MSU facilities vs Ole Miss facilities

[blacklistedbully]

So, I'm having it out on rivals with an Ole Miss fan who claims +#@% facilities are "light years" better than ours. Of course, as is the case with your typical +#@% fan, this idiot thinks EVERYTHING at +#@% is much better. Hell, you'd think the toilets were gold-plated there.<div>
</div><div>I know our facilities used to be a joke, but am also aware they have been greatly improved. Anyone here with first-hand knowledge or input?</div>

 

[blacklistedbully]

So, I'm having it out on rivals with an Ole Miss fan who claims +#@% facilities are "light years" better than ours. Of course, as is the case with your typical +#@% fan, this idiot thinks EVERYTHING at +#@% is much better. Hell, you'd think the toilets were gold-plated there.<div>
</div><div>I know our facilities used to be a joke, but am also aware they have been greatly improved. Anyone here with first-hand knowledge or input?</div>

 

[blacklistedbully]

So, I'm having it out on rivals with an Ole Miss fan who claims +#@% facilities are "light years" better than ours. Of course, as is the case with your typical +#@% fan, this idiot thinks EVERYTHING at +#@% is much better. Hell, you'd think the toilets were gold-plated there.<div>
</div><div>I know our facilities used to be a joke, but am also aware they have been greatly improved. Anyone here with first-hand knowledge or input?</div>

 

[therightway]

The Hump does not leak and it is way better than theSad Pad.We have the potential in football stadium but not yet. We set the bar in baseball 25 years ago and most of the SEC has past us now.

 

[Dollabillz]

and vice versa. Their IPF is nice for sure. But it's nothing that can't be passed. Just like their baseball stadium, it's nicer (not necessarily better), but we can pass it with our next upgrade. Same with football, they are a tad better, and we can pass them. Then they'll pass us back, and we'll argue on the internet forever. Basketball, we're a good bit better, but it's nothing that can't be evened out if they really wanted to do it. Croom did alot for our facilities, more than most would like to admit. The student athlete center is top notch. Our IPF are not too shabby either.

They have a small campus, we have a big campus. They think theirs is nicer, we think ours is. Starkville, Oxford, etc etc etc. I think they both have their highs and lows. Both places reflect the stereotypes. Oxford: rooted in tradtion but never really moved forward. Starkville: Just now getting into the 21st century, have plenty of new nice stuff that nobody knows about but a victim of quick development. Both campuses look nice in their own way.

 

[615dawg]

Everything they have is light years ahead.

They are definitely 12th in basketball, but we are no better than 9th with Auburn's new arena. (LSU, Georgia, Ole Miss are worse than the Hump)

 

[dawgstudent]

Football: To me, Vaught is no nicer than Scott Field. Facilities wise - I think they have us beat because everything is centralized for football.

Basketball - not even close. State hands down.

Baseball - We are way behind as far as stadium. Practice facility wise - I think we are ahead.

 

[JohnDawg]

but hell, they just renovated the whole damn thing. I would expect us to be right back up around the top whenever we decide to stop sucking at baseball and upgrade our baseball facilities.

We both have fairly small football stadiums (when compared to the rest of the SEC) but we also have the 2 biggest damn TV's in the SEC as well (I think that's still the case). Their IPF is awesome. God was the architect for it and if you don't like it, you're anatheist and a terrorist.

Baseball: Their new field is awesome. Great work there. Like I said, ours will come around and we'll be up around the top again.

Basketball: I'dratherplayin traffic at 5:01 pm at the Water Works curve on I-55 than watch a game in the Tad Pad.

 

[TUSK.sixpack]

how big is that thing???? how big is UM's? didn't arkansas install one a few years back that was the biggest (at that time)?

 

[atlwebdawg]

Football: To me, Vaught is no nicer than Scott Field. Facilities wise -<span style="font-weight: bold;"> I think they have us beat because everything is centralized for football.</span>

Basketball - not even close. State hands down.

