Roos Field Renovation

[EWURanger]

I'll echo the frustration in the Alums not having any voice in any of this. It's hard to believe that the success or failure of something like this lies in the hands of some faceless panel at the University.

I think there's a little more to it than that. My guess is the reason it's still in governance is they are deliberating on how much needs to be raised to get shovels in the the ground. I.E., how much is acceptable to pay with bonds. There's probably some sort of risk involved and they're trying to figure out who is responsible for the bill if the completed project doesn't generate enough revenue initially. Total conjecture on my part. I agree, though, it would be nice for the Alumni base to be able to weigh in some on this. Unless some more big donors front the money to get things rolling, my guess is that BOT can't/won't give the go-ahead. The fact that they completed the pre-design and design phases is probably a good thing, though.

Ultimately I think this gets built, but it may not be as fast as we all want it to. The original proposed timeline was for either 2015 or 2016. If that held true, I think it'd be a huge win. I'll bet it enough Alums voiced their opinions on this (as well as their wallets) with the right people, it'd help to get things moving a little quicker. :twocents:

 

[Iron Eagle]

I'll echo the frustration in the Alums not having any voice in any of this. It's hard to believe that the success or failure of something like this lies in the hands of some faceless panel at the University.

I think there's a little more to it than that. My guess is the reason it's still in governance is they are deliberating on how much needs to be raised to get shovels in the the ground. I.E., how much is acceptable to pay with bonds. There's probably some sort of risk involved and they're trying to figure out who is responsible for the bill if the completed project doesn't generate enough revenue initially. Total conjecture on my part. I agree, though, it would be nice for the Alumni base to be able to weigh in some on this. Unless some more big donors front the money to get things rolling, my guess is that BOT can't/won't give the go-ahead. The fact that they completed the pre-design and design phases is probably a good thing, though.

Ultimately I think this gets built, but it may not be as fast as we all want it to. The original proposed timeline was for either 2015 or 2016. If that held true, I think it'd be a huge win. I'll bet it enough Alums voiced their opinions on this (as well as their wallets) with the right people, it'd help to get things moving a little quicker. :twocents:

Ok, so what is the actual dollar amount that is going to be required for the go-ahead?

 

[LDopaPDX]

I think the Board of Trustees element must mean they are seeking public funding for the project. If not, why bother waiting around for bureaucrats to make decisions about the go-ahead? I mean, if all the funding is private, then it's a no-brainer.

I know some people who have been contacted and some others who are working on some fundraising. There was hope that one big donor would jump on, and I don't know if that has happened yet. I'm pretty sure I know who the "big donor" is, as I believe I sat next to him on a flight from PDX to GEG once.

Ultimately, I totally agree that the scale of this should be compromised down to something that can happen without full funding as getting something done outweighs potentially having this thing drag out indefinitely.

 

[EWURanger]

I'll echo the frustration in the Alums not having any voice in any of this. It's hard to believe that the success or failure of something like this lies in the hands of some faceless panel at the University.

I think there's a little more to it than that. My guess is the reason it's still in governance is they are deliberating on how much needs to be raised to get shovels in the the ground. I.E., how much is acceptable to pay with bonds. There's probably some sort of risk involved and they're trying to figure out who is responsible for the bill if the completed project doesn't generate enough revenue initially. Total conjecture on my part. I agree, though, it would be nice for the Alumni base to be able to weigh in some on this. Unless some more big donors front the money to get things rolling, my guess is that BOT can't/won't give the go-ahead. The fact that they completed the pre-design and design phases is probably a good thing, though.

Ultimately I think this gets built, but it may not be as fast as we all want it to. The original proposed timeline was for either 2015 or 2016. If that held true, I think it'd be a huge win. I'll bet it enough Alums voiced their opinions on this (as well as their wallets) with the right people, it'd help to get things moving a little quicker. :twocents:

Ok, so what is the actual dollar amount that is going to be required for the go-ahead?

My guess is the reason it's still in governance is they are deliberating on how much needs to be raised to get shovels in the the ground.

Oh boy...did you even read what I wrote? :facepalm: :wall:

I don't know.

 

[EWURanger]

I think the Board of Trustees element must mean they are seeking public funding for the project. If not, why bother waiting around for bureaucrats to make decisions about the go-ahead? I mean, if all the funding is private, then it's a no-brainer.

