DOCSLIB.ORG

TEAM STADIUMS Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums Science of Football Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TEAM STADIUMS Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums Science of Football Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums LESSON 4 TEAM STADIUMS Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums Science of Football Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums Description Common Core Standards Scholar athletes learn about college football stadium • 4.NBT.3 Use place value understanding to round capacities and NFL construction costs. multi-digit whole numbers to any place. • 5.G.2 Represent real world and mathematical Materials problems by graphing points in the first quadrant 1. “Compare The Stadiums” chart of the coordinate plane, and interpret coordinate 2. “Cost of Stadiums vs. Decade Stadium Opened” values of points in the context of the situation. chart • 8.F.5 Describe qualitatively the functional 3. “Compare The Stadiums” worksheet relationship between two quantities by analyzing 4. Pencil a graph (e.g., where the function is increasing or decreasing, linear or nonlinear). Sketch a graph that exhibits the qualitative features of a function that has been described verbally. © 2019 Science of Sport 32 Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums Science of Football Lesson 4 Answer Key Sugar Bowl Champion Teams and Stadiums Team Name (Year Won) Stadium Name Seating Capacity Texas (2019) Darrell K Royal–Texas Memorial Stadium 100,119 Alabama (2018) Bryant–Denny Stadium 101,821 Florida (2010) Ben Hill Griffin Stadium 88,548 Georgia (2008) Sanford Stadium 92,746 Louisville (2013) Cardinal Stadium 55,000 LSU (2007) Tiger Stadium 102,321 Michigan (2012) Michigan Stadium 107,601 Ohio State (2011, 2015) Ohio Stadium 104,944 Oklahoma (2014, 2017) Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium 83,489 Ole Miss (2016) Vaught–Hemingway Stadium 64,038 Utah (2009) Rice-Eccles Stadium 45,807 5 4 3 FREQUENCY 2 1 0 0 24,000 48,000 72,000 96,000 120,000 STADIUM SEATING CAPACITY © 2019 Science of Sport 33 Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums Science of Football Worksheet 4.1 Sugar Bowl Champion Teams and Stadiums Team Name (Year Won) Stadium Name Seating Capacity Texas (2019) Darrell K Royal–Texas Memorial Stadium 100,119 Alabama (2018) Bryant–Denny Stadium 101,821 Florida (2010) Ben Hill Griffin Stadium 88,548 Georgia (2008) Sanford Stadium 92,746 Louisville (2013) Cardinal Stadium 55,000 LSU (2007) Tiger Stadium 102,321 Michigan (2012) Michigan Stadium 107,601 Ohio State (2011, 2015) Ohio Stadium 104,944 Oklahoma (2014, 2017) Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium 83,489 Ole Miss (2016) Vaught–Hemingway Stadium 64,038 Utah (2009) Rice-Eccles Stadium 45,807 © 2019 Science of Sport 34 Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums Science of Football 5 4 3 FREQUENCY 2 1 0 0 24,000 48,000 72,000 96,000 120,000 STADIUM SEATING CAPACITY © 2019 Science of Sport 35 Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums Science of Football 1 2 Review the “Compare the Stadiums” chart and note Once the seven points for the 1950’s through 2010’s how, as a general rule, the cost of stadiums have have been plotted and labeled, place three additional increased each decade that a stadium or group of “stadium cost prediction” points, one for the 2020’s, stadiums have opened. Starting with Lambeau Field, one for the 2030’s, and one for the 2040’s, and which opened in the 1950’s, select the first stadium write the predicted costs for each stadiums built in built each decade and plot and label the point for those three decades in the spaces below the chart. each stadium from the 1950’s to the 2010’s on the Be prepared to explain how you came up with your “Cost of NFL Stadiums vs. Decade Stadium Opened” predicted stadium costs for the 2020’s, 2030’s, and graph. 