Baseball - We are way behind as far as stadium. Practice facility wise - I think we are ahead.

Being able to do everything 'under one roof' is one of the their top selling points to recruits. Their IPF is not just the IPF, but it's the football complex and the underground entrance to Vaught is 'cool' to these players.
Moving forward we need to revamp the MClub building and our gameday locker room. We have to improve them significantly - mainly the size of the gameday locker room. I think once we do that, we will be even again.

 

[615dawg]

Its 152 x 135. Second largest HD display in the world.

 

[Agentdog]

To me the biggest difference between their stadium and ours, is the open endzones in Starkville. That just really takes away from our stadium. Also, the locker room is small at DWS. Never been in theirs. But I was surprised how small ours was when I saw it.....back in 2000. I can not imagine having 80 guys in there. We really need to enclose the north endzone with a plush locker room underneath. We do that....our stadiums are equal.

 

[rem101]

We have beer on Sunday. They don't.
We have gang rapes. They don't.

Each is nice in it's own way.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

better basketball arena. Our basketball practice facility is better I think, but y'alls will be ready soon right? Nothing either of us has is light years ahead of the other.

And we can drink liquor on campus.

 

[dawgstudent]

that makes it better than Scott Field.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

 

[AzzurriDawg4]

But that puts Vaught Hemingway over the edge I think. Their stadium isnt really visually appealing, as mix-matched as it is, but that endzone expansion was done well. And I can't say enough about how much nicer it is to have an outdoor concourse where you can actually still see the game.

It really just depends on what you are talking about. Are we talking about fan experience, architecture, appeal to players? Both have major faults in all categories. Right now I think they get the nod due to size and the endzone. I think ours is much nicer from endzone to endzone though.

 

[RebelBruiser]

More luxury seating and fewer (read: No) seats where you have a hard time seeing the players due to being too high are things I like about VHS over your stadium.

If you haven't sat in the upper deck, you don't know, but it's better to stand in the aisles of the walkway on the way up for the entire game than to sit in those seats, because you can barely read the numbers on uniforms from the upper deck. We don't have any seats like that at VHS. I don't think Scott Field is a bad place or anything, but I think the seating, the number and option of luxury seats, and the sight lines for all the seats make VHS a better place to see a game, whether that makes it a better facility or not, I don't know.

 

[AzzurriDawg4]

Not saying I don't want ours bowled in, just saying I don't like sitting there. I like the view from the upper deck at davis wade. I like being able to see the play develop and seeing the formations more clearly. You need to get some contacts.

 

[8dog]

Im amazed people will pay for luxury seating in the end zone.

 

[Jacknut1]

I've sat up there several times. Most people end up watching the Jumbotron anyway.

*edit* You want bad upper seats? Go to LSU. You need a sherpa guide to get up and down from there.

 

[JohnDawg]

I'd rather watch from the moon with a high powered telescope than sit in the endzone.</p>

 

[patdog]

Bruiser must be very short-sighted. Because I've watched many of our games from the upper deck, and it's a great place to watch a game. In fact, when my son was young, he used to always want to go to the top of the stadium, so I watched many games from the walkway just behind the top row, even though we had seats in the lower deck.

 

[39762]

Was at dinner a few weeks ago with an exec from a company that has a skybox at VHS. He's a Bama fan so had never been to skyboxes at VHS until last year.

All he wanted to talk about that night was how foolish it was to have your premium seating in the stadium in yoru endzone.

His point was thehighest seat inany stadiumis a better view than watching from the end zone and the teams being in the red zone on the far end of the field.

 

[jacksonreb1]

how we'll 'pass' each other in the facilities race. i expect ya'll will update dnoble soon and it will be one of the nicest and biggest baseball facilities again. my only disgreement with you is on the IPF. "light yrs" is a long way but in that one facility it might be a fair description. anybody who has been in both would have to at least agree that there is no comparison. now the tad pad vs the hump might be your "light yr" area.

