NC State Evaluation of Doak Field at Dail Park

L. Sherard Clinkscales PRT 509 7/30/15

Table of Contents Introduction ...... 2 Description of the Problem ...... 2-3 Evaluation of Stakeholders ...... 3-4 Purpose of Evaluation ...... 5-6 Evaluation Process ...... 6-8 Questions Addressed By the Evaluation ...... 8-11 Structure and Context of Facility Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………………..12

Inputs……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………12

Activities……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….12

Outputs…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………12

Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13

Data Gathering Techniques…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13

Measurement Instruments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………13

Measurement Reliability and Validity……………………………………………………………………………………...13

Resources Needed and Potential Barriers………………………………………………………………………………13-14

Results and Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14-16

Reference…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17

Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18-21

Introduction

The facility I would like to evaluate is the home of North Carolina State Baseball, Doak Field at Dail Park.

This facility was built in 1966, and went through a $6 million dollar renovation in 2002. The entire grandstand structure was razed, the playing field was leveled, and a state-of-the-art drainage and irrigation system was installed. As work on the field neared completion, construction began on the new stadium itself, which includes a grandstand, field house and batting cages. The stadium can hold approximately 3,500 fans.

Baseball is considered one of NC State’s “Big 4” along with football, men’s basketball, women’s basketball. The Big 4 designation is appropriate because these four sports generate revenue for the athletic department. Additionally these sports are more visible from a media-marketing standpoint.

Baseball has experienced more success than the other Big 4 over the last 15 years. The team has participated in the NCAA tournament 13 out of 18 years and 11 of the past 13 years. In 2013 the team returned to Omaha for the first time since 1968. Couple the team success with an opportunity to watch players who will eventually play in professional baseball (65 players drafted since 2012) and fans have a special place to watch a game.

Description of the Problem

Upon arriving here in 2011, one of my responsibilities is to serve as sport supervisor for baseball. One of my first tasks was to meet with Coach Elliott Avent, to discuss my expectations and competitive goals for the upcoming year. I also wanted to learn about the challenges he and his staff may encounter now, and in the future. This is what I determined. One, conference expansion will enhance competition, hence more teams will qualify for the NCAA tournament. Two, scheduling/traveling will be more challenging, so protecting “home” field matters, thus student-athlete and fan experience matter. Three,

2 there will be more competition in recruiting. New members Louisville, Pittsburgh, and Clemson all have or are currently building state-of-the-art facilities, and this will make recruiting to the outdated Doak a challenge.

Evaluation of Stakeholders

Based upon these discussions, I put together a team of individuals that represented a specific group of stakeholders that understand baseball, but would offer a perspective that other members may not see.

The list includes: John Lambert, Director of Baseball Program Development. John is Coach Avant’s

“right” hand man. John is the only person that coach is comfortable representing his interests. Plus John enjoys working on building projects. Tony Withers, is a member of the Wolf Pack Club (WPC), board member of Greater Raleigh Building Authority and a successful commercial housing builder. He represents the WPC, the fundraising unit of the athletic department that focuses on scholarships and facilities. Ray Brincefield, Assistant Director of Facilities. Ray has been with the University for over 25 years, so he knows the key players, he also oversaw the $6 million dollar renovation in 2002. Willy

Yamamoto, Associate Director, Design & Construction Services. Willy ensures the contractors abide by

University policy, regarding bids, construction permits, and holds the contractor accountable to the money that NC State Athletics is paying for the project. Diane Moose, Associate AD for Finance (CFO).

Diane holds the key to all the money and happens to be a huge fan of baseball. She also was here during the 2002 renovation.

In addition to this committee, here are additional stakeholders that will be included in this evaluation.

- Student-Athletes

This group of 17-23 years olds are the reason why there is even an athletic department. Their

opinion carries a lot of weight. Their decision to attend or not to attend an institution can

impact the entire athletic department…If Michael Jordan went to NC State or Ralph Sampson

went to UNC-Chapel Hill, it would impact how we view those athletic departments today.

