FOOTBALL For all the criticisms, JRF is still a good looking stadium
- Thread starter SpaceRaider
- Start date
That is cool. Some great shots. There certainly are worse stadiums and it really wouldn't take much to make it look 1000 times better.
New lighting (which we know is already planned thanks to the great article here) and a bit of brick work around the field wall. That would help tone down the aluminum silver/grey feel.
That new field blue is bright but still way better than the old track going around the field.
Lots of great memories there for sure.
New lighting (which we know is already planned thanks to the great article here) and a bit of brick work around the field wall. That would help tone down the aluminum silver/grey feel.
That new field blue is bright but still way better than the old track going around the field.
Lots of great memories there for sure.
Cool video.
JRF definitely had it's appeal and yeah, with a little TLC, it could look that much better.
The biggest thing that stood out to me there was how bad the Murph (and JRF) need a good power wash..
JRF definitely had it's appeal and yeah, with a little TLC, it could look that much better.
The biggest thing that stood out to me there was how bad the Murph (and JRF) need a good power wash..
Good video. Judging by the crowd, I think that was filmed during the FIU game in 2015.
Had we joined 1-A 10 years later, JRF would look completely different.
Less aluminum, less seats, more asthetics.
I hate that we have a huge "T" on the west side created by the seat color.
Less aluminum, less seats, more asthetics.
I hate that we have a huge "T" on the west side created by the seat color.
The stadium is getting a little age, but it still seems new to me. Seems just like just a few years ago when the stadium was new.
It seems there is some talk about the stadium getting older and looking pretty bad. I don't see it that way. Generally, I'd say MT is fortunate to have such a good on-campus football stadium. Sure there are a few upgrades or updates that could spruce things up. That goes with pretty much everything. The lighting is a much needed improvement that I'm really glad to hear will be addressed in the near future. A few other things around the stadium could use some touch ups as already described by others to help the stadium look good. Updating some of aged elements would help the stadium look pretty good.
The old Murphy Center is what really needs some further updates. All in all, The Murph is a great arena. It does need some improvements, upgrades, and updates to help it look a lot better. Maintaining some of the elements of The Murph that gives it it's own unique, historic, and traditional feel is a great asset to have. As with so much of the needed improvements, it's likely a few years away anyways. One update that comes to mind that I haven't seen addressed is the glass walls. The glass is one of The Murph's unique elements. The 70's brown glass has to go though. A lot of modern buildings with lots of glass exteriors have a green or blue tinged glass that looks sharp and modern. I don't think I would have a hard time picking the modern blue tinged glass to upgrade the glass walls. The Murph would still have the unique glass house aspect while updating to a sharp modern blue glass that would really make The Murph pop. That would be just one of many needed updates and upgrades.
It seems there is some talk about the stadium getting older and looking pretty bad. I don't see it that way. Generally, I'd say MT is fortunate to have such a good on-campus football stadium. Sure there are a few upgrades or updates that could spruce things up. That goes with pretty much everything. The lighting is a much needed improvement that I'm really glad to hear will be addressed in the near future. A few other things around the stadium could use some touch ups as already described by others to help the stadium look good. Updating some of aged elements would help the stadium look pretty good.
The old Murphy Center is what really needs some further updates. All in all, The Murph is a great arena. It does need some improvements, upgrades, and updates to help it look a lot better. Maintaining some of the elements of The Murph that gives it it's own unique, historic, and traditional feel is a great asset to have. As with so much of the needed improvements, it's likely a few years away anyways. One update that comes to mind that I haven't seen addressed is the glass walls. The glass is one of The Murph's unique elements. The 70's brown glass has to go though. A lot of modern buildings with lots of glass exteriors have a green or blue tinged glass that looks sharp and modern. I don't think I would have a hard time picking the modern blue tinged glass to upgrade the glass walls. The Murph would still have the unique glass house aspect while updating to a sharp modern blue glass that would really make The Murph pop. That would be just one of many needed updates and upgrades.
I really don't have that many complaints about JRF. I did like it better in the earlier years before the open air boxes were made because you could walk the entire concourse in a complete circle and watch the game. That is one feature that I enjoy about First Tennessee Park in Nashville. A wide open concourse to get up and walk around if needed.
But to me, JRF still looks clean. Not far from the day it was opened in 1998 which I consider good. When we visited the schools soonafter joining the Sun Belt, I remember thinking that these stadiums looked dirty and needed attention while ours was new and fresh. Troy has a nice stadium that is comparable to our venue. It was a little more polished with the help of Movie Gallery (RIP) but I think they actually took a lot of notes on our design and implementation before building. When I visited their stadium, their seats were closer to the field. MT choose to remove the track but keep most of the space which I think was bad design.
After attending several games at First Tennessee, I think the aspect of Millennial games needs to be considered: Ping Pong, Bean Bag, and other activities. You have a concourse to do this. People go to games to see and be seen. Oh, and get good wifi....
