Read the article, it looks like they’re issuing bonds to pay for it, it’ll cost about 60 million.

Any reason why we also can’t utilize bonds to finalize capital improvements with our stadiums?

60 million for that? I’m in the wrong business.

Bullnamed_gus wrote: ↑

April 4th, 2024, 9:47 pm

Read the article, it looks like they’re issuing bonds to pay for it, it’ll cost about 60 million.

Any reason why we also can’t utilize bonds to finalize capital improvements with our stadiums?

Probably because we’re still paying on $53 million in bonds for the stadium, Estes Center, and other upgrades. I think in a few years new bonds could be issued.

Honestly, they need to take it down and start over.

Blue Sage wrote: ↑

April 4th, 2024, 10:19 pm

Honestly, they need to take it down and start over.

Couldn’t more, it’s a dump, with terrible architecture.

$60 million and they still won't dump the stupid turf.

How far away are those west side seats? Or do they have have GA mosh pit section down there? haha

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑

April 4th, 2024, 10:39 pm

$60 million and they still won't dump the stupid turf.

Their line of sight doesn't appear to be much improved. The advantage for Utah State is we have, from the beginning, a fairly decent layout to begin with, so seat expansion isn't a brutal financial reconstruction project. Someone here posted they should tear it all down and start over...and with the money they seem to have at hand, that's not a terrible idea.

And the smurf turf.... BUSH LEAGUE in it's purest form. An indictment of their potential national profile and a counter to the upgrades they are so proud of and need so dearly. Thx 3rdGen, good comment.

The view of the stadium from the outside is a cluster of structures scabbed onto each other. It looks like crap, just like the blue turf.

CaptainChaos wrote: ↑

April 5th, 2024, 2:06 pm

How far away are those west side seats? Or do they have have GA mosh pit section down there? haha

Honestly the sight lines are the worst part of their stadium and they're doing nothing to fix them. If you're down low you're so far from the field that the view sucks and if you go higher to be able to see you're even further away.

I agree their blue field is ridiculous and looks terrible. However, it has become such a huge part of their identity they will never dump it. It’s one of the major things they are known for.

Foolonthehill wrote: ↑

April 6th, 2024, 9:28 am

I agree their blue field is ridiculous and looks terrible. However, it has become such a huge part of their identity they will never dump it. It’s one of the major things they are known for.

Typhoid Mary had the same problem.

USU78 wrote: ↑

April 6th, 2024, 10:36 am

Foolonthehill wrote: ↑

April 6th, 2024, 9:28 am

I agree their blue field is ridiculous and looks terrible. However, it has become such a huge part of their identity they will never dump it. It’s one of the major things they are known for.

Typhoid Mary had the same problem.

The Broncos are proud of the very publicly embraced blue turf, which is perhaps as natural as grey on meat or black on cheese. Their fans and boosters must be ignorantly proud of that bush league stigma as it just continues to exist like roaches in the kitchen. Also note that Mary was in denial about being a carrier.

Notice that the other half-dozen or so college programs that also have non-traditional colored fields are the very definition of "bush-league" institutions.

No other FBS schools. These are small-time schools with zero sense of tradition, class, or human dignity.

No academic accomplishments or achievement or reputation to be concerned with.

It is juco's and fcs institutions that focus on their football program, and also happen to offer some classes.

Oh wait. That description fits BSU perfectly too.

BSU is the perfect institution for those that are dumb enough to give them their money and assume it is a worthwhile investment.

Blue field is why Boise will never be accepted into college football’s inner circle.

Blue Sage wrote: ↑

April 11th, 2024, 9:30 pm

Blue field is why Boise will never be accepted into college football’s inner circle.

Also Idaho, TV market, academics… but also the blue field.

Based on Endowment Size, Academic Standing, even TV Market Size (the stuff that really matters to University President's, Chancellors, and the like), Utah State is ranked much higher than BSU on the so-called Power Conference's radar than most BSU fans understand.

Especially the Presidents, Chancellors, and Vice President's at Power Conference Schools and Power Conference offices.

These kinds of things do not matter to everyone, but they do matter to that group of decision makers.

Also, who really thinks that the same PAC that voted WSU and OSU off the island, would for 1 second give a school like BSU ANY consideration?

It's not happening...

$60 Million more thrown at the stadium or not.

AngusAg wrote: ↑

April 6th, 2024, 9:41 am

Foolonthehill wrote: ↑

April 6th, 2024, 9:28 am

I agree their blue field is ridiculous and looks terrible. However, it has become such a huge part of their identity they will never dump it. It’s one of the major things they are known for.

Kinda like their trucker U designation. They complement each other, don't ya think.

I'd suggest their well earned Trucker U designation and the smurf blue turf they cling to INDICT EACH OTHER.

If they had some courage behind what they stand for, they should roll out a new orange field with head-to-toe orange uniforms.

The Safety Orange theme would fit perfectly with their Trucker U status.

BSU should also really get behind the Trucker Convoy moving across the country currently.

It could double as ideal internship opportunities for all soon-to-be BSU grads.