Home› Hardcore Husky Board

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

New Husky Stadium 'second to none' for fans, players

2»

Comments

  • CheersWestDawgCheersWestDawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 2,478 Swaye's Wigwam
    Dawgs4ever said:

    Would you say the new stadium is worth 2 wins? 3?

    Between the stadium and Ross, we're already nearing our magic 7.

    Fuck no. Lowering the field means the altitude changed. Can't expect our lungs to adjust that quickly. We're still only at 4 wins.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RavennaDawgRavennaDawg Member Posts: 846
    MikeDamone said:

    RavennaDawg said:

    Has anyone sat in the north deck yet?

    I am not a physicist, but if sight lines were supposed to be optimal in the old setting, and then the field was moved but the seats were not, would it not be a logical inference that part of the north side of the field will not be visible to some denizens of the north deck?

    Sight lines and the water table made lowering the field impossible.

    HTH
    Who said anything about lowering the field?

    The field was moved north.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,746
    RavennaDawg said:

    Has anyone sat in the north deck yet?

    I am not a physicist, but if sight lines were supposed to be optimal in the old setting, and then the field was moved but the seats were not, would it not be a logical inference that part of the north side of the field will not be visible to some denizens of the north deck?

    wtfay?

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    RavennaDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    RavennaDawg said:

    Has anyone sat in the north deck yet?

    I am not a physicist, but if sight lines were supposed to be optimal in the old setting, and then the field was moved but the seats were not, would it not be a logical inference that part of the north side of the field will not be visible to some denizens of the north deck?

    Sight lines and the water table made lowering the field impossible.

    HTH
    Who said anything about lowering the field?

    The field was moved north.
    Who said anything about lowering the field?

    The contractor.

    wrightrunstad.com/properties/development-portfolio/husky-stadium.aspx

    Hth
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RavennaDawgRavennaDawg Member Posts: 846
    MikeDamone said:

    RavennaDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    RavennaDawg said:

    Has anyone sat in the north deck yet?

    I am not a physicist, but if sight lines were supposed to be optimal in the old setting, and then the field was moved but the seats were not, would it not be a logical inference that part of the north side of the field will not be visible to some denizens of the north deck?

    Sight lines and the water table made lowering the field impossible.

    HTH
    Who said anything about lowering the field?

    The field was moved north.
    Who said anything about lowering the field?

    The contractor.

    wrightrunstad.com/properties/development-portfolio/husky-stadium.aspx

    Hth
    Exactly.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 106,006 Founders Club
    Huh?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • trackertracker Member Posts: 866
    RavennaDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    RavennaDawg said:

    Has anyone sat in the north deck yet?

    I am not a physicist, but if sight lines were supposed to be optimal in the old setting, and then the field was moved but the seats were not, would it not be a logical inference that part of the north side of the field will not be visible to some denizens of the north deck?

    Sight lines and the water table made lowering the field impossible.

    HTH
    Who said anything about lowering the field?

    The field was moved north.
    Great. . .in addition to altitude problems now we have to deal with climate change, too.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Dawgs4everDawgs4ever Member Posts: 170
    tracker said:


    Great. . .in addition to altitude problems now we have to deal with climate change, too.

    Between that and the economy, you can't expect more or less than 7 wins.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    Dawgs4ever said:

    Would you say the new stadium is worth 2 wins? 3?

    Between the stadium and Ross, we're already nearing our magic 7.

    I mean this will be the first time UW ever plays at this new stadium same with Boise. So is it really a home field advantage?

    Tough to win on basically a neutral field.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.