine and his croanies treat the solitary ND fan on MGoblog.

The patience some of you have with this dude is astonishing.

Handel - Messiah - Hallelujah Chorus - YouTube

 

[GreatGolson]

Been hearing things

Been hearing things

ive been hearing some things from some people reguarding turf and an announcement soon....

 

[returnofthemack]

For those that think that wolverine1997 is just some kind hearted fella wanting to talk football. Here is is a post from him in September telling us exactly why he is here.



I don't want to hear anyone saying that his intent is to be friends with us. His intent is to mock us in plain sight and then run back to MGoblog to laugh about it with his buddies.

Lap it up, my friends. Lap it up.

I've known what he's trying to do, and have sparred with him a few times. Like wooly, some of my best friends are UM fans, and there are definitely plenty of UM fans that don't fall under the umbrella of "scUM" fans like "everyone's favorite wolverine". He pushes buttons but is smart enough to know when to ease off so that he doesn't get banned. I'm so happy I'm not the only one that sees through his bull$hit.

 

[NDhoosier]

Gold turf... No logo, no gimmicks, just gold turf with the standard lines. So cool...

 

[tko]

gold cement, toughen these kids up.