I know some people who have been contacted and some others who are working on some fundraising. There was hope that one big donor would jump on, and I don't know if that has happened yet. I'm pretty sure I know who the "big donor" is, as I believe I sat next to him on a flight from PDX to GEG once.

Ultimately, I totally agree that the scale of this should be compromised down to something that can happen without full funding as getting something done outweighs potentially having this thing drag out indefinitely.

I doubt it. Zero percent chance that any public funding would be used, IMO. I don't think it matters if it's privately or publicly funded, it all has to go through the bureaucratic process. If they are talking about using bonds to absorb some portion of the cost, my guess is that's why. There is some sort of element of risk involved.

I heard one of the other initiatives is building onto the PUB, or building a new student union building. Why don't they make the new student union building part of the Gateway? That way they could at least eat some portion of the total bill with public funding.

 

[LDopaPDX]

I think the Board of Trustees element must mean they are seeking public funding for the project. If not, why bother waiting around for bureaucrats to make decisions about the go-ahead? I mean, if all the funding is private, then it's a no-brainer.

I know some people who have been contacted and some others who are working on some fundraising. There was hope that one big donor would jump on, and I don't know if that has happened yet. I'm pretty sure I know who the "big donor" is, as I believe I sat next to him on a flight from PDX to GEG once.

Ultimately, I totally agree that the scale of this should be compromised down to something that can happen without full funding as getting something done outweighs potentially having this thing drag out indefinitely.

I doubt it. Zero percent chance that any public funding would be used, IMO. I don't think it matters if it's privately or publicly funded, it all has to go through the bureaucratic process. If they are talking about using bonds to absorb some portion of the cost, my guess is that's why. There is some sort of element of risk involved.

I heard one of the other initiatives is building onto the PUB, or building a new student union building. Why don't they make the new student union building part of the Gateway? That way they could at least eat some portion of the total bill with public funding.

One of the earlier versions of a Woodward expansion from the late 90s involved a good bit of APPROVED public funding. Eastern was using the building housing the stadium grandstand for childcare. However, it got backburnered for a few other projects.

 

[Iron Eagle]

I'll echo the frustration in the Alums not having any voice in any of this. It's hard to believe that the success or failure of something like this lies in the hands of some faceless panel at the University.

I think there's a little more to it than that. My guess is the reason it's still in governance is they are deliberating on how much needs to be raised to get shovels in the the ground. I.E., how much is acceptable to pay with bonds. There's probably some sort of risk involved and they're trying to figure out who is responsible for the bill if the completed project doesn't generate enough revenue initially. Total conjecture on my part. I agree, though, it would be nice for the Alumni base to be able to weigh in some on this. Unless some more big donors front the money to get things rolling, my guess is that BOT can't/won't give the go-ahead. The fact that they completed the pre-design and design phases is probably a good thing, though.

Ultimately I think this gets built, but it may not be as fast as we all want it to. The original proposed timeline was for either 2015 or 2016. If that held true, I think it'd be a huge win. I'll bet it enough Alums voiced their opinions on this (as well as their wallets) with the right people, it'd help to get things moving a little quicker. :twocents:

Ok, so what is the actual dollar amount that is going to be required for the go-ahead?

My guess is the reason it's still in governance is they are deliberating on how much needs to be raised to get shovels in the the ground.

Oh boy...did you even read what I wrote? :facepalm: :wall:

I don't know.

Exactly, and that was my original point so thanks for proving it. Nobody seems to know anything right now. Why disenfranchise Alumni by not bringing them in on the conversation?

 

[flyingnail]

I'll echo the frustration in the Alums not having any voice in any of this. It's hard to believe that the success or failure of something like this lies in the hands of some faceless panel at the University.

I think there's a little more to it than that. My guess is the reason it's still in governance is they are deliberating on how much needs to be raised to get shovels in the the ground. I.E., how much is acceptable to pay with bonds. There's probably some sort of risk involved and they're trying to figure out who is responsible for the bill if the completed project doesn't generate enough revenue initially. Total conjecture on my part. I agree, though, it would be nice for the Alumni base to be able to weigh in some on this. Unless some more big donors front the money to get things rolling, my guess is that BOT can't/won't give the go-ahead. The fact that they completed the pre-design and design phases is probably a good thing, though.