2040’s. Here’s how to plot and label the points: 3 Place a point at (1950’s, $960,000), and label Review and complete the “Compare The Stadiums” the point for Lambeau Field as LB (hint: $960,000 page by selecting any two AFC stadiums and two NFC is almost $1 million). Next, place another point stadiums, the Mercedes-Benz Superdome and one at (1960’s, $25.5 million), and label the point for other stadium to research. Write the team names, Oakland Coliseum as OC. Place five additional points stadium names, the dates the stadiums were opened, and labels for each of the following stadiums: the stadium capacities, and the costs of the stadiums using the “Compare The Stadiums” chart. Then • Arrowhead Stadium (AS) for the 1970’s research each of the four stadiums, and write at least ($43 million) two unique features from each stadium you selected. • Hard Rock Stadium (HRS) for the 1980’s ($115 million) • TIAA Bank Field (TIAA) for the 1990’s ($121 million) • Paul Brown Stadium (PBS) for the 2000’s ($455 million) • MetLife Stadium (MLS) for the 2010’s ($1.6 billion) © 2019 Science of Sport 36 Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums Science of Football Worksheet 4.2 Plot the cost per stadium on the graph with the year it first opened Compare the Stadiums First Playing Stadium Name Team(s) Capacity Cost Opened Surface Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Los Angeles Rams 77,500 5/1/1923 Grass $954,873 Soldier Field Chicago Bears 61,500 10/9/1924 Grass $13 Million Lambeau Field Green Bay Packers 81,435 9/29/1957 Grass $960,000 Oakland Coliseum Oakland Raiders 53,286 9/18/1966 Grass $25.5 Million Arrowhead Stadium Kansas City Chiefs 76,416 8/12/1972 Grass $43 Million New Era Field Buffalo Bills 71,608 8/17/1973 FieldTurf $22 Million Mercedes-Benz Superdome New Orleans Saints 73,208 8/3/1975 FieldTurf $134 Million Hard Rock Stadium Miami Dolphins 65,326 8/16/1987 Grass $115 Million TIAA Bank Field Jacksonville Jaguars 69,132 8/18/1995 Grass $121 Million Bank of America Stadium Carolina Panthers 75,419 8/3/1996 Grass $248 Million FedEx Field Washington Redskins 82,000 9/14/1997 Grass $251 Million M&T Bank Stadium Baltimore Ravens 71,008 9/6/1998 Grass $220 Million Raymond James Stadium Tampa Bay Buccaneers 65,890 9/20/1998 Grass $167 Million FirstEnergy Stadium Cleveland Browns 67,895 9/12/1999 Grass $283 Million Nissan Stadium Tennessee Titans 69,143 8/27/1999 Grass $290 Million Paul Brown Stadium Cincinnati Bengals 65,515 8/19/2000 FieldTurf $455 Million Broncos Stadium at Mile High Denver Broncos 76,125 9/10/2001 Grass $401 Million Heinz Field Pittsburgh Steelers 68,400 8/18/2001 Grass $281 Million CenturyLink Field Seattle Seahawks 68,000 7/28/2002 FieldTurf $430 Million © 2019 Science of Sport 37 Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums Science of Football Compare the Stadiums First Playing Stadium Name Team(s) Capacity Cost Opened Surface Ford Field Detroit Lions 65,000 8/24/2002 FieldTurf $500 Million Gillette Stadium New England Patriots 66,829 9/9/2002 FieldTurf $325 Million NRG Stadium Houston Texans 72,220 8/24/2002 FieldTurf $352 Million Lincoln Financial Field Philadelphia Eagles 69,596 8/3/2003 Grass $512 Million Dignity Health Sports Park Los Angeles Chargers 27,000 6/1/2003 Grass $150 Million State Farm Stadium Arizona Cardinals 63,400 8/1/2006 Grass $455 Million Lucas Oil Stadium Indianapolis Colts 67,000 8/16/2008 FieldTurf $720 Million AT&T Stadium Dallas Cowboys 80,000 5/27/2009 FieldTurf $1.3 Billion MetLife Stadium New York Jets/Giants 82,500 4/10/2010 FieldTurf $1.6 Billion Levi’s Stadium San Francisco 49ers 68,500 7/17/2004 Grass $1.3 Billion U.S. Bank Stadium Minnesota Vikings 66,655 7/22/2016 FieldTurf $1.1 Billion Mercedes-Benz Stadium Atlanta Falcons 71,000 8/26/2017 FieldTurf $1.6 Billion *Chart data correct as of Fall 2019 Predicted cost of Stadiums in… 1. 2020’s: 2. 2030’s: 3. 