Recent Comments
i think you may have misread what was being said
I also don't like the idea like most people have said, but I just want to add your rivalry match ups make no sence. You have to keep GT-Clem. BC-Cuse is just logical. And the current NC rivalries are UNC-NCSt, Wake-Duke.
I was at VT for the 1996 storm. That was a monster. I remember the flights going back from my home out West during Xmas time were all getting cancelled and then our pilot came out to the terminal and said:
"There appears to be a small window of opportunity to break through the storm if we leave now. I can't guarantee that and if we get stuck we'll need to divert to Atlanta. Anyone that wants to stay should go home because this is the only flight leaving."
There were only 20 people on the plane. It was cloud cover from about the Mississippi and then magically right when we arrived in the pattern to land at BWI the sky opened up and the sun was out. You could see the city below and we landed with almost no turbulence. By the time I got off the plane, got my bags and out of the terminal to my friends car the airport was shutdown for the rest of the day.
That was a monster storm. I think this storm's accumulation has been faster though, but I have no evidence to support that.
Woo hoo for the 1,000th turkey leg ^^^^^^^^
I agree about the practice fields being next to each other as being the biggest advantage. I understand why this was what was selected. My main gripes are the method in which it was selected and that it creates a problem that didn't previously exist.
have a turkey leg for being rational in the face of my ranting. haha
there was a very long Forum post about a possible larger playoff. A lot for and against increasing to 8 or 16. I am very against this though. I don't believe everyone deserves a shot and I think a larger playoff makes the regular season less valuable.
If as a football team you want your shot, schedule good opponents and win. That's it. This isn't peewee league where everyone gets a participation trophy.
Interesting points! I particularly noted your support of the Cassell Lot option, which, all things considered, I agree would be the best location for the indoor facility. A quick comparison of the footprint of the new(ish) Perry St. garage and the footprint of the Cassell lot shows that the area would be able to support both a new parking garage and the indoor facility, with two entrance/exit points for the garage on Washington St and Spring Rd.
What I think is the biggest advantage of the chosen location is having the outdoor and indoor fields right next to each other, and being able to open some big retractable doors and have players run in and out. The overall site plan is probably not optimal, but I can see why it was chosen and why it was laid out the way it is.
As I mentioned above, if this were true then Beamer wouldn't have been trying to locate the new building on the forest and precisely not on the existing fields.
However, even that is true there should still have been a process to design solutions prior to making a final decision. That's just practically smart to do.
No, I am definitely not for building on the woods site. I am 100% pro-protection of old growth forests. Obviously though, Beamer wanted the building on the forest site because he wanted the existing full sized practice fields to remain intact. Short fields is not what he wanted at all.
Yes, building on an existing parking lot would be more expensive, however if you actually had a design you could use it to raise funds with. Now they are simply raising funds off of a summary report and this location plan.
Of the options that the steering committee selected I prefer the Cassell Lot. It scored 42.5 points which tied it with several other options, but let's look at why it received negative marks:
1) Pedestrian Safety/Lightening Protection: Argument is that Spring Road has lots of traffic. My response is a) players already cross to Rector Field House, though not ideal, is existing conditions so cannot be marked down. b) As mentioned in another comment, could connect locker room and Cassell via covered pedestrian bridge over Spring Road that could create an Iconic gateway to Lane Stadium.
2) Significant Parking Loss that is difficult to mitigate: Agreed. This is the one negative. Would need to add parking structure resulting in significant additional cost, but costs that I support.
3) Compliance with Master Plan: Only Option 2 was actually in compliance. All other options, including the Cassell Lot, did not so it's a wash with everyone losing points.
4) Building Creates Poor Entry Sequence into campus: This is absolute bullshit. a) there is no design to review so how do we know it creates a poor entry sequence? This is why administrators shouldn't decide these things without going through a design process to actually see options. b) The argument then is that a parking lot is a GOOD entry sequence? No way. I would prefer to see a beautifully designed building with Hokie Stone and perhaps "HOKIES" on the north elevation over looking at a parking lot when I enter campus from this road.
I have designed 100's of projects all over the world and have raised millions of dollars for projects that started with nothing to get them built. Deciding the solution before a design process is just stupid.
Those that say a parking structure would cost more money are correct, however if they had a brilliant design with renderings, animation and a spirit that conveyed the "dream" then raising money would be a hell of a lot easier. At the moment they only have this location plan and are saying it's going to be tough to raise all the money. No shit Sherlock. You had a bunch of non-professionals make a huge design decision based simply on an evaluation matrix that the same people scored. That's a ridiculously poor decision making process.