Ultimately I think this gets built, but it may not be as fast as we all want it to. The original proposed timeline was for either 2015 or 2016. If that held true, I think it'd be a huge win. I'll bet it enough Alums voiced their opinions on this (as well as their wallets) with the right people, it'd help to get things moving a little quicker. :twocents:

Ok, so what is the actual dollar amount that is going to be required for the go-ahead?

My guess is the reason it's still in governance is they are deliberating on how much needs to be raised to get shovels in the the ground.

Oh boy...did you even read what I wrote? :facepalm: :wall:

I don't know.

Exactly, and that was my original point so thanks for proving it. Nobody seems to know anything right now. Why disenfranchise Alumni by not bringing them in on the conversation?

These are the reasons Baldwin will jump ship, If there is no replacement mentioned for BSU soon, it will be because of the FCS playoffs and respecting EWU and Coach Baldwin. The longer it goes on with no replacement for Peterson, the more likely Baldwin is envolved ! The Gateway project is a pipe dream and we all need to see that this is not happening ANYTIME soon ! GOEAGS

 

[DefendtheRed]

I'll echo the frustration in the Alums not having any voice in any of this. It's hard to believe that the success or failure of something like this lies in the hands of some faceless panel at the University.

I think there's a little more to it than that. My guess is the reason it's still in governance is they are deliberating on how much needs to be raised to get shovels in the the ground. I.E., how much is acceptable to pay with bonds. There's probably some sort of risk involved and they're trying to figure out who is responsible for the bill if the completed project doesn't generate enough revenue initially. Total conjecture on my part. I agree, though, it would be nice for the Alumni base to be able to weigh in some on this. Unless some more big donors front the money to get things rolling, my guess is that BOT can't/won't give the go-ahead. The fact that they completed the pre-design and design phases is probably a good thing, though.

Ultimately I think this gets built, but it may not be as fast as we all want it to. The original proposed timeline was for either 2015 or 2016. If that held true, I think it'd be a huge win. I'll bet it enough Alums voiced their opinions on this (as well as their wallets) with the right people, it'd help to get things moving a little quicker. :twocents:

Ok, so what is the actual dollar amount that is going to be required for the go-ahead?

My guess is the reason it's still in governance is they are deliberating on how much needs to be raised to get shovels in the the ground.

Oh boy...did you even read what I wrote? :facepalm: :wall:

I don't know.

Exactly, and that was my original point so thanks for proving it. Nobody seems to know anything right now. Why disenfranchise Alumni by not bringing them in on the conversation?

These are the reasons Baldwin will jump ship, If there is no replacement mentioned for BSU soon, it will be because of the FCS playoffs and respecting EWU and Coach Baldwin. The longer it goes on with no replacement for Peterson, the more likely Baldwin is envolved ! The Gateway project is a pipe dream and we all need to see that this is not happening ANYTIME soon ! GOEAGS

Please quantify this statement. Do you have information which proves that they're not proceeding with the project? Didn't think so.

 

[eaglesfootball]

oh look, chicken little is back to piss in everyones cheerios.

 

[flyingnail]

oh look, chicken little is back to piss in everyones cheerios.

Thought former Eagles had some insight for the future of Eagle Football ! Been hearing this expansion BS for 10 yrs !!! Not today, not tomorrow more than likely not ever !!! Trying to get something done in the state of Washington even if you funded it yourself is not gonna happen ! PERIOD !!! Eagle football is and always will be the best the FCS can offer however thinking this Gateway project is gonna happen in our lifetime is plain ignorant !!!! Period !!!!

 

[EWU98]

oh look, chicken little is back to piss in everyones cheerios.

Thought former Eagles had some insight for the future of Eagle Football ! Been hearing this expansion BS for 10 yrs !!! Not today, not tomorrow more than likely not ever !!! Trying to get something done in the state of Washington even if you funded it yourself is not gonna happen ! PERIOD !!! Eagle football is and always will be the best the FCS can offer however thinking this Gateway project is gonna happen in our lifetime is plain ignorant !!!! Period !!!!

:wtf: :wtf: :willybs: :willybs: :willybs: :bad: :bad: :bad: :question:

Keep the faith MAN! I BELIEVE!

 

[flyingnail]

oh look, chicken little is back to piss in everyones cheerios.