2040’s: © 2019 Science of Sport 38 Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums Science of Football $2.5 b $2.4 b $2.3 b $2.2 b $2.1 b $2.0 b $1.9 b ) $1.8 b $1.7 b $1.6 b BILLIONS $1.5 b , B = $1.4 b $1.3 b $1.2 b MILLIONS $1.1 b = $1.0 b (M $900 m $800 m ADIUM $700 m S T $600 m FL $500 m $400 m $300 m C O S T O F N $200 m $100 m 1950’s 1960’s 1970’s 1980’s 1990’s 2000’s 2010’s 2020’s 2030’s 2040’s DEC A D E IN W HICH NFL S T A D IUM W AS OPENED © 2019 Science of Sport 39 Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums Science of Football Compare the Stadiums AFC Stadium 1 Mercedes-Benz Superdome Team: _____________________________ Team: _____________________________ Stadium: ___________________________ Stadium: ___________________________ Year Opened: _______________________ Year Opened: _______________________ Stadium Capacity: ____________________ Stadium Capacity: ____________________ Cost:_______________________________ Cost:_______________________________ Unique Features:_____________________ Unique Features:_____________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ AFC Stadium 2 NFC Stadium 2 Team: _____________________________ Team: _____________________________ Stadium: ___________________________ Stadium: ___________________________ Year Opened: _______________________ Year Opened: _______________________ Stadium Capacity: ____________________ Stadium Capacity: ____________________ Cost:_______________________________ Cost:_______________________________ Unique Features:_____________________ Unique Features:_____________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ © 2019 Science of Sport 40 Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums Science of Football Worksheet 4.3 Part 1 Research four football stadiums (college or professional) and identify the following information for each: • Year Opened • Seating capacity • Unique features of the arena, including architecture, dimensions, and food offerings Part 2 Identify features of a new arena that you create. Consider: • Unique architectural features of the arena (e.g., scoreboard, corporate sponsorship, etc.) • Seating capacity • Seat pricing • Technology – lights, high definition screens, sound systems • Accessibility for the handicapped • Restrooms – how many and where? • Location – near public transportation, other venues, “sports district” with shops & restaurants • Parking – number of spots and cost • Security – promoting ease of entrance without compromising player and fan safety • Home and away team locker room facilities – what makes an NBA player want to play here • Press & media facilities – promoting your own team and facility • Environmental considerations: color, temperature, recycling © 2019 Science of Sport 41 Lesson 4 - Team Stadiums Science of Football Stadium Template © 2019 Science of Sport 42.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Big Ten Football Weekly Release - August 26
    2019 BIG TEN FOOTBALL WEEKLY RELEASE - AUGUST 26 Primary Contact: Adam Augustine, Director, Communications • Office: 847-696-1010 ext. 151 • E-mail: [email protected] • Cell: 608-215-4391 • Twitter: @B1Gfootball Secondary Contact: Megan Rowley, Assistant Director, Communications • Office: 847-696-1010 ext. 129 • E-mail: [email protected] • Cell: 630-272-2038 2019 CONFERENCE & OVERALL STANDINGS WEEK 1 SCHEDULE EAST DIVISION THURSDAY, AUG. 29 South Dakota State at MINNESOTA Conference Games All Games 9 p.m. | FS1 W-L PCT H A Div. Strk W-L PCT H A N Strk Indiana 0-0 --- 0-0 0-0 0-0 L2 0-0 --- 0-0 0-0 0-0 L2 FRIDAY, AUG. 30 Maryland 0-0 --- 0-0 0-0 0-0 L4 0-0 --- 0-0 0-0 0-0 L4 Tulsa at MICHIGAN STATE Michigan 0-0 --- 0-0 0-0 0-0 L1 0-0 --- 0-0 0-0 0-0 L2 7 p.m. | FS1 Michigan State 0-0 --- 0-0 0-0 0-0 W1 0-0 --- 0-0 0-0 0-0 L1 Ohio State 0-0 --- 0-0 0-0 0-0 W4 0-0 --- 0-0 0-0 0-0 W6 WISCONSIN at South Florida Penn State 0-0 --- 0-0 0-0 0-0 W3 0-0 --- 0-0 0-0 0-0 L1 7 p.m. | ESPN Rutgers 0-0 --- 0-0 0-0 0-0 L11 0-0 --- 0-0 0-0 0-0 L11 Massachusetts at RUTGERS WEST DIVISION 7:15 p.m. | BTN Conference Games All Games W-L PCT H A Div.
