Printable View
Distances on the walls:
315 down the left field line
370 to left
380 to center
350 to right
325 down the right field line
If those are the correct dimensions, the field does not come close to meeting NCAA specifications for new construction (330-375-400-375-330). The new dimensions are basically the same as the old layout.
Generally speaking traffic circles are great and should be phased-in where possible. Yeah, some drivers are challenged by new things...heck some are challenged by old things...but over time folks should get use to them. In most cases you YIELD when entering the traffic circle and have the right-of-way when exiting it. However, when in Albany, New York some years back I learned it's on a case by case basis some places. Two traffic circles on the same major boulevard only a few miles apart were, 1) yield when entering, and then 2) yield when exiting. The first time I navigated those I got HONKED-AT and CUSSED-AT! I figured it out but why were they opposite? I have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech77
And, whoa! the traffic circles in The District, Washington, D.C.! Now, that's an adventure.
I'm sure we received a waiver. Also, that's probably why the fence is higher in LF than RF (looks like it always has been).Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
Working with dimension of the current site. We crammed a lot on that corner lot of Alabama/Tech Dr. It's a nice looking ball field. Lot's of upgrades vs what we had before.
Right field fence is lower so fans can see better from berm.Quote:
Originally Posted by sportdawg
I get this itchy rash whenever I find myself agreeing with HD.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Need a higher wall in CF (15 ft) to offset the 20 ft shortage in actual distance. However, overall its bigger than the old launching pad by about 20 ft all the way around. I remember the gorilla bat days when multiple homeruns on a good day was normal.
Wow, the SB field and facilities look amazing. Does this put us among the best SB facilities in C-USA?Quote:
Originally Posted by qng001
I think we do. Solid concrete grandstands. Best LED lights. Top of the line FieldTurf. Full padded walls. Large dugouts. Women's facility.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfj
UAB comes close but their grandstand is metal decking. They received recent upgrades
https://uabsports.com/images/2017/5/...s_sb_field.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ux3m6SD7yKg
FAU is okay, metal grandstands, prefab pressbox though (Similar to our previous softball park). It's a cheaper build, what makes it nice are the palm trees.
https://fausports.com/images/2015/5/13/8702238.jpeg
It is not deeper than the old layout except 10 feet in right. The old dimensions were 5 feet longer in center (315-370-385-340-325).Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceWillisDawg
[heavy sigh] Missed opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
As nice as the new facilities are, they all could have been so much more with some vision (thinking about 2040 or 2050 to rearrange where things were built) from Tech administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
If we wanted more room, should of built it at a different site (but that wasnt an option).
From everything I have heard it wasn't seriously considered as an option. And that's as much because there was never a contingency plan to not have the baseball stadium where it is. That has been a flaw in Tech's long-term facilities master plan forever. And to be honest it still is.Quote:
Originally Posted by qng001
The two apartment buildings closest to the stadium should have been demolished if keeping the stadium where it is was to be the correct decision. Even if the current design had been used, changing the angle of the stadium to utilize the extra space and meet the recommended stadium dimensions could have also provided the expansion room that is very limited now.
Building the apartments that close to landlock the stadium years ago was typical of the decisions in the Reneau era.