Help me out here... If you already have the field itself (turf) attached to your football facilities AND an indoor practice field - why do you need another entire field taking up space again? Some of my fondest memories are of stumbling into or out of the stadium where that is in the rendering.
I don't understand that either. It made sense back when the playing field was grass. However, now that the turf doesn't wear out, and you will have two existing fields (one indoor and one outdoor) I don't see the need for a third but it's not a deal breaker for me. I just want the sky bridge across Kimball.
That practice field and facility is so ridiculously located.
Agreed. I still don't understand why it's not located on the North side of Kimball in the existing ag lot.
Because that land isn't owned by K-State Athletics Inc.
This has never stopped K-State or other universities from moving land around from college to college before. It's simply a matter of priorities.
Honestly, I'd be okay with the new practice facility, and even new outdoor field in the locations as shown, but something needs to be done about the east side. Since everything else has improved, the east side upper deck clearly stands out now as an earlier addition. I don't think it needs to be demo'ed as others have stated, but we definitely need some kind of exterior upgrade, and some actual concession stands up there.
Naw, man. There is a serious chance we start receiving $15-20 mill less per year, the east side does not need anything put into it.
Don't touch the erector set. Continue to monitor attendance declines across the country and especially at K-State, see how the dominoes fall in realignment and re-evaluate in like 2028-2030.
Pretty decent chance it will/should be torn down/downsized then.