Thought former Eagles had some insight for the future of Eagle Football ! Been hearing this expansion BS for 10 yrs !!! Not today, not tomorrow more than likely not ever !!! Trying to get something done in the state of Washington even if you funded it yourself is not gonna happen ! PERIOD !!! Eagle football is and always will be the best the FCS can offer however thinking this Gateway project is gonna happen in our lifetime is plain ignorant !!!! Period !!!!

:wtf: :wtf: :willybs: :willybs: :willybs: :bad: :bad: :bad: :question:

Keep the faith MAN! I BELIEVE!

Still have faith brother !

 

[BLACKFALKIN1]

oh look, chicken little is back to piss in everyones cheerios.

Thought former Eagles had some insight for the future of Eagle Football ! Been hearing this expansion BS for 10 yrs !!! Not today, not tomorrow more than likely not ever !!! Trying to get something done in the state of Washington even if you funded it yourself is not gonna happen ! PERIOD !!! Eagle football is and always will be the best the FCS can offer however thinking this Gateway project is gonna happen in our lifetime is plain ignorant !!!! Period !!!!

I agree, for some reason EWU loves that track and loves the eastside as is.. Bc theres no concrete reason to actually expand the eastside.. (old scoreboard, rainy/muddy field) . its not a priority to the school and therefor wont happen for at least 5 to 10 more years. I think there are people who are fighting behind the scenes but only a football mind will understand the reason for the expansion. EWU has soooooo much potential, but the people in charge feel like the facilities are fine as is. Someone should dismantle the eastside randomly one night, that's the best bet for an expanded eastside. :twocents:

 

[flyingnail]

oh look, chicken little is back to piss in everyones cheerios.

Thought former Eagles had some insight for the future of Eagle Football ! Been hearing this expansion BS for 10 yrs !!! Not today, not tomorrow more than likely not ever !!! Trying to get something done in the state of Washington even if you funded it yourself is not gonna happen ! PERIOD !!! Eagle football is and always will be the best the FCS can offer however thinking this Gateway project is gonna happen in our lifetime is plain ignorant !!!! Period !!!!

I agree, for some reason EWU loves that track and loves the eastside as is.. Bc theres no concrete reason to actually expand the eastside.. (old scoreboard, rainy/muddy field) . its not a priority to the school and therefor wont happen for at least 5 to 10 more years. I think there are people who are fighting behind the scenes but only a football mind will understand the reason for the expansion. EWU has soooooo much potential, but the people in charge feel like the facilities are fine as is. Someone should dismantle the eastside randomly one night, that's the best bet for an expanded eastside. :twocents:

Keep the Faith BLKFLK !

 

[EWU98]

CRAP Nothing new in that interview....Governance Phase?????
Show me the bling!

 

[clawman1]

oh look, chicken little is back to piss in everyones cheerios.

Thought former Eagles had some insight for the future of Eagle Football ! Been hearing this expansion BS for 10 yrs !!! Not today, not tomorrow more than likely not ever !!! Trying to get something done in the state of Washington even if you funded it yourself is not gonna happen ! PERIOD !!! Eagle football is and always will be the best the FCS can offer however thinking this Gateway project is gonna happen in our lifetime is plain ignorant !!!! Period !!!!

I agree, for some reason EWU loves that track and loves the eastside as is.. Bc theres no concrete reason to actually expand the eastside.. (old scoreboard, rainy/muddy field) . its not a priority to the school and therefor wont happen for at least 5 to 10 more years. I think there are people who are fighting behind the scenes but only a football mind will understand the reason for the expansion. EWU has soooooo much potential, but the people in charge feel like the facilities are fine as is. Someone should dismantle the eastside randomly one night, that's the best bet for an expanded eastside. :twocents:

blackfalcon;
The one thing we have in common is neither of us know what the hell we are talking about. With that said I disagree with your opinion that the Gateway is a decade away, from what I've heard from reliable sources, it is actively in the works and has support of some very influential people.
Believe

 

[BLACKFALKIN1]

oh look, chicken little is back to piss in everyones cheerios.

Thought former Eagles had some insight for the future of Eagle Football ! Been hearing this expansion BS for 10 yrs !!! Not today, not tomorrow more than likely not ever !!! Trying to get something done in the state of Washington even if you funded it yourself is not gonna happen ! PERIOD !!! Eagle football is and always will be the best the FCS can offer however thinking this Gateway project is gonna happen in our lifetime is plain ignorant !!!! Period !!!!

