Recent Comments
This ^^^
And I disagree that it goes "against the heart of the game." I love watching a team, down a score with no timeouts, no huddle it down the field. I also enjoy watching Oregon. And I enjoyed watching manball Stanford take them down.
What I don't like is Saban wanting to change the rules because he can't cope with a hurry up offense. Bud can deal with it, and Bud would not flake out and try to put a rule change in. He just makes brilliant adjustments that kill the other team's will to live. THAT is the heart of the game.
Seriously.... What are Bucky's measurables? I read somewhere that he was closer to 6'8" now. Does anybody have proof of this?
If we ever got 4ft of snow evenly spread over a parking lot sized space, it would be the light stuff at about 10 lb / ft3. X 4 ft tall = 40 lb. applied at surface that's 40 lb/ ft2.
Average pickup truck is about 5000 lb.
so with those parameters you are right, but we'd never build a parking garage to only take the bare minimum weight of a truck/car, which is where I was going.
Parking garages are designed for that kind of load.
There is a difference between a roof and a parking garage. If you plan for it, great, if not you are going to have a heck of an issue.
Ouch, but you have a point. +1
Not quite growing at Bucky Hodges levels...
Got some heights and weights from the combine: tallest QB, Virginia Tech's Logan Thomas -- 6-61/8, 248 pounds ...— Rob Peterson (@ShotDrJr) February 21, 2014
but they DID explore the other options. they viewed like 12 different locations/footprints, weighed multiple variables including everything from operational impact to environmental impact and everything in between. they finally determined that this option was the best for the university and the football program within their master plan.
it's not like Frank Beamer is pissed that his fields are shorter. if that were his major concern, the fields wouldn't be shorter. everyone had input on all of the variables, and this is the compromise that was reached.
i don't think there is any negative in all of this. i think we'll see the side of the field house almost completely opened up on nice weather days creating a massive open practice facility every bit as large as what we have today, only now we'll have shade from the sun and a turf field to practice for games played on artificial turf.
i think you are downplaying the importance to be close to the locker rooms and coaching offices while over playing the importance of having 3 100 yard fields. we have 2 100 yard fields and Warsham field (which we use occasionally for light drills today) all within a short walk of the team club house. we're not missing out on anything.
Also, can we PLEASE bring back the maroon painted letters and logo on the field?! That was truly #ALLMAROONEVERYTHING. Im looking at you, Whit.
With Kline and Malleck at a minimum I would expect to see some two tight end sets next year.
Okay- So this will be my 2nd post ever, but it has gotten me riled up enough to finally say something.
1st- Design Build projects do cost Architects, that competition is hard - in this case 3 firms (Design build firms / Contractors who partnered with an Architect) were short listed to provide designs and costs for their ideas. Just to let everyone know, things have been going ahead and there is a design team/contractor selected but the designs are going through a Value Engineering process so we can't post anything about the design, etc.
I have to add a note to design build projects costing Architects money, consider the GC's out here - our office, to remain nameless because I don't want to get in trouble or say more than I am allowed, puts out bids for projects every week and we miss the majority of them, as do most contractors. We constantly are spending lots of money putting estimates and proposals together for owners/architects and a successful company gets somewhere between 30%-60% of the proposals they submit. So I do have sympathy for costing time and money of architects, but welcome to the life of a Contractor or a Construction Management group. Secondly, from a contractors perspective Design Build and CM at Risk projects make life a million times easier on the contractor, we are able to give the owner exactly what they want and can afford. Design-Bid-Build's (from a contractors perspective) promote cuts, change orders, and all around trying to do something for nothing/trying to do something as cheap as possible to try and win a job. When we get a client as a design-build/CM at Risk, we negotiate absolutely everything with an open-book and an open fee so they know exactly what we are making and exactly what they are getting. I wish there was a better way that would be more cost effective for Architects - but CM / Design-Build projects are our favorite to work on.
I am so looking forward to when the plans and models are released (which I have seen the initial which got us selected) - the design firm we are working with is world renowned and the plans will blow our alum, players socks off. Trust me when I tell you that this facility will be heads and tails above 95% of any other programs indoor facility. LOLUVA's facility will be a pre-fab metal storage building standing next to what has been proposed. Our company is flooded with Tech grads and there is not a company more excited and dedicated to VT to complete this project. This is not just a company looking for a buck but a company who loves VT and will provide a superior project.