- Head Coach

The most important job of an athletic director is to hire the right coach. Contrary to popular

belief, fundraising ability is not the most important skill an athletic director must have. If an AD

can’t hire the “right” head coach that can win games and championships, the best “glad hander”

will not be able to raise any funds. Hence the needs and the wants of head coach matter.

- Fans

The experience of the fans is important as they are the one’s whom determine if the product on

the field is worth their hard earned dollar. Their experience goes beyond the wins and losses,

there are a myriad factors that determine their willingness to continue to attend games. Their

opinion on what they need to enhance their experience is a determining factor when it comes to

the politics of how much tax payer money should be used.

- NC State Baseball Alumni

This group is relevant because they will be solicited for donations to make these renovations. In

addition they to carry political capital, as they can influence non-NC State baseball alumni to

support the renovations. Lastly, this group can offer a fresh perspective on the renovations as a

former student-athlete and as person 10- 20 years removed.

- The Wolf Pack Club

This is a 501 (c) (3) fundraising unit of the athletic department. Their goal is to fund our

scholarships and facility needs. They are critical to the survival of the athletic department.

Purpose of Evaluation

The purpose of the evaluation is to determine what renovations can be made at Doak Field over the next six months that will enhance the experience for the student-athletes, aid in the recruiting of future student-athletes, and improve the fan experience. This is phase one of a multiphase project that will occur over the next six years.

Over the last 10 years institutions have invested millions into baseball stadiums. Athletic directors across the country recognize a successful program can enhance the value of their athletic enterprise. In a time where every dollar counts, a baseball program that competes in Omaha, will add significant dollars to media, apparel deals and alumni donations. This trend goes all the to the NCAA, as they razed venerable

Rosenblatt stadium, home of the College World Series for 61 years, and moved into a new stadium, TD

Ameritrade Park Omaha. This $130 million, 35,000 seat stadium was an investment rooted in these changing times. (Brown, 2010) “The evidence of change is in Omaha,” I’m on the NCAA baseball committee and we’re building a $130 million stadium for essentially two weeks’ worth baseball”. TD

Ameritrade Park Omaha is not the only one. (Brown, 2010)Michigan invested $14.5 million to the university’s baseball and softball complex, (Brown, 2010) Purdue invested $21 million for a new 1,500 seat stadium and (Brown, 2010) Minnesota is raised $7.5 million replace 39 year old Seibert Field. Just recently Mississippi State will begin a $40 million dollar stadium renovation that will make it the largest college baseball stadium in the country. (Stricklin, 2014) “Mississippi State Baseball first set the standard for making college baseball games a happening, becoming on the first schools to invest in a modern facility nearly 30 years ago,” said MSU Director of Athletics Scott Stricklin. “The new Dudy Noble Field

Master Plan will provide our players, coaches and fans the best ballpark in all of college baseball.”

So the reality of this evaluation is that it will set the future viability of our baseball program. We must create a plan that addresses the immediate needs to stay competitive in the ACC as well as a plan that will allow the program to compete for national championships the next 15-20 years.

Evaluation Process

The steering - project committee took a needs assessment approach to determine what recommendations will be made to enhance Doak Field. One of my first tasks was to visit five ACC schools who have new or recently renovated stadiums. They were Louisville, Clemson, UNC, Florida State, and

Georgia Tech. I also took John Lambert and Ray Brincefield. Our goal was to evaluate their facilities on the following grading scale and criteria. 1- Excellent, 2- Average, 3- Poor

- Prospective student-athlete appeal ( Do they feel special)

- Fan experience, atmosphere.

- Media (TV ) prospects and appearance

- Playability of field

- Revenue potential

In addition I reviewed feedback from our season ticket holders. I did this through our Wolfpack unlimited account, set aside for fan feedback. I went back four years, and was surprised at how many comments we received. Here are consistent themes that were shared.

- Doak Field is great place to bring the family and enjoy an evening outside, why can’t we serve

beer? (Of all the request this is one that we will not meet)

- Removal of the home plate poles so they will no longer obstruct view of field

- An area reserved specifically for tailgating, before and after game. ( This is strictly prohibited by

University policy)

- A louder sound system

- Bleacher seating behind the left field wall.