    [Show full text]
  • CSL Economic Analysis
    NFL Funding Comparison Total Private Funding Public Funding Year Project Total % of Total % of Stadium/Team Team Opened Cost Private Total Public Total Los Angeles Stadium (Proposed) TBD 2016 $1,200.0 $1,200.0 100% $0.0 0% San Francisco 49ers (Proposed) San Francisco 49ers 2015 $987.0 $873.0 88% $114.0 12% New Meadowlands Stadium Giants/Jets 2010 $1,600.0 $1,600.0 100% $0.0 0% New Cowboys Stadium Dallas Cowboys 2009 $1,194.0 $750.0 63% $444.0 37% Lucas Oil Stadium Indianapolis Colts 2008 $675.0 $100.0 15% $575.0 85% University of Phoenix Stadium Arizona Cardinals 2006 $471.4 $150.4 32% $321.0 68% Lincoln Financial Field Philadelphia Eagles 2003 $518.0 $330.0 64% $188.0 36% Soldier Field (renovation) Chicago Bears 2003 $587.0 $200.0 34% $387.0 66% Lambeau Field (renovation) Green Bay Packers 2003 $295.2 $126.1 43% $169.1 57% Gillette Stadium New England Patriots 2002 $412.0 $340.0 83% $72.0 17% Ford Field Detroit Lions 2002 $440.0 $330.0 75% $110.0 25% Reliant Stadium Houston Texans 2002 $474.0 $185.0 39% $289.0 61% Qwest Field Seattle Seahawks 2002 $461.3 $161.0 35% $300.3 65% Heinz Field Pittsburgh Steelers 2001 $280.8 $109.2 39% $171.6 61% Invesco Field at Mile High Denver Broncos 2001 $400.8 $111.8 28% $289.0 72% Paul Brown Stadium Cincinnati Bengals 2000 $449.8 $25.0 6% $424.8 94% LP Field Tennessee Titans 1999 $291.7 $84.8 29% $206.9 71% Cleveland Browns Stadium Cleveland Browns 1999 $271.0 $71.0 26% $200.0 74% M&T Bank Stadium Baltimore Ravens 1998 $226.0 $22.4 10% $203.6 90% Raymond James Stadium Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1998 $194.0
    [Show full text]
  • Staff Report & Attachments
    PC Staff Report – 6/22/11 TA-4-6-11 Item No. 11 - 1 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Regular Agenda -- Public Hearing Item PC Staff Report 6/22/11 ITEM NO. 11 TEXT AMENDMENT TO CITY OF LAWRENCE DEVELOPMENT CODE; CHP 20; SYNTHETIC TURF AS LANDSCAPING MATERIAL (MKM) TA-4-6-11: Consider Text Amendments to the City of Lawrence Land Development Code, Chapter 20, Articles 10 and 17, regarding synthetic turf as landscaping material. Initiated by City Commission on 5/3/11. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the amendments to Articles 10 and 17 of the Land Development Code to add synthetic turf as landscaping material based on the analysis provided in the Staff Report. Reason for Request: “To allow synthetic turf landscaping recently applied to an apartment development to remain”. RELEVANT FACTOR: Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING None to date. ATTACHMENTS A. Initiation staff memo B. LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations C. State of New York Health Fact Sheet, including referenced studies D. 2008 Center for Disease Control and Prevention Health Advisory E. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Report F. Natural Landscaping and Artificial Turf: Achieving Water Use and Pesticide Reduction G. Low Maintenance Landscaping, K-State Experiment and Extension Office Report H. Punta Gorda, FL Application OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT The City Commission initiated consideration of a request to allow the use of synthetic turf as landscaping material at their May 3, 2011 meeting at the request of Paul Werner Architects. The request is being made in order to maintain recently installed synthetic turf at the apartment complex being constructed at the intersection of Trail and Frontier, formerly known as the Boardwalk Apartments.