I agree, for some reason EWU loves that track and loves the eastside as is.. Bc theres no concrete reason to actually expand the eastside.. (old scoreboard, rainy/muddy field) . its not a priority to the school and therefor wont happen for at least 5 to 10 more years. I think there are people who are fighting behind the scenes but only a football mind will understand the reason for the expansion. EWU has soooooo much potential, but the people in charge feel like the facilities are fine as is. Someone should dismantle the eastside randomly one night, that's the best bet for an expanded eastside. :twocents:

blackfalcon;
The one thing we have in common is neither of us know what the hell we are talking about. With that said I disagree with your opinion that the Gateway is a decade away, from what I've heard from reliable sources, it is actively in the works and has support of some very influential people.
Believe

Me n you have nothing in common. You're talking about what u HEARD, I'm talking about what I know from my experience in the program and as a student. I'm not saying you have no insight, Ijs there are a lot of faculty, even in the athletic department who think Roos field is fine the way it is. Problem is, they aren't on the road with the team. 50k+ OSU, 20k+ Toledo, 14k+ SHSU, 25k+ UM etc. When all you see is Roos field everyday you see all the progress from 2003 and before, which is excellent, however, Eastern needs/deserves a better venue. For recruits, fans, retaining/attracting coaches, & television purposes! (Roos Field does NOT look good on TV. The red turf looks cool, but that parking lot and dressler in the background?! hno: )

Note. Capacity and attendance are two different things. I'm not talking about attendance.

Montana's wgs is tops in FCS.
MSU is in direct competion with wgs and that's how it shd be. Their stadium reflects that.
NAU's renovations look excellent. That place was VERY loud with about 4k fans.
Jen Weld is a top facility, imagine if psu filled it.
Idaho state needs a cosmetic renovation is their dome but it's still a great venue.
Weber state has excellent facilities. If they didn't have the track their stadium wd be top 3/4 IMO.
Sac state is similar to wsu. Without the track they'd have something.
Uc Davis just built a new stadium. Small but expandable and balanced.
Cal poly expanded their smaller side and it gives the stadium a cozy feel. similar to Roos just w/o the track.

Roos is a good venue but the track is the main downside and the eastside is functional but an eyesore and also makes the stadium look unbalanced. Plus the locker room is a MILE away. I'm sure EWU fans would be fine with a concrete grand stand instead of what's there. That alone would get rid of the " highschool stadium" stigma and feel.

EWU really needs the gateway project. But if you look the bobcat stadium expansion plans, and Washington griz stadium, EWU is gonna get left in the dust if something isn't built. I think it comes down to what's "good enough "for FCS level for those in charge.

 

[clawman1]

oh look, chicken little is back to piss in everyones cheerios.

Thought former Eagles had some insight for the future of Eagle Football ! Been hearing this expansion BS for 10 yrs !!! Not today, not tomorrow more than likely not ever !!! Trying to get something done in the state of Washington even if you funded it yourself is not gonna happen ! PERIOD !!! Eagle football is and always will be the best the FCS can offer however thinking this Gateway project is gonna happen in our lifetime is plain ignorant !!!! Period !!!!

I agree, for some reason EWU loves that track and loves the eastside as is.. Bc theres no concrete reason to actually expand the eastside.. (old scoreboard, rainy/muddy field) . its not a priority to the school and therefor wont happen for at least 5 to 10 more years. I think there are people who are fighting behind the scenes but only a football mind will understand the reason for the expansion. EWU has soooooo much potential, but the people in charge feel like the facilities are fine as is. Someone should dismantle the eastside randomly one night, that's the best bet for an expanded eastside. :twocents:

blackfalcon;
The one thing we have in common is neither of us know what the hell we are talking about. With that said I disagree with your opinion that the Gateway is a decade away, from what I've heard from reliable sources, it is actively in the works and has support of some very influential people.
Believe

Me n you have nothing in common. You're talking about what u HEARD, I'm talking about what I know from my experience in the program and as a student. I'm not saying you have no insight, Ijs there are a lot of faculty, even in the athletic department who think Roos field is fine the way it is. Problem is, they aren't on the road with the team. 50k+ OSU, 20k+ Toledo, 14k+ SHSU, 25k+ UM etc. When all you see is Roos field everyday you see all the progress from 2003 and before, which is excellent, however, Eastern needs/deserves a better venue. For recruits, fans, retaining/attracting coaches, & television purposes! (Roos Field does NOT look good on TV. The red turf looks cool, but that parking lot and dressler in the background?! hno: )

Note. Capacity and attendance are two different things. I'm not talking about attendance.