As soon as we are allowed to I will get a rendering up here/link to project/link to A/E/link to our Contractors site.
I have a lot of pride in the company I work for and while I don't get to work on this project specifically, I am proud to know our company got a chance to bid on it, and assuming things keep going this direct we will get to build this for VT.
No way is it as extreme as 4 corners. And I have seen good defenses obliterate this strategy.
With Bucky, Kline, Mallek, Xavier or Redman, four Tight Ends on some plays would be even better.
You'd be surprised at the weight of snow. For your parameters I'd be willing to bet that the snow weighs significantly more.
I disagree slightly with this. Football is more than just the best players against best players, but the best strategies against the best strategies. If one coach's strategy is to tire the other defense (even if just to level the field against better talent), and that works for them, then good for the coach's scheme and the players that fit in that scheme. If they're not breaking rules, then go with a strategy that works.
Rather than trying to beat the other team with same types of talent and the same strategy, they're trying to beat them with players still talented (albeit in different ways), and a different strategy.
It may distort the pure talent vs. talent match up, but winning is winning.
You could say the same thing about 4 corners. Its one strategy to take the opponent's best players out of the game, but it goes against the heart of the game.
In my opinion, taking the defense out of the game for the opponent might be a strategy, but it goes against the heart of the game. Football is at its best when you man up and play ball. When you start scheming based on a loophole, that is when the game starts to erode, and in my opinion, thats where we are right now with this hurry up offense.
yes and no. With straight forward projects where there are no real outside variables impacting the solution then yes. Location is predetermined. I am building hotel on this land. done. However where there are multiple variables that impact that solution with multiple viable options you generally want to explore a few at least in model stage to know you have the planning correct. For example, if you are a developer that owns a land that will have a mixed-use development of a hotel, shopping mall and residential apartments then you would want to see at least a few options on how to maximize the options for how to use the land. You wouldn't say this is the only place to put the hotel, and here the shopping mall. You want the designers to find a creative solution to give you more than what you are asking for.
When it comes to institution's with a master plan and limited land it becomes even more important to see what you are evaluating first because there is always a knock on effect. Indoor facility on practice field creates issue of shortened fields. Indoor practice fields on tennis courts mean they need to move. Indoor facility on Cassell lot means parking mitigation. Everything has its problem but that's why you want to see solutions prior to making your final decision on location.
There are plenty of projects where there is only one option for location. This isn't one of them. Not exploring how to solve these issues prior to making the final decision on location was a failure in my opinion.
I think the 04 Maryland game was so crazy because it was our first ACC game with them and I know we have alot of students who lived in Maryland at that time that just had a huge hatred for that school, (that and the obvious thursday night game). That entrance defiantly made Maryland crap their pants and they sure played like it.
It wouldn't be underground. At Arizona, they roll the field inside the stadium and it exposes the parking lot underneath it which is where the players park on gameday. I am suggesting the outdoor fields roll inside the indoor practice facility, leaving open air parking lots for donors to tailgate in. This could also help to lessen the congestion at that entrance gate on gameday.
I like the rule and say we keep it. There is so many rules that protect and aid the offense. You can only hit a guy in 3 square inch area, if you look at the QB wrong it's a 15 yarder etc, etc... it's time the D got some help.
What does this have to do with basketball?
That used to be my Wall paper for the longest time.
"Tight ends make good offensive linemen" -
FTFY
A wizard is never late, nor is he early, he arrives precisely when he means to.
look, i'm no architect, but isn't location often determined prior to a design? i own this land, need to build this type of building, please submit design. i think location based on operational need/available space is FAR more important than anything else (including the trees, but that issue has passed).
all that has been determined is the available footprint and budget. let the creative outside firms wow us with a proposal to make the most of it. seems perfectly normal to me.
Yep! Parking garages are a lot different than building roofs though - garages are large concrete structures with lots of heavy supports. The kind of roof on this building would not have room for vertical supports, and would be made of steel. Think the Blacksburg High School collapse.
Not trying to be argumentative - you just got a civil engineer going!