    [Show full text]
  • NCAA Division II-III Football Records (Special Games)
    Special Regular- and Postseason- Games Special Regular- and Postseason-Games .................................. 178 178 SPECIAL REGULAR- AND POSTSEASON GAMES Special Regular- and Postseason Games 11-19-77—Mo. Western St. 35, Benedictine 30 (1,000) 12-9-72—Harding 30, Langston 27 Postseason Games 11-18-78—Chadron St. 30, Baker (Kan.) 19 (3,000) DOLL AND TOY CHARITY GAME 11-17-79—Pittsburg St. 43, Peru St. 14 (2,800) 11-21-80—Cameron 34, Adams St. 16 (Gulfport, Miss.) 12-3-37—Southern Miss. 7, Appalachian St. 0 (2,000) UNSANCTIONED OR OTHER BOWLS BOTANY BOWL The following bowl and/or postseason games were 11-24-55—Neb.-Kearney 34, Northern St. 13 EASTERN BOWL (Allentown, Pa.) unsanctioned by the NCAA or otherwise had no BOY’S RANCH BOWL team classified as major college at the time of the 12-14-63—East Carolina 27, Northeastern 6 (2,700) bowl. Most are postseason games; in many cases, (Abilene, Texas) 12-13-47—Missouri Valley 20, McMurry 13 (2,500) ELKS BOWL complete dates and/or statistics are not avail- 1-2-54—Charleston (W.V.) 12, East Carolina 0 (4,500) (at able and the scores are listed only to provide a BURLEY BOWL Greenville, N.C.) historical reference. Attendance of the game, (Johnson City, Tenn.) 12-11-54—Newberry 20, Appalachian St. 13 (at Raleigh, if known, is listed in parentheses after the score. 1-1-46—High Point 7, Milligan 7 (3,500) N.C.) ALL-SPORTS BOWL 11-28-46—Southeastern La. 21, Milligan 13 (7,500) FISH Bowl (Oklahoma City, Okla.) 11-27-47—West Chester 20, Carson-Newman 6 (10,000) 11-25-48—West Chester 7, Appalachian St.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Vs. #4/4 Ohio State 1 2
    2021 SCHEDULE MINNESOTA VS. #4/4 OHIO STATE DATE OPPONENT TIME TV RESULT Date/Time: Sept. 2, 2021 / 7 p.m. CT Television: FOX SEPTEMBER Site: Minneapolis Gus Johnson (PXP) 2 #4/4 Ohio State* 7:00 p.m. FOX Stadium: Huntington Bank Joel Klatt (Analyst) 11 Miami (OH) 11:00 a.m. ESPNU Surface: FieldTurf Jenny Taft (Reporter) 18 at Colorado 12:00 p.m. PAC12N Capacity: 50,805 Series Overall: Ohio State Leads 45-7 25 Bowling Green^ 11:00 a.m. TBA Minnesota Ohio State Radio: KFAN 2020: 3-4, 3-4 B1G 2020: 7-1, 5-0 B1G Streak: Ohio State Won 11 OCTOBER Mike Grimm (Play by Play) HC P.J. Fleck HC Ryan Day Series in MN: Ohio State Leads 22-4 2 at Purdue* 11:00 a.m. TBA Darrell Thompson (Analyst) 9th Year (5th at Minnesota) 4th Year (all at Ohio State) Streak: Ohio State Won 13 16 Nebraska* TBA TBA Last Meeting: Ohio State won 30-14 Justin Gaard (Reporter) at Minnesota: 26-19 at Ohio State: 23-2 23 Maryland* TBA TBA in Columbus (10/13/18) Corbu Stathes (Host) vs. Ohio State: 0-1 vs. Minnesota: 0-0 30 at Northwestern* TBA TBA Last U win: 29-17 in Columbus Dan Rowbotham (Engineer) Overall Record: 56-41 at Ohio State: 23-2 NOVEMBER (10/14/00) vs. Ohio State: 0-2 vs. Minnesota: 0-0 6 Illinois* TBA TBA Last U win in MN: 35-31 (11/7/81) 13 at Iowa* TBA TBA 20 at Indiana* TBA TBA FIVE THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW 27 Wisconsin* TBA TBA * Big Ten game // ^ Homecoming game // All times Central University of Minnesota football begins its 138th season, 1 and fifth under head coach P.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Chargers Stadium-Convention Center
    REPORT ON PROPOSED JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF A STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER Chargers Stadium-Convention Center SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO:EXISTING PREPARED BY: Mr. Brian Hughes HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment San Diego Tourism Marketing District Facilities Consulting Corporation 205 West Randolph 8880 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 800 Suite 1650 San Diego, California, 92108 Chicago, Illinois 60606 [email protected] +1 (312) 587-9900 +1 (619) 209-6108 September 22, 2016 Convention, Sports & Entertainment Facilities Consulting Chicago, Illinois September 22, 2016 Mr. Brian Hughes 205 West Randolph San Diego Tourism Marketing District Corporation Suite 1650 8880 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 