- An overhang for the permanent seating.

Lastly, I gathered feedback from the student-athletes. The athletic department administers year-end surveys to all student-athletes at the conclusion of their season. At the end of the survey there is space where we encourage them to share with us any concerns or request. The survey is administered without the presence of a coach or administrator, additionally we allow them the option to complete it anonymously or add their names. Upon reviewing over 4 years of surveys, here are the top five comments.

- A new indoor hitting facility down the first base line.

- An updated locker room

- A batter’s eye (this will enable the batters to track the ball better, out of the pitchers hand )

- Turf the home and visiting bull pens

- A new sound system

I believe this evaluation is more summative, in that the stadium was renovated in 2002, thus the committee had 13 years of information to evaluate. So for all practical purposes, Doak is at the end of its run, as it exists today. The challenges with using this method revolve around issues that should have been remedied during formative evaluations before now. This is problematic as there are structural issues that should have been addressed, that now will take away from contemporary needs.

The committee met over a three month period and vetted through a variety information. In the end our guiding questions led us to our final recommendations, they are listed below.

1.) How do we make Doak a special place for our student-athletes knowing we have land and

budget constraints?

2.) How can we enhance fan and student-athlete experience where the results are tangible and

immediate?

3.) What additions do we need to keep us relevant in recruiting?

4.) Does baseball share any similar needs with other sports?

5.) Is this a permanent solution or just a temporary fix?

6.) What is our long term revenue potential?

These questions served us well as we determined the direction of our renovation, and they also served as justification for our decision as we moved forward.

Questions Addressed By The Evaluation

As we looked at the guiding questions, the committee’s challenge centered around what is important to the head coach, and a window of six months to see the renovation to fruition within budget. One of the biggest decisions that faces all FBS athletic directors, and committees like ours is how much to spend to keep up with other institutions? How do we create more revenue without going into deficit? Our ability to enhance the baseball facility comes from four revenue sources; football, men’s basketball ticket sales, media television rights, and the Wolf Pack Club, our fundraising unit that focuses on scholarships and facilities (Featherstone, 2012). Duke Vice President and Athletic Director, Kevin White states “On top of that, college athletics landscape is changing and churning, and the paradigm is shifting economically and competitively. Our time is now….The general public, fans, alumni, faculty, staff and students will soon see the increased level of sincerity and commitment relative to not just football, but also college basketball and the Olympic sports." With that as our backdrop we address guiding question one.

Doak Field at Dail Park is a “special” place to many of our fans. So how do you make it special place for our student-athletes? We addressed this by going right to the source. We ask the student-athletes what makes Doak “special?” This is what they said: 1) When the train whistles and rolls through at 7:30 pm, 2)

8 the Pine trees behind the outfield fence and 3) the playing surface. We then asked them what other additions would make it special. We received all kinds of answers, but the most requested was a new indoor hitting facility to replace the current “steel barn” as it is affectionately known, and a renovated locker room/training room. Both of these made sense to the committee, since most of their time off the field are in those two areas. That said, as a former student-athlete I understand the perspective of a 18-

23 year old is vastly different than that of a 45 year old father of two. So I had a member of the WPC, who played baseball at State and works with NC State baseball alumni, to solicit their opinion on what improvements they would like to see from their perspective. This was done in person through casual conversation at sporting events throughout the year. He reported back to us with the same feedback we received from our current student athletes, with slight modifications. They wanted to replace the steel barn with a new indoor facility, but wanted to add an alumni wing to include a lounge and locker room for current minor and major league players. They also wanted to increase the stadium capacity by adding another level that would include suites.

The second guiding question focuses on student-athlete and fan experience where the results are tangible. As we looked at ways to enhance fan and student athlete experience, we researched what fans enjoyed most about coming to the ball park. I contacted the ACC office to see what data they have collected to enhance the fan experience at the ACC Tournament. Interesting enough they indicated that quality audio/visual systems were important (Pierce, 2015). This is because between inning’s activities and giveaways, a good audio/video system allows the fans to be a part of the action to create a community feel. Another appealing feature that enhanced fan experience was field view or vantage.