If they had been smart they would have created a design competition. Got world class architects to design solutions and then show that to everyone, and select from real solutions. Could have put it online with the Hokie Club to seek donations kick starter style as well as traditional fund raising efforts. Thus energizing the fan base and boosters. Instead we have a steering committee report with no visuals and a decision to place the building in a location that compromises the existing outdoor practice fields, which Beamer did not want to happen in the first place.
I like the idea of 4 team playoffs. But If you end up doing 4 team playoff for conference games, then you need to have 4 divisions of 4 teams. And winner of each division gets a playoff spot in the conference. And 4 major conference would play in yet another playoff to come out a national champion.
You can also add 2 at large teams, that would get bid into the playoffs. If you add 2 at large teams, then 2 teams with best records in major conference would get a bye on first week of college football playoff.
i don't necessarily agree with the approach of the OP, but to answer your question, there are 120 teams playing a 12 game schedule...without one big playoff, lots of little playoffs may be the only way to sort through the mess (without relying on polls; human, computer, or otherwise...).
Do you think it's possible CFB had some major input on where he wanted his indoor football facility to be built?
I think you may be creating an issue where none exists.
That would theoretically would mean 16 team playoffs.
It's interesting but not sure why you need a playoff to get to a Championship game to get to yet another playoff.
There is not enough room in the current practice field site for the configuration you mentioned without encroaching on the Stadium Woods, which, due to intense opposition, is not an option. The other option you mentioned, having the facility built in the parking lot, has the negatives of being far from the locker rooms and being significantly more expensive than the chosen option (due to construction of parking facilities).
See Andy Bitter's article, which provides the document with the multiple options for the location of the facility. Interestingly, the location you support did score the highest; however, the two categories which put it on top are "stormwater management" and "tree impact". I'm not familiar with the differences between the two sites in stormwater management, but according to the rendering it appears the current plans will result on the destruction of just one tree.
Just some food for thought :)
Or you could simply have 2 full sized outdoor fields and 1 full sized indoor field. Thus 3 full sized fields operational at the same time. Again, this is just solving a problem they created themselves.
It actually is.
If you go N/S there are either 2 short fields and 1 inside full size field or, with doors open, 2 full fields part in and part out.
Go E/W there is one full size field outside and one inside.
So you're telling me we're going to have something like this? (smaller scale though)
Because that would be awesome, just not sure how they would get the grass to grow indoors, I know our game field is on palates and can be moved. Maybe the same idea so grass could grow outside and be put inside? Or just turf outside since you can't be switching between surfaces mid-field, but I know I wouldn't want to practice on turf and play on grass.
Ok, I see that.
It's a good innovation to solve the problem, however it's a problem they themselves created. that's the part I don't like.
I like this argument over others but still disagree. Proximity is better for weather, true. I just don't like to compromise one thing for the benefit another when I design. It's a personal issue I have when designers choose a path that is only about one goal. In this case locating the indoor practice field as closely to the locker room as possible. I think there are many solutions to this problem if you allow for a design process to come up with said solutions. For example, weather and traffic was used as a reason why the Cassel Lot shouldn't be used, however you could design an amazing indoor bridge from the locker rooms to the practice field over the road, and eliminate the weather argument. If designed well that bridge could be an icon gateway to Lane Stadium from the northern intersection (campus side).
I understand why the proximity is ideal but I don't think selecting a location based simply on an evaluation matrix gives you the best solution. Going through a design process does that because you can actually see the solution.
I disagree about your parking comment though. Just because they have open land shouldn't mean that they shouldn't build structured parking. I would rather that land remain open rather than more on grade parking. There is a cost that is not dollar signs when you just pave everything for cars. this is why VT is building the new parking structure.
I should correctly say bad planning at this point. I am blaming the steering committee who was responsible for selecting the options deemed feasible for review. They should have had qualified designers come up with solutions to a problem that could be reviewed based on the master plan conditions and requirements of the indoor facility. Instead a bunch of administrators selected sites and then appraised them on their own.
yes, but 2 100 yard fields are better than 2 short fields that need to be "converted" to be 1 whole field. I like the idea of two fields so why not have 2 full sized fields?
Only knock here, several of the recruiting articles I read stated that top d-lineman were better served to go elsewhere because the lack of d-line coaching hindered progress towards playing in NFL.
But would the ACC even make it into the Top Four conference conversation based on TV ratings? Most "rankings" always have us on the bubble of fourth or fifth best conference. If they set this up, we might be left on the outside looking in.
Even the talks of breaking up Division I are discussing the five major conferences breaking away to form an "elite" Division I ($EC, BIG 10, BIG 12, PAC 12, ACC). If they are going to do a playoff, they probably should just run it the way they run the FCS and Division III playoffs. That said, then a majority of the "bowl games" would be left out and their "non-profit" might have to close up shop. River of tears for that....