Montana's wgs is tops in FCS.
MSU is in direct competion with wgs and that's how it shd be. Their stadium reflects that.
NAU's renovations look excellent. That place was VERY loud with about 4k fans.
Jen Weld is a top facility, imagine if psu filled it.
Idaho state needs a cosmetic renovation is their dome but it's still a great venue.
Weber state has excellent facilities. If they didn't have the track their stadium wd be top 3/4 IMO.
Sac state is similar to wsu. Without the track they'd have something.
Uc Davis just built a new stadium. Small but expandable and balanced.
Cal poly expanded their smaller side and it gives the stadium a cozy feel. similar to Roos just w/o the track.

Roos is a good venue but the track is the main downside and the eastside is functional but an eyesore and also makes the stadium look unbalanced. Plus the locker room is a MILE away. I'm sure EWU fans would be fine with a concrete grand stand instead of what's there. That alone would get rid of the " highschool stadium" stigma and feel.

EWU really needs the gateway project. But if you look the bobcat stadium expansion plans, and Washington griz stadium, EWU is gonna get left in the dust if something isn't built. I think it comes down to what's "good enough "for FCS level for those in charge.

Hey man, you're singing to the choir. I refer to Roos as a high school stadium and the University needs to move forward or they are moving back. Having traveled extensively following the Eagles and other reasons I know we are slipping behind what is typical of our pier University and athletic programs.
My point in response to your earlier post is neither of us KNOW but the info I've been given is we are a lot closer than 10 years away.

 

[LDopaPDX]

Jen Weld is a top facility, imagine if psu filled it.
Idaho state needs a cosmetic renovation is their dome but it's still a great venue.
Weber state has excellent facilities. If they didn't have the track their stadium wd be top 3/4 IMO.
Sac state is similar to wsu. Without the track they'd have something.

First off, I agree with the premise that Eastern needs to do something. That's why I totally support the Gateway project, even if it means scaling it back substantially, or just developing in phases. I'd love to see the track yanked and the field reset and 5,000 permanent seats added to the East side. Once that's done, if the remainder of the project takes 6-8 years to finish, so be it. But I really want something done NOW.

Frankly, with the project design as-is, I see no reason that public funds shouldn't be used. The East grandstands are actually a multi-purpose building that would have many uses besides just a football stadium. When Dick Zornes originally got the Woodward expansion approved (that the U Pres later killed), it had public funds attached because it included a childcare facility and class rooms.

Hey, if Eastern can build a MOTHERFUCKING HOCKEY ARENA for $22 MILLION despite the fact WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A HOCKEY TEAM (!!!!!!!!!), this should be a no-brainer. (BTW, I'd totally support Eastern dropping a men's sport in favor of starting a hockey program; we'd be a power player in no time given the fertile recruiting grounds to the North... that would be a huge advantage over the rest of the American programs.)

Now on to the quotes I left above:

JELD-WEN is a top facility. Portland State's agreement is being challenged by the very popular Portland Timbers soccer club because they don't like the Vikings getting Saturday dates reserved at the end of soccer season. There is some talk of paying PSU to move back to Hillsboro Stadium. Since PSU is in terrible financial arrears, I could see PSU doing it. Plus, as everyone who has been to a Portland State / Eastern game in Portland knows, the Vikings have no fans. Eastern outdraws them 3-1 in Portland. It's sad, honestly.

Idaho State needs more than cosmetics. They are basically living in the old Houston Astrodome at this point. Fact is, stadiums are cheaper and easier to remodel than domes. The MiniDome (as it was) was the first dome in the area, and that style was replicated by the Kibbie Dome. Think Kibbie sucks balls? Holt Arena is much, much worse.

Weber State has marginal facilities. The best thing they can say is that they have "FCS level appropriate" facilities. The size of their venue is right. Beyond that, it's nothing special at all. Worse yet, they struggle to fill it even when they are halfway decent.

Lastly, Sac State is again "FCS level appropriate" in terms of size, but beyond that sucks. It is all erector-set style bleachers. Imagine or current East side seats holding 20,000. That's what Sac State is like.