Spectators like to have a clear view of the entire field, with no obstructions. This made sense as there are stadiums that have light poles or other objects that obstruct the view, including us. Based on this information I asked the ticketing staff what was the biggest complaint they received from our season

9 ticket holders. They said not giving out passes to reenter stadium and the foul poles creating an obstructed view of the field (Kelly, 2014). The marketing-ticketing folks believe by removing the poles ticket sales would increase, because those areas will now become premium seats. Additionally the poles had speakers attached to them, so when they are removed we will need to purchase a new sound system. This project will increase revenue, create an exciting atmosphere, all while creating an enhanced student-athlete and fan experience.

Guiding question three, what additions do we need to keep us relevant in recruiting? Thus far we have a renovated locker room/ training room, removal of home plate net poles, and a new sound system. All of these will impact recruiting. In addition based upon preliminary quotes we are within our budget.

Two years ago we hired a new softball coach, Shawn Rychek. He has qualified for the NCAA tournament

2 out of 3 years, prior to him joining us we hadn’t been for over 10 years. One of his requests is to have an outfield net that can catch home run/foul balls. Right now all home runs/foul balls land on the track, which is a safety and liability issue. So as we begin to make plans to remove the net poles at baseball, we tested and measured their ability to be used at softball. The designer indicated it was a perfect fit.

This would increase our budget, but the value we gain by repurposing the baseball foul poles for softball, is worth the expense. This answers guiding question #4.

Doak Field at Dail Park is a land locked facility. The only way to build is up, so we must look at the renovations as long term solutions and not quick fixes. The AD and I discussed the possibility of relocating the field next to PNC Arena and Carter Finley, but that idea had no traction. There is too much debt and political capital needed to put something like this in motion. Thus as we began vetting designers, we kept asking the question, will the renovations be current 10 years from now? Will the improvements help the program advance our financial goals? The answer to both questions is yes. Our

10 committee believed the locker room/ training room project, the removal of the home plate poles, and the addition of a new sound system, would be stage one of a multi-phase renovation.

The committee presented our recommendation to Coach Avent, based on our budget and timeline. He was fairly pleased but was concerned not constructing a new indoor facility would put him at a recruiting disadvantage. I explained to him that we have three major projects already in the que,

Reynolds Arena Renovation, The Hank King football indoor facility, and the boutique dorm to be used by men’s and women’s basketball. These projects are all scheduled to be completed by 2017-18, so the

WPC has a full plate of projects to fund. So in order to appease Coach Avent, he had requested a batters eye in centerfield, sometime back. This is a tall green wall that serves as a backdrop so hitters can see the ball better on bright days and nights, and so the catcher can better track the ball out of the pitcher’s hand. This provides the home and visiting team a better chance to hit the ball, thus creating more excitement. In theory, this will bring more fans to the games.

The committee answered the six guiding questions for this project. This first phase will be paid out of the capital budget. The capital budget is money the athletic department sets aside to meet the “special” needs of teams. Most of the money is spent on facilities, but on occasions it will be spent on equipment, if it’s a part of facility enhancement, such is this case, by removing the home plate foul poles it allows us to purchase a new sound system. Our capital budget varies year to year, so there are always more request than money, but over the last four years we have met the majority of the teams wants and all of the team’s needs.

The projects will begin June 1, 2013 and be complete by January 10, 2014. I have listed the expenditures

(Appendix One)

Structure and Context of Facility Evaluation

The renovation of Doak Field at Dail Park is about NC State Baseball competing for ACC and NCAA

Championships. Baseball is the most highly visible sport in the spring, and has a strong following across the state. Coach Avent has been here over 17 years, thus he has built up plenty of political capital. The continued success of this program over the next 10-15 years hinges on these renovations being done.

Inputs

- Capital dollars

- Human Capital

- Political influence

- Organizational commitment

Activities

- Focused marketing/fundraising efforts

- Student-athlete /Head Coach clinics to lobby for support

- Chancellor/ Athletic Director verbal and written support

- Social media platforms

- Engaging corporate sponsor’s

- Wolfpack Club focused fundraising campaigns.

