It sounds like to me that Birmingham, AL needs a new stadium if they want the Iron Bowl and UAB Blazers to continue to play there.

Say good by Stanford Stadium. The university's football team is getting a new stadium next year.

I remember visiting there around 1987.

Stanford Stadium hosted a SuperBowl around that time.

I entered on a summer day through a gate that was open in the corner between the end zone and sideline seating sections and was rather unimpressed that the NFL decided to put a SuperBowl there. The end zone seats were benches and the steel support posts under the benches were set into concrete down in the dirt.
No problem with that for a college facility, but I would have been pissed to shell out several hundred dollars for such a seat to the Superbowl.

The seating capacity 70-80,000 seems like more than Stanford necessarily needs.

Question: Are they building a new stadium at a different site, or replacing the grandstands and field at the current site ?

I read some time ago on the college sports section at Yahoo that the stadium is being replaced. The new stadium will have a significant reduction in seating capacity but will have more ameneties to sell stuff.
I don't know when I read the article but it was written this year after the NY day bowl session maybe around the time the new coach from Pitt was hired. I will look for the article but maybe someone can find it before I get that far.

Speaking of new stadiums. I was reading through the Villanova boards this week to check out more information on rumors for their move to 1A BE football. It was interesting to see that MLS is initiating contact in Bucks County with local municipalites to build a soccer stadium in the Phila. area. The returned contact from local governments has been cool to cold. The distance to Villanova for the points of interest is about 25 miles. Both the reaction of the local governments and the distance are negative but other ideas have also been put forth from those who hope for a move up about the
area of Conshehoncon (excuse the spelling). The locations mentioned in this area are only 1.5 to 3.5 miles from the and joint ventures have been discussed with MLS for a duel tenant stadium ranging from 35k to 50k stadium capacity. As usual those for and against such a move are running the $ numbers to justify their cause. Nothing suggests that the administration has made a move in any direction. But it is interesting to see booster, alumni, and current students debating this issue especially with the summer rumors of Villanova possibily moving up for FB in the BE in the next 5 years.
If this discussion would move into reality in the future, the BE might just settle in, in its current form for a long time to come instead of the predicted split in 2010.

Thoughts, input, and any other information on this concept are welcome from others who read and post on this board.

Found info on Stanford. $85 million to be spent at the conclusion of the 2005 season to REDUCE seating capacity by 30,000 to 50,858. Upgrades on disability access, mechanical and electrical systems, restrooms, concessions, and press facilities are planned. They intent to be ready for the 2006 season. The article states that Stanford is following the trend to cater to smaller capacities and bring people closer to the action rather than to have a half empty hollow stadium with the fans further from the action.

I see flaws in this thinking when others are increasing stadium capacity to increase revenue. Are colleges putting too much dependence on TV packages? Do they think that following current professional practices of decreasing stadium capacity and supersizing prices on eveything from seats to food to souvineers will increase
revenue while driving crowds a way will work? I don't think so. Eventually you price your self out of the market. Driving consumers away and making up revenue with increased prices only works in the short term.

According to the San Jose Mercury News that Stanford is tearing down the old stadium and building a new one on the same site.

So maybe the rationale is this.... the site is a good one, the existing grandstands are old and dilapidated, and so they will tear them down and replace them with newer (presumably better construction with better amenities).

They probably haven't sold anywhere near their current capacity of 80,000 in a while, so they construct a number of seats commensurate with recent attendance (50,000 ? I don't know what Stanford draws, but 50,000 is a lot), maybe with ability to expand seating capacity down in the future if needed. A lot of schools have done this, initially constructing 50,000 seats along the sidelines, and construct end zone seating later.

The initial article I read said that they were tearing the stadium down. The Stanford football website says that only part of the stadium will be torn down and the rest will be refurbished and upgraded. Dave Kry. posted that the San Jose Mercury a local paper stated it will be torn down. At any rate the campus at Stanford is beautiful (been there) and I think that they will do a great job with a refurbish or rebuild. Pac -10 schools do things right. And so do other conferences. Don't want to offend any one in the rest of the country.

The base at Stanford is earth.

When Oregon expanded Autzen Stadium (which wasn't so much earthen construction as it was a hollowed-out butte), they basically removed the "earth" (or most of it) on the south side of the stadium.

From what drawings I've seen of the Stanford proposal, I kind of wonder if they're doing something similar.

The earthen construction was not unusual in the 1920s. I think the Yale Bowl was a prime example, or prototype. The field area was excavated out, so that the field ended up being below grade, and the removed dirt was dumped around the perimeter, to create embankments contoured to the slope of the grandstands.

I'm pretty sure that the Rose Bowl in Pasadena was constructed in this manner.

Old Pitt Stadium (demolished with the opening of Heinz Field) was that way. A bowl was carved out of the top of a hill.

An advantage is that the top of the grandstand isn't so far above grade. A disadvantage is that drainage of the field can be a problem, unless run-off from the field can be piped away to a lower elevation.

I must say that I personally prefer having concrete rather than mud or wet grass under my feet, while sitting at a stadium.

I though Stanford was just going to reduce the capacity of their stadium, not build a new one.

a) The full details of the Stanford renovation have not been completed and/or made public, nor does their website suggest when that will be. What is known (as posted) is that it will reduce capacity and dramatically upgrade their level of amenities. Both are sorely needed, as the old lady is structurally weak, provides poor sightlines and even worse accommodations for skyboxes, restrooms, etc. In this sense it's not only wise that they're reducing capacity, but the newer structure will allow for expansion if needed but will do so in a manner that's structurally safer, will last mush longer and will provide much better accomodations. Stanford has averaged around 42K fans since 1996 (ncaasports.com), with a high in that span around 56k

b) Other stadiums I know of undergoing renovations, all numbers being approximate new capacity:
Oklahoma State (55k, with potential for 72k)
Alabama (94k)
Oregon State (55k)
Clemson (86k)
So Miss (38k)

Iowa and Michigan State are doing improvements that will result in slightly lower capacities;
Virginia Tech is renovating the press box tower to run the length of the side stands, but it's unsure how that will affect capacity;
NCSU has a plan to go from 55k to 72k, but further stages after the completion of the current Wolfpack Towers have been postponed for now;
Louisville has issued a study suggesting a 60k capacity for Papa Johns, but it is part of a larger sports corridor development scheme and no formal design or fund raising has begun for this.

If it is anything close to what Oregon has done, what it appears Stanford would do is rebuild the stadium... or perhaps HALF of it, depending on how they choose to work this. It's hard for me to believe that they would keep the earthen part of the structure for at least one side of the stadium given the conceptual I've seen.

BTW, Oregon State renovations this year have been for one side of the stadium, and are supposed to boost the capacity to 43K IIRC. Future phases, if they get funded, are supposed to round out to 55K. Surprisingly, there seem to be tickets available for most games.

I kind of wish some of these stadia were organized like some of the English stadia, with four distinct sides (not always with corner seating), making it easier to renovate a side if expansion is necessary rather than endure massive cost increases by having to get the thing done double-time (much like when Utah's Rice Stadium became Rice-Eccles Stadium). The English parks have far more character anyway. I also think that some of the older American structures have enough innate deficiencies that they will harbor a tragedy one of these days along the lines of crap that has happened in Europe.

Are they still planning to build a stadium on campus at UCF?