800 Chicago, Illinois 60606 San Diego, California, 92108 +1 312-587-9900 [email protected] +1 312-488-3631 FAX www.hvs.com Re: Chargers Stadium-Convention Center San Diego, California Atlanta Boston Dear Mr. Hughes: Boulder Chicago Attached you will find our Report on the Proposed Joint Development of a Chargers Dallas Stadium-Convention Center (“Stadium-Convention Center”). As you requested, we Denver Las Vegas have evaluated the impact of the proposed venue on San Diego’s ability to attract Mexico City convention center business. Miami Nassau The Chargers propose a $1.8 billion investment over half of which, $1.15 billion, New York would come from public sources. Our review of the Chargers’ proposal assessed Newport whether that proposed level of public investment in a Stadium-Convention Center San Francisco would advance San Diego’s position in the convention industry. Toronto Vancouver Our approach to this study involved gathering event planner opinions on the Washington project, comparisons with similar convention center and stadium developments, Athens Buenos Aires and thorough analysis of all available data on convention business in San Diego.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the American Outdoor Sport Facility: Developing an Ideal Type on the Evolution of Professional Baseball and Football Structures
    AN ANALYSIS OF THE AMERICAN OUTDOOR SPORT FACILITY: DEVELOPING AN IDEAL TYPE ON THE EVOLUTION OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL AND FOOTBALL STRUCTURES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Chad S. Seifried, B.S., M.Ed. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Donna Pastore, Advisor Professor Melvin Adelman _________________________________ Professor Janet Fink Advisor College of Education Copyright by Chad Seifried 2005 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to analyze the physical layout of the American baseball and football professional sport facility from 1850 to present and design an ideal-type appropriate for its evolution. Specifically, this study attempts to establish a logical expansion and adaptation of Bale’s Four-Stage Ideal-type on the Evolution of the Modern English Soccer Stadium appropriate for the history of professional baseball and football and that predicts future changes in American sport facilities. In essence, it is the author’s intention to provide a more coherent and comprehensive account of the evolving professional baseball and football sport facility and where it appears to be headed. This investigation concludes eight stages exist concerning the evolution of the professional baseball and football sport facility. Stages one through four primarily appeared before the beginning of the 20th century and existed as temporary structures which were small and cheaply built. Stages five and six materialize as the first permanent professional baseball and football facilities. Stage seven surfaces as a multi-purpose facility which attempted to accommodate both professional football and baseball equally.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study of the Football Facilities of the University of Georgia Misty B
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Dissertations Dissertations 8-2018 Dreams and Plans: A Case Study of the Football Facilities of the University Of Georgia Misty B. Soles Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations Recommended Citation Soles, Misty B., "Dreams and Plans: A Case Study of the Football Facilities of the University Of Georgia" (2018). All Dissertations. 2182. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/2182 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DREAMS AND PLANS: A CASE STUDY OF THE FOOTBALL FACILITIES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Educational Leadership by Misty B. Soles August 2018 Accepted by: Robert C. Knoeppel, Committee Chair D. Matthew Boyer Michael Godfrey Mindy Spearman ABSTRACT Intercollegiate athletics are an integral part of colleges and universities in the United States and have been for decades. Large athletic facilities expenditures began in the interwar period, the period between the two World Wars, with widespread construction of on-campus stadiums. Currently, athletic facilities expenditures are experiencing a second nationwide spending spree that began around the turn of the century. This study considers the types of athletic facilities, motivations for those facilities, and financial models used to pay for those facilities at the University of Georgia. The study concentrates on facilities constructed solely or primarily for football during two chronological periods: the interwar period and the 2000-2017 period.