But to me, JRF still looks clean. Not far from the day it was opened in 1998 which I consider good. When we visited the schools soonafter joining the Sun Belt, I remember thinking that these stadiums looked dirty and needed attention while ours was new and fresh. Troy has a nice stadium that is comparable to our venue. It was a little more polished with the help of Movie Gallery (RIP) but I think they actually took a lot of notes on our design and implementation before building. When I visited their stadium, their seats were closer to the field. MT choose to remove the track but keep most of the space which I think was bad design.
After attending several games at First Tennessee, I think the aspect of Millennial games needs to be considered: Ping Pong, Bean Bag, and other activities. You have a concourse to do this. People go to games to see and be seen. Oh, and get good wifi....
Last edited:
Less than a month and we will be there! We have had some good times there, though not as much in recent history. Hope some to come the next two seasons.
I think over time we will improve JRF just like the Murph.
- Updated lighting
- updated HD screen, need much bigger
- adding touches around stadium, more brick
- better wifi
Big investments
- Endzone Facility
- Updated lighting
- updated HD screen, need much bigger
- adding touches around stadium, more brick
- better wifi
Big investments
- Endzone Facility
It's too big. We need to chop off about 6k seats.
18k fans in a 31k stadium looks awful, and has no chance of creating the perception of demand. People spread out and the steel bleachers look awful.
18k in a more compact stadium with upgraded seating would be much better.
When UTK has empty seats, you know that the game has changed. Stop chasing bodies and offer a better experience.
18k fans in a 31k stadium looks awful, and has no chance of creating the perception of demand. People spread out and the steel bleachers look awful.
18k in a more compact stadium with upgraded seating would be much better.
When UTK has empty seats, you know that the game has changed. Stop chasing bodies and offer a better experience.
I know this is a philosophical difference that not all of us agree upon, but it's a worthy discussion nonetheless.
I'm generally against shrinking or removing facilities especially capacity. That's not say that sometimes some minor adjustments might be appropriate even if it is a slight reduction. Sometimes, it's admittedly more obvious if a facility is rotten, old, and falling apart. That being said, here are a few of my views on this somewhat important matter.
Floyd Stadium: Is MT still paying off the stadium that MT paid the millions to get over 30,000 capacity in the first place? Knocking down seating and reducing capacity is counterintuitive and counterproductive if MT is still paying for that stadium to be a reasonably decent size. The tarps added last season are about the most severe adjustment of seating that I'd like to see as they are easily removed if the space is needed.
I find it concerning to reduce the facility due to lack of attendance. I think the message is clear, "we give up." "We quit." We're not getting the sellout crowds. So instead of fixing and improving the problems and weaknesses, the answer becomes we'll just settle for the mediocre crowds. Reducing the facility will just normalize the mediocrity. Instead, MT and community should fight and work together to improve the product to create buzz and atmosphere to draw interest and attendance.
A major factor. When in a bureaucratic system, getting much of anything built or done is rare, takes much hard work and commitment, and it takes an incredibly long time to actually get it built or done. So when you finally have said facility, tearing parts of it down or generally reducing said facility is a terribly risky proposition. Once you reduce or take down parts of or sections of the facility, it will be next to impossible to ever get it back through the bureaucracy. And if you ever do get it back, it will likely be decades if not a generation or two before you get it back.
When a program such as MT which already battles identity, branding, image, and perception problems of MT being a JUCO, a branch of TSU, or just an overall small school, good and sizable facilities are a key factor in helping to influence and change those misinformed and uninformed perceptions. An example of this comes to mind.
When MT went up to play at VCU in bball recently. The VCU fans are unhappy and confused etc as to why VCU was not more highly favored in playing this unknown "small" school. They were wondering why their "superior" program was gearing up for a war at home vs MT instead of their typical home game whoopings of ooc opponents. One of the many things the VCU coach presented in his press conference before the MT game in addition to MT's recent much success was MT knocking off Vandy at home in front of 9500 fans in an early season game. I know, sure it should have been 11,500 fans in attendance, but it was still progress. The point being that VCU as a highly rated team and program on national stage has a 8000-8500 max attendance facility which is pretty new. The message was clear, not only was MT bball recently highly successful, MT could bring in more fans and has a larger bball facility than their own highly regarded and nationally recognized program. It was a powerful message that had an ability to shake up theirs and others' perceptions about MT athletics.
Again, pardon my lengthy post here. It just seemed like a good time to share some of these opinions since MT appears to be close to making changes to facilities in both football and basketball. To clarify, I wouldn't have a problem if MT had to make minor adjustments or reductions in capacity in order to make overall improvements and upgrades to improve the overall quality of the football and basketball facilities. Minor or small reductions being the key phrase.
I'm generally against shrinking or removing facilities especially capacity. That's not say that sometimes some minor adjustments might be appropriate even if it is a slight reduction. Sometimes, it's admittedly more obvious if a facility is rotten, old, and falling apart. That being said, here are a few of my views on this somewhat important matter.
