Who cares??? Thete to watch football not facebook or stream the whole game....it can wait
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I like to listen the iHeart play by play on my head set. WiFi is helpful.Not a fan of the new mayor of UK sports, but have to agree..we were sold a bill of goods that seating was decreased by 6,000 with the goal of being more "intimate" and "fan friendly"..so why wouldn't wifi/cell reception be one of the first things on your list? As an AD, If you're truly committing yourself to making a football program top-notch (or even halfway competitive) cell reception is something you have figured out on the first day..if you're going to shrink our stadium you can at least make it "fan friendly" like you promised..come on Mitch, if MJ (who is cashing checks with UK written on them) is calling you out over something football-related, then I'd say you have something serious to worry about
Can someone please tell me, as an earlier poster stated, how wifi in the football stadium is going to help us have a better football program???Kentucky Football - always ten years behind in technology since 1892.
Can someone please tell me, as an earlier poster stated, how wifi in the football stadium is going to help us have a better football program???
I think the idea is it would draw more people to games and thus the game day atmosphere will be more intimidating.
Not a fan of the new mayor of UK sports, but have to agree..we were sold a bill of goods that seating was decreased by 7,000 with the goal of being more "intimate" and "fan friendly" (rather than intimidating our opponents with 70,000+ screaming fans) so why wouldn't wifi/cell reception be one of the first things on your list? As an AD, If you're truly committing yourself to making a football program top-notch (or even halfway competitive) cell reception is something you have figured out on the first day..if you're going to shrink our stadium you can at least make it "fan friendly" like you promised..if we're going to have the second-smallest stadium in the SEC and have Louisville pass us in stadium size as well, we should at least have a little quality..come on Mitch, if MJ (who is cashing checks with UK written on them) is calling you out over something football-related, then I'd say that's when you should start worrying.
The real reason Mitch decreased seating wasn't because he wanted things to be more "fan friendly" let's be real..the stadium will be a slightly better fan experience, but the real reason was because if there are fewer seats what will happen? You can charge more money and corner people into giving more K-fund "donations" to keep their seats
Here's how Mitch looked at things: he saw 10,000 empty seats at the stadium while we were going 2-10, and assumed this was a trend that wouldn't change. He didn't realize that the reason those seats were empty was because of the quality of the product on the field, not because of some larger national trend of people not coming to games. In his mind he thought, "well, if those seats are going to be empty from now on, and not earning me money, why not just get rid of them and then charge more for the remaining seats?" He didn't realize that when this team actually gets halfway decent again and is winning more than 4 or 5 games, our fanbase would easily pack a 68,000 seat stadium.
If Barnhart truly cared about *winning* in football, he would realize what kind of home field advantage is offered by 7,000 extra seats..but by doing this he showed us that he doesn't care about an intimidating home field environment as much as he does being able to charge more money for seats b/c there are fewer of them available. Decreasing seating and making the seats more "valuable" (in his words) is the only way he thought he would be able to charge more for seats. He wasn't interested in an intimidating home field environment that would give our team a distinct advantage at home and help us win more games. We are the only school in the SEC to decrease seating, and IMO it was a selfish move made for the purposes of making more money, not for helping our program win more games. There's a reason no one in our conference is decreasing, and are instead *expanding*. They realize that more seats=more intimidating environment, which leads to more wins. To deny that, is just not being truthful with yourself.
Can someone please tell me, as an earlier poster stated, how wifi in the football stadium is going to help us have a better football program???
If you are trying to draw in people to the games that will only come if there is WIFI, I don't see those people making a game day atmosphere more intimidating...
"I'll paint my face and get rowdy...but only if there is WIFI!"
It would be nice to check stuff out at halftime for sure - but it shouldn't be a big enough deal for people to get upset about.I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it blows not being able to do basic things like look up stats (CWF blows for showing any meaningful stats) or get injury updates from Twitter. But sure, there are others who just want to sit on Facebook.
Who cares??? Thete to watch football not facebook or stream the whole game....it can wait
Amen.UK puts up the same few scores of other games (usually only three or four games), and never updates them during the game. It would be nice to be able to use my phone to get some live updates.
Interesting, but, quite frankly, I don't believe it. At least not in the context of whether it is important to a $120M stadium renovation to provide a "smaller, more fan friendly venue" is concerned. The fact is people "expect" reasonably clean and maintained bathrooms in such venues. So, yes, in that sense, "clean bathrooms" are more important than WiFi. But if you are spending that much money to making CWS more fan friendly, lack of good WiFi/celluar reception seems like a pretty big omission.a study done recently on the declining attendance at college football games by actual college students listed clean bathrooms as much more important than quality wifi signals
and as I said, from the study that isnt nearly as important that old guys like you & me ASSUME when you actually ask an 18-20 yr old kid why they dont attend football games. Link:Why? The Millennials (