 

[dawgstudent]

I know it's all about preference but I enjoy the endzone more than the upper deck. when I am in the upper deck - I feel like I am not even at a game.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

the view is not nearly as bad as you might think. I have seen a game from there, and I was ok with it, you can see better than you think.
Being a little higher, and not at ground level, you can see the the game pretty good, you can see plays developing, etc.

 

[dawgstudent]

more seats not in the endzone seems better to me(I know I am contradicting myself in this very thread but I am trying to win the discussion). I have stood on both fields and standing on the field at State just seems much more impressive. Seems more big time. Of course, I have a little bias.

Bsaically, there is no difference between the two football stadiums to me.

 

[AzzurriDawg4]

I was up there last year for the florida game and just about ran the whole length of the stadium on the top row of the upper deck with Banks on the first pick-6.

 

[colodawg]

Football - While living in MS I had chairbacks on the 45 yd line and was protected from the rain with the overhang. And I have sat on the East Side luxury seats @ DWS. Have sat in the VH endzone and in a luxury suite. I enjoyed both stadiums, but have to give the edge to VH.

Basketball - The Tad Pad is a dump. Rest rooms are terrible, all in a "basement" setting. Refreshments are terrible. Seats are too small for those of us who are circumfurentially challenged. The Hump is much better.

Baseball - Been out west too long to have seen the demise of the Dude, and have not seen the renovations at OM, but hope we soon regain prominence.

 

[8dog]

d

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

better from that vantage. Plus there's an overhang which is awesome for hot, sunny days. I actually have gotten to prefer the end zone over sideline seats now.

 

[Mr Meoff]

*

 

[wbc40]

Give me double-decker end zone to end zone seating over a single-decker "U" any day. Also, the contrast between the white press "box" and the curved look of the luxury suites on the opposite sidelines of VH is repulsive to me. Obviously I'm biased, but I like DWS significantly more than VH.

 

[RebelBruiser]

I've sat up there several times. Most people end up watching the Jumbotron anyway.

*edit* You want bad upper seats? Go to LSU. You need a sherpa guide to get up and down from there.

I agree. Scott Field's upper deck isn't the worst in the SEC, but in general upper deck seats suck period. It's a blimp view, and it feels like you're separated from the rest of the game.

Endzone seats suck if you are down low, but if you're up higher in the endzone they aren't bad.

Like I said, it depends on what perspective you want to take on which stadium is better. You could make arguments either way, but the last time I went to Scott Field with upper deck seats, I watched from the concourse above the top row, standing along with many others who had upper deck seats, because it was better to stand the whole game than sit up there. There were a lot of empty seats in the upper deck even though the game was close to sold out, which tells me a lot of those people chose to watch the game from standing room only places rather than watching from their seats.

 

[fishwater99]

I have been in a couple in the South End-Zone and the view is pretty damn good. It's not near as high up as sitting in our Upper Deck.

 

[Dollabillz]

nm

 

[rem101]

[No message]

 

[buddawg]

in a raised man lift standing on top of a thirty footA frame ladder than be in the end zone seats

 

[MedDawg]

in a raised man lift standing on top of a thirty footA frame ladder than be in the end zone seats

Now THAT sounds dangerous.

I would much rather be in a sidelines upper deck than endzone, too. Davis Wade also has an enclosed climate-controlled concourse below the East side upper deck. Can't beat air conditioning during halftime and breaks. VHS has 5,000 more seats, that's all. Nothing else makes it better than Davis Wade Stadium. I thinkhaving sideline seats vs endzone seatsclearly makes DWS better than VHS.

Seems like both OM and State fans have forgotten that MSU has terrific facilities in separate buildings. State's weight room is just asnice as OM's. State has a 100 yard footballindoorpractice facility (our 2nd IPF), the players' lounge with TV's and couches and video games,andthe trainingrooms with the pooltreadmills, too.They are just in 2 (or 3?) separate buildings. Ole Misshas everything in one building, which might be "cooler", but that doesn't at all meaneach component is necessarily "better" than MSU's.