    [Show full text]
  • Houston Astrodome Harris County, Texas
    A ULI Advisory ServicesReport Panel A ULI Houston Astrodome Harris County, Texas December 15–19, 2014 Advisory ServicesReport Panel A ULI Astrodome2015_cover.indd 2 3/16/15 12:56 PM The Astrodome Harris County, Texas A Vision for a Repurposed Icon December 15–19, 2014 Advisory Services Panel Report A ULI A ULI About the Urban Land Institute THE MISSION OF THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE is ■■ Sustaining a diverse global network of local practice to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in and advisory efforts that address current and future creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. challenges. ULI is committed to Established in 1936, the Institute today has more than ■■ Bringing together leaders from across the fields of real 34,000 members worldwide, representing the entire estate and land use policy to exchange best practices spectrum of the land use and development disciplines. and serve community needs; ULI relies heavily on the experience of its members. It is through member involvement and information resources ■■ Fostering collaboration within and beyond ULI’s that ULI has been able to set standards of excellence in membership through mentoring, dialogue, and problem development practice. The Institute has long been rec- solving; ognized as one of the world’s most respected and widely ■■ Exploring issues of urbanization, conservation, regen- quoted sources of objective information on urban planning, eration, land use, capital formation, and sustainable growth, and development. development; ■■ Advancing land use policies and design practices that respect the uniqueness of both the built and natural environments; ■■ Sharing knowledge through education, applied research, publishing, and electronic media; and Cover: Urban Land Institute © 2015 by the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20007-5201 All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Footprints, with Scott Splichal, Vice Be Held Dec
    THIS WEEK on the WEB State Rep. Woody Burton retires Page 2 BEECH GROVE • CENTER GROVE • GARFIELD PARK & FOUNTAIN SQUARE • GREENWOOD • SOUTHPORT • FRANKLIN & PERRY TOWNSHIPS FREE • Week of November 27-December 4, 2019 Serving the Southside Since 1928 ss-times.com N&D: AN OPTION Changing Amelia’s Footpri nt s PAGE 6 Gifts 2019 Handmade gifts by Hoosier artists Scott Splichal has a ‘sole for shoes’ PAGE 4 HAUNTS & FEATURE MATTERS OF HEALTH BEECH GROVE JAUNTS Greenwood Rotary Symptoms of MARKETPLACE Holiday hosts annual Bids Seasonal Affective Shop Small transformations 4 Kids auction Disorder this Saturday Page 3 Page 4 Page 8 Page 17 PAGES 9-16 Altenheim Aspen Trace Greenwood Health & Living University Heights Health & Living www.CarDon.us expert SENIOR LIVING SOLUTIONS. 2 Week of November 27-December 4, 2019 • ss-times.com COMMUNITY The Southside Times Contact the Southside THIS Managing Editor WEEK on the Have any news tips? Want News Quiz WEB to submit a calendar event? Have a photograph to share? Call Nancy Price How well do you know your at 698-1661 or email her at Southside community? [email protected]. And remember, our news Test your current event deadlines are several days knowledge each week prior to print. with a little Q&A! Want to Advertise? What Southside high 1 school was recently named The Southside Times a state finalist in a national reaches a vast segment STEM contest? of our community with CGHS seniors Athulya Nair, Madison Hammill and Mahek Agrawa with their teacher, Andrea ❏ A. Franklin Township readership of 88%.* SMARI Teevan.