Outputs

- College Graduates

- Future MLB players

- Family satisfaction

- National exposure

- Revenue

Outcomes

- Increase in talent (more MLB players)

- More revenue opportunities

- Consistently in top 25

- Increased crowds, more family participation

- More national broadcast opportunities.

Data Gathering Techniques

The Committee used a variety of ways to gather data. The results were both qualitative and quantitative. This means we gathered our data from specific questions with answers ranked from excellent too bad. We also used personal interviews, where there was some familiarity with interviewer and interviewee. The committee also used information compiled after a championship tournament, the responses may be biased depending on the competitiveness of the team or the place they finished in the regular or post season.

Measurement Instruments

The committee utilized surveys, and personal interviews to gather data. The committee also used travel to evaluate other facilities, which had undergone similar renovations.

Measurement Reliability and Validity

The methods were consistent throughout the process. Obviously how a 17-23 year old responds to questions can be a concern. That is why we spoke to other groups, and merged the data to see if there were consistent themes. The subjectivity was low for all the testing for this project. All one needs to do is look at the landscape of college baseball to see that we are lagging behind.

Resources Needed and Potential Barriers

Resources were readily available, surveys, and communicating with our constituent group were not a challenge. In our athletic department and others based on my experience, the biggest barrier is funding.

I have worked for a private institution in Notre Dame, and public, NC State and Purdue. Both have political landscapes that one must be able to navigate, but in the end, if we build it, you better win. In a way it makes the request easy, if they (coaches and student-athletes) want to stay and work with what they have, great. If not then they need to leave. The institution can only provide what their budget will allow.

Results and conclusion

As we examined the results from the student-athlete surveys, we looked in two areas, (Appendix Two) Section 11: facilities/operations and the written feedback portion. In Section 11 there are five questions regarding their practice/competition facility. The surveys are taken at the conclusion of each season. The results are measured by, 5 - strongly agree, 4 – agree, 3 undecided, 2 - disagree or 1 – strongly disagree, or DNA (does not apply). Question #2 and #3 address if they are satisfied with their practice and competition facility. The results are 3.15 and 3.78, the lowest scores on the survey. The surveys over the last three years resulted in similar low scores. The written portion of the survey basically allows the student-athletes freedom to express how they feel about their coaches, program, facilities, and the athletics department, and its officials. The results indicated we are in dire need of a new indoor facility.

The next evaluation tool used by the committee was to visit other ACC facilities (Appendix Three) that recently had undergone renovations or built new indoor hitting facilities. We visited Clemson, Louisville, UNC, FSU, and Georgia Tech. Accompanying me on this trip, was Ray Brincefield, Assistant AD for Facilities, John Lambert, Director of Baseball Program Development, and Tony Withers, member of Centennial Authority, WPC member and longtime baseball fan. The evaluation was done over two months. We graded the facilities on a scale 1 to 3, 1- being excellent, 2- average, 3 – Poor. The questions focused on the following:

- Will the stadium make a prospect feel “special” - Fan experience

- Media (TV) prospects and appearance - Revenue potential. The results averaged to be 2.85

The committee also reached out to the Wolf Pack Club (WPC), the fundraising unit of the athletic department. Since they will be funding most of the projects cost, it made sense to include them in the evaluation process. Plus they stay in contact with baseball alumni, and their support of the renovations will bring financial support and political capital. Chris Combs is the WPC representative that stays in touch with the baseball alumni. The committee provided him with a list of facility requests we gathered from Coach Avent and the student-athletes. He used talking points we provided him to garner support for the renovations, and to gather suggestions. Chris would simply share the coaches’ and athletic departments’ vision to alumni at football and basketball game gatherings. His main question would be,” What three improvements would you like to see at Doak field from the perspective of a baseball alum. The majority mentioned the indoor hitting facility. In fact, some hinted a willingness to be a title sponsor when the indoor is ready to be built.

