Yep, there has to be a reason the 4 entry points are centered and but the entire east side section is not. No way they would not center this, unless they were adding another section 100 to the north, which would then be centered .. and would require Kaufman be torn down.BallwinBird2012 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:07 pmInteresting take on Kaufman coming down. I've wondered myself what all will be included with the proposed IPF. Lots of the indoor facilities are becoming more than just an indoor practice field, but are also including things like locker rooms, weight rooms, and coaches offices. It would certainly be nice to have an "all inclusive" football facility, although that would obviously drive the cost WAY up and move the timeline back that much farther.fourthandshort wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:52 amWith regard to moving the field a few yards further south, I;m starting to think not. I looked more closely at the new east side placement and noticed 2 things that would suggest the field will NOT be moved and that Kaufman will probably come down at some point:
Something even remotely close to this would be sweet...
I hear they are trying to keep IPF concept simple .. I think there are both space and budget limitations. I'm fine with keeping this simple and under budget. ISU is careful with how the spend/invest money .. and do it well. I would rather we "save" money for Hancock 3.0, 4.0, etc. Players and recruits mainly just want a place to play in winter and for bad weather, or indoor game prep .. I'm fine to sticking to basics with IPF, then check the box, and move on to next idea.