    [Show full text]
  • Week 10 Game Release
    WEEK 10 GAME RELEASE #BUFvsAZ Mark Dal ton - Senior Vice Presid ent, Med ia Rel ations Ch ris Mel vin - Director, Med ia Rel ations Mik e Hel m - Manag er, Med ia Rel ations Imani Sube r - Me dia Re latio ns Coordinato r C hase Russe ll - Me dia Re latio ns Coordinator BUFFALO BILLS (7-2) VS. ARIZONA CARDINALS (5-3) State Farm Stadium | November 15, 2020 | 2:05 PM THIS WEEK’S PREVIEW ARIZONA CARDINALS - 2020 SCHEDULE Arizona will wrap up a nearly month-long three-game homestand and open Regular Season the second half of the season when it hosts the Buffalo Bills at State Farm Sta- Date Opponent Loca on AZ Time dium this week. Sep. 13 @ San Francisco Levi's Stadium W, 24-20 Sep. 20 WASHINGTON State Farm Stadium W, 30-15 This week's matchup against the Bills (7-2) marks the fi rst of two games in a Sep. 27 DETROIT State Farm Stadium L, 23-26 five-day stretch against teams with a combined 13-4 record. Aer facing Buf- Oct. 4 @ Carolina Bank of America Stadium L 21-31 falo, Arizona plays at Seale (6-2) on Thursday Night Football in Week 11. Oct. 11 @ N.Y. Jets MetLife Stadium W, 30-10 Sunday's game marks just the 12th mee ng in a series that dates back to 1971. Oct. 19 @ Dallas+ AT&T Stadium W, 38-10 The two teams last met at Buffalo in Week 3 of the 2016 season. Arizona won Oct. 25 SEATTLE~ State Farm Stadium W, 37-34 (OT) three of the first four matchups between the teams but Buffalo holds a 7-4 - BYE- advantage in series aer having won six of the last seven games.
    [Show full text]
  • Tampa Bay Area
    News Release AT&T Invests More Than $130 Million Over 3-Year Period to Enhance Local Networks in Tampa Bay Area TAMPA, FL., May 5, 2017 — At AT&T1, we’ve invested more than $130 million in our Tampa Bay market’s wireless and wired networks during 2014-2016. These investments enhance reliability, coverage, speed and overall performance for residents and businesses. They also improve critical services that support public safety and first responders. In 2016, AT&T made 242 wireless network upgrades throughout Tampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater, including new cell sites at the MidFlorida Credit Union Amphitheatre, Carillon Point and Campus Hill Park at University of South Florida. "AT&T is investing to provide faster, more reliable, highly secure connectivity for Floridians. These continued investments bring residents and businesses a host of new opportunities and help pave the path for 5G mobile services in the years ahead," said Joe York, president of AT&T Florida. "For Florida to continue to thrive and serve residents, it's crucial we have companies invest through thoughtful innovation," said state Senator Travis Hutson. "By investing in our state, AT&T is making business growth possible and is providing the most up to date technology for our first responders through technology like Next Generation 9-1-1 while keeping our residents connected and entertained." "The Advanced Wireless Infrastructure Deployment Act provides a state-wide uniform approach to the efficient deployment of wireless technology," said state Representative Mike La Rosa. "This legislation reduces unnecessary roadblocks that increase expenses associated with wireless deployment and will help speed up the availability of 5G technology." The AT&T LTE network covers nearly 400 million people in North America.
    [Show full text]