The committee also reviewed data compiled by the ACC. This data primarily focused on spectator demographics such as age, income, marital status, ticketing, parking etc. We use this information to see what attracts fans to baseball game. This is important as we look toward renovations, to make sure we capture what motivates fans to attend games and what they like to do during it. The information we focused on in the data, was the average age, marital status, education, number of children, and income bracket. The conclusions that were drawn came from marketing research done by the ACC. They did not share the specifics but provide us with general feedback.

The age (Appendix Four) is important as it will show us what features of the ball park will appeal to the 18-24 olds and the 65 year old plus. These two age groups made up 35% (292 responded) of the fans that attended the 2015 ACC Tournament.

The marital status ( Appendix Five) shows us that 63.1% who attended the ACC Tournament were single, compared to 36.8% who were married. This was taken form 288 respondents. This information shows us that single men, or one’s with girlfriends are more apt to buy premium seats, versus the married man, who is more budget conscious.

The education level (Appendix Six) of the 291 spectators who responded to this survey. 45.0% had a four year college degree. No conclusions were made about his group accept that beer was very important to this group.

The number of children (Appendix Seven) matters, what was interesting is 47.8% of the 247 that responded to the survey did not have a child or decided not to bring them. This means that the spectators wanted to enjoy the baseball game and accompanying festivities.

The last piece of data the committee used was the income (Appendix Eight) of the spectators. Based on this year’s championship 50.2% of the 255 who responded made over $100,000. This is significant in that these folks have money to spend. So concessions, merchandise are big. It also means they are willing to spend money for a ticket if they feel like they are get their monies worth.

Going through this data we could make many assumptions, which would be a mistake. We used the data to better understands the needs at Doak Field. We all know fielding a competitive team is the most important thing. No fans will attend to a game if there is not a quality product on the field. So our final evaluation will be more summative in nature. As I mentioned earlier, the original renovation was flawed, and because of budget constraints they couldn’t be properly addressed. Thus as we look at the current state of the stadium, it lacks contemporaneous amenities that are the norm in the Big five conferences. Thus the committee’s recommendations is to have phases of work done on the field.

Phase one (complete) will include:

- A batterseye in centerfield - A new sound system - Renovated locker room and training room - Removal of the home plate poles The committee is currently in the process of determining the work to be done in the remaining phases. The Athletic Department has contracted Gensler Sports to assist us putting together our master plan, and design the Doak Field at Dail park.

References Brown, N. (2010, August). Athletic Business. Retrieved from www.athleticbusiness.com : http://www.athleticbusiness.com/stadium-arena/facilities-make-big-ten-attractive-to-college- baseball-talent.html

Featherstone, A. (2012, October 2). GoDuke.com. Retrieved from GoDuke.com: http://www.goduke.com/ViewImage.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&PHOTOID=212522544

Kelly, B. (2014, April). Associate AD for External Operations/Ticketing. (L. S. Clinkscales, Interviewer)

Pierce, K. (2015, July 14). Senior Associate Commissioner. (L. S. Clinkscales, Interviewer)

Stricklin, S. (2014, August 12). hailstate.com. Retrieved from www.hailstate.com: http://www.hailstate.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=209607983

Appendix One

Locker Room - Work Orders 13/14 802 Capital

Locker Room - Medical Equip Various - See Detail 13/14 43,863 Capital

Locker Room - Other Items Various 13/14 21,632 Capital

Batter's Eye-Construction Riley/Design Const 13/14 280,000 Capital

Sound System-Construction 13/14 65,000 Capital

Batter's Eye-Architect 13/14 5,000 Capital

Batter's Eye-Construction Summit 13/14 273,242 Capital

Batter's Eye-Survey Services Summit 13/14 2,967 Capital

Batter's Eye-Settlement Summit 13/14 (10,000) Capital

Sound System-Neuwave Neuwave 13/14 4,957 Capital

Sound System Kad Construction 13/14 75,730 Capital

Baseball Net & Pole-Netting Wentz Constructor 14/15 206,984 Capital

DCS Fee 14/15 4,140 Capital

Replace SJ Cards Townsend 14/15 14,925 Capital

PROJECTS TOTAL $ 1,288,084

Appendix Two

Appendix Three

Appendix Four – Five & Six - Seven

Appendix Eight