quote:

---

quote:

---

I give the new kyle a 7/10. Would have been a 9/10 had they started from scratch. But a 7 ain't bad and is a lot better than the 3/10 we had.

---

Completely agree. It's never going to be on a "top 10 coolest looking stadiums" list, but it is a significant improvement for us.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Agreed. Because some moron designed it that way

---

Do you ever do anything besides complain?

---

You are in no way obligated to respond or acknowledge my posts. In general I avoid commenting on stuff I find dumb or childish, but I believe that shows your own lack of self control if you can't just skip over things which annoy you.

Kyle Field's design should have been thought out better so there were no gaps in level/decks.

Instead we have put lipstick on a pig all because a bunch of B/CS flatlanders were so freaked out about missing out on ONE football season.

---

I think if you actually stopped and studied it you would find that every last "oddity" in the stadium is the result of logical thought and consideration. An OCD-friendly cookie cutter stadium wouldn't achieve the goals implicit in the renovation.

We saved somewhere around $60-80 million by reusing the stadium parts that we did, that's money that was saved and able tot be poured back into making the stadium better. The reason for the majority of the oddities stem from the fact that the Zone was terribly designed in the first place and limited sight lines - necessitating the field to be moved and thus the student section is off-centered. The student section couldn't be lengthened to fit the new field because federal building codes would have dictated the seating be reconfigured and we would have lost thousands of seats where people only stand. If the west side perfectly aligned with the SEZ then the most expensive (i.e. revenue producing) seats in the stadium - second deck - would have been cut in half.

Does it look a little off, well yeah. That doesn't come from laziness or keeping all games in BCS, it came from having an extremely customized design that met all of our demands.

It's going to be the single best venue in the nation when done. A couple of quirks aren't changing that.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's just too bad that we have the only football stadium in pro sports with seating areas that are asymmetrical and don't match up perfectly.

---

That's a pretty tired argument and somewhat of a strawman. Basically you're saying it is OK that Kyle Field looks like a piecemealed pile of sh_t because other some college and pro stadiums were designed with a modern look that doesn't adhere to classical stadium configuration(s).

Some of those stadiums were designed from the ground up to have unique features. That is a totally different scenario than what we are going to end up with at Kyle Field.

For the record, I think Penn State's football stadium looks bad as well. So does DKR (yes I realize that was not a pictured stadium).

The Kyle Field project was probably doomed from the start for two or three reasons:
1) Sentimental necessity to keep the east side second and third decks for "HOME OF THE 12TH MAN" reasons.
2) Richardson Zone and family naming rights. The Zone was fronted by the Richardsons to the tune of about $6 million dollars and has only been in use for 15 years. We are tied to the Zone for a while.
3) B/CS businesses. The town is so dependent on the university and the residual effects brought in by athletic events, deals were made to keep the games in town.

I will continue to assert my opinion on the sloppiness and poor design of Kyle Field. It looks great from the outside. Some aspects of the inside, not so much.

---