Vote YES for CHANGE FOR CHANGE

[Dawg06]

Curious to know what is going to happen with intramurals. Will that be forced to one field? If I were a student I would still vote YES but just curious on where the games would be played. Is another field going to be built somewhere else?

Good question. After Neilson and Caruthers are demolished, the plan is to build a field(s) in their place. Until that happens, I don't know. A lot depends on what the athletic department does with the land to the south of the football field and what access Dooley gives to the practice fields and The Joe. We also have access to the old soccer field to the north of the practice field. I don't see intramural football being affected by the building project. However, intramural softball is a concern, and alternatives to the upper softball field are currently being discussed. And vote YES!

[GermDawg]

Good question. After Neilson and Caruthers are demolished, the plan is to build a field(s) in their place.

That's the first I've heard of that, I was told A.E. Phillips would be moved to that spot.

[Dawg06]

That's the first I've heard of that, I was told A.E. Phillips would be moved to that spot.

That's just what I've heard (nothing official), but I do know that A.E. Phillips will be transformed into a K-12 school, so...

[DocMarvin362]

2 Questions: What's the advantage of keeping AE phillips on the campus?? Could they move to a location just off campus and still operate the same??

Also, what's the chances of the Blue and Bulldawg corp suiting up/painting up and walking around campus and the dorms getting people to go vote??

[Dawg06]

2 Questions: What's the advantage of keeping AE phillips on the campus?? Could they move to a location just off campus and still operate the same??

Also, what's the chances of the Blue and Bulldawg corp suiting up/painting up and walking around campus and the dorms getting people to go vote??

1. A.E. Phillips may be moved to the new Research Park for the school to expand so that it will attract quality individuals to come to the Ruston area as faculty or to create a startup company.

2. Kinda, but not really. The SGA and Bulldawg Corps are assigned to work at polling stations in the intramural center and the student center during the election days, but we are not allowed to campaign at the polling sites as you can recall from last year. There is a phone campaign and a Facebook campaign planned as well as advertising around campus.

[Dawg06]

Looks good BLUE!




I wonder if I could do a Triple Lindy from one of those diving platforms.

I don't know, but I'd love to see it.

[Bigdog13]

Looks good BLUE!




I wonder if I could do a Triple Lindy from one of those diving platforms.

Funny Movie.

[touchdown123]

They have been talking about making AEP k-12 forever. They started talking about that when I was in kindergartern there, and I'm a junior in college now.

[Jen_Leigh]

Good question. After Neilson and Caruthers are demolished, the plan is to build a field(s) in their place. Until that happens, I don't know. A lot depends on what the athletic department does with the land to the south of the football field and what access Dooley gives to the practice fields and The Joe. We also have access to the old soccer field to the north of the practice field. I don't see intramural football being affected by the building project. However, intramural softball is a concern, and alternatives to the upper softball field are currently being discussed. And vote YES!

See i heard all of that was supposed to become another part of UP . . . I'm not too crazy about this Change for Change thing . . . I think it is a great idea but do not get me wrong . . . but i just don't like it . . . I don't like the way it looks. I'll be abstaining from that vote just because I really don't care for it but I don't dislike it either. I'm in the middle.

[Brian96]

See i heard all of that was supposed to become another part of UP . . . I'm not too crazy about this Change for Change thing . . . I think it is a great idea but do not get me wrong . . . but i just don't like it . . . I don't like the way it looks. I'll be abstaining from that vote just because I really don't care for it but I don't dislike it either. I'm in the middle.

Remember that those are just artist's renderings. The finished produc will not look exactly like that. The basic layout and basic structure will be more or less the same, but these are for marketing, not blueprints or plattes for the actual work.

If you think we need the facility, you should vote. If you think we don't need to upgrade our intramural facility, then by all means abstain.

[Dawg06]

Remember that those are just artist's renderings. The finished produc will not look exactly like that. The basic layout and basic structure will be more or less the same, but these are for marketing, not blueprints or plattes for the actual work.

If you think we need the facility, you should vote. If you think we don't need to upgrade our intramural facility, then by all means abstain.

Exactly.

[Dawg06]

See i heard all of that was supposed to become another part of UP . . . I'm not too crazy about this Change for Change thing . . . I think it is a great idea but do not get me wrong . . . but i just don't like it . . . I don't like the way it looks. I'll be abstaining from that vote just because I really don't care for it but I don't dislike it either. I'm in the middle.

Those drawings are just an artists renderings like Brian said. The facilities will not look exactly like that, but the facilities will have all of the same components.

This is a huge step that Tech would take in becoming truly a NATIONAL university (like Florida) as opposed to a regional university. We would have the best recreational facilities in the state, and it would greatly better the perception of our school around the state and nation.

This is critical, and we need your help Jen. The better the Tech experience is, the better the perception of your degree will be.

[TulsaPup]

I've heard a few people say they'll vote no for a couple different reasons, but people need to remember this will be great for the future of Tech. Anyone who says they dont want to pay the extra $25 is being selfish in my opinion, especially when most of these people are on TOPS. This is something that will benefit Tech for decades to come, there is not one good reason to vote no.

[Brian96]

Those drawings are just an artists renderings like Brian said. The facilities will not look exactly like that, but the facilities will have all of the same components.

This is a huge step that Tech would take in becoming truly a NATIONAL university (like Florida) as opposed to a regional university. We would have the best recreational facilities in the state, and it would greatly better the perception of our school around the state and nation.

This is critical, and we need your help Jen. The better the Tech experience is, the better the perception of your degree will be.

If I remember correctly, when Lambright was originally completed it was pretty cutting edge. I remember being told on a visit that a committee from Auburn had recently visited to check it out as they prepared to upgrade their facilities.

The proposed changes would not necessarily make the facility cutting edge, but it would make it very competitive with major universities. Like TP says, there is no reason anyone who cares about the growth of Tech could rationally vote against this. Unfortunately, I'm afraid all those LSUsers (LSU-losers) that feel "stuck" at Tech to keep their fees low.

So, if this does not pass, it means the LSUsers at Tech win. Nobody wants that, do they?

[AG_jr]

If I remember correctly, when Lambright was originally completed it was pretty cutting edge. I remember being told on a visit that a committee from Auburn had recently visited to check it out as they prepared to upgrade their facilities.

The proposed changes would not necessarily make the facility cutting edge, but it would make it very competitive with major universities. Like TP says, there is no reason anyone who cares about the growth of Tech could rationally vote against this. Unfortunately, I'm afraid all those LSUsers (LSU-losers) that feel "stuck" at Tech to keep their fees low.

So, if this does not pass, it means the LSUsers at Tech win. Nobody wants that, do they?

Or it could mean that the students didn't want to fork over all that money only to see it get tied up due to lack of research and end up seeing it rerouted to make new parking lots...