Floyd Stadium: Is MT still paying off the stadium that MT paid the millions to get over 30,000 capacity in the first place? Knocking down seating and reducing capacity is counterintuitive and counterproductive if MT is still paying for that stadium to be a reasonably decent size. The tarps added last season are about the most severe adjustment of seating that I'd like to see as they are easily removed if the space is needed.
I find it concerning to reduce the facility due to lack of attendance. I think the message is clear, "we give up." "We quit." We're not getting the sellout crowds. So instead of fixing and improving the problems and weaknesses, the answer becomes we'll just settle for the mediocre crowds. Reducing the facility will just normalize the mediocrity. Instead, MT and community should fight and work together to improve the product to create buzz and atmosphere to draw interest and attendance.
A major factor. When in a bureaucratic system, getting much of anything built or done is rare, takes much hard work and commitment, and it takes an incredibly long time to actually get it built or done. So when you finally have said facility, tearing parts of it down or generally reducing said facility is a terribly risky proposition. Once you reduce or take down parts of or sections of the facility, it will be next to impossible to ever get it back through the bureaucracy. And if you ever do get it back, it will likely be decades if not a generation or two before you get it back.
When a program such as MT which already battles identity, branding, image, and perception problems of MT being a JUCO, a branch of TSU, or just an overall small school, good and sizable facilities are a key factor in helping to influence and change those misinformed and uninformed perceptions. An example of this comes to mind.
When MT went up to play at VCU in bball recently. The VCU fans are unhappy and confused etc as to why VCU was not more highly favored in playing this unknown "small" school. They were wondering why their "superior" program was gearing up for a war at home vs MT instead of their typical home game whoopings of ooc opponents. One of the many things the VCU coach presented in his press conference before the MT game in addition to MT's recent much success was MT knocking off Vandy at home in front of 9500 fans in an early season game. I know, sure it should have been 11,500 fans in attendance, but it was still progress. The point being that VCU as a highly rated team and program on national stage has a 8000-8500 max attendance facility which is pretty new. The message was clear, not only was MT bball recently highly successful, MT could bring in more fans and has a larger bball facility than their own highly regarded and nationally recognized program. It was a powerful message that had an ability to shake up theirs and others' perceptions about MT athletics.
Again, pardon my lengthy post here. It just seemed like a good time to share some of these opinions since MT appears to be close to making changes to facilities in both football and basketball. To clarify, I wouldn't have a problem if MT had to make minor adjustments or reductions in capacity in order to make overall improvements and upgrades to improve the overall quality of the football and basketball facilities. Minor or small reductions being the key phrase.
Yes, MT is still paying off Floyd Stadium. I got the impression during the sit-down with Massaro that MT is CLOSE to paying it off (impression could be wrong). Nevertheless, they did explicitly say that MT is still paying down debt on the renovated stadium from 1998.
Floyd was built to 30,000+ to meet the then-FBS requirement, a requirement that is no longer in the books. 30,000 has only been topped once (GaTech) and there's only a handful of times it's been close in the nearly 20 years the stadium has been open. Downsizing isn't bad, so long as you end up with a better facility (football ops facility in end zone, an expanded student success center and luxury boxes in the other end zone)
Reducing the stadium to fit the market demand (say 24,000-25,000) would create a more intimate atmosphere, bring fans closer together, and create an environment worth attending.
It's nice to have 11,500 fans in Murphy Center, but I'd sacrifice it for revenue generating suites/luxury boxes and a smaller arena. Not because I'm throwing up the towel on consistently selling out Murphy, but the revenue generated by a suite outweighs the revenue generated by a standard seat. Plus, it creates a more intimate, packed environment that can help to improve the experience
The current video board still seems new to me, glad they kept a revised version of the dancing football lol. If they reduced capacity would it reduce the chances of moving up to the AAC? I know that might be somewhat of a longshot anyways but conference upgrading does need to be considered in these types of decisions.
The attendance game has changed. It used to be about fitting as many people into the stadium as possible. It's not going back to that. It never will.
When UTk is shrinking Neyland, you know things are different.
We're not giving up on reaching that goal - it's that the goal has changed. We need to sell better experiences, better seats, a better gameday.
If you have a 31k stadium, and 25k people want to buy tickets - you sell them tickets. At 15 bucks a pop. There's still no real demand, you have 6k seats empty.
If you have a 24k stadium, and you have 25k people who want in - you've created demand. You can also raise prices.
Suppose we were building a new stadium right now, would we build it to 31k? Of course not. That's all you need to know about whether it's a good call to remove some seats.
When UTk is shrinking Neyland, you know things are different.
We're not giving up on reaching that goal - it's that the goal has changed. We need to sell better experiences, better seats, a better gameday.
If you have a 31k stadium, and 25k people want to buy tickets - you sell them tickets. At 15 bucks a pop. There's still no real demand, you have 6k seats empty.
If you have a 24k stadium, and you have 25k people who want in - you've created demand. You can also raise prices.
Suppose we were building a new stadium right now, would we build it to 31k? Of course not. That's all you need to know about whether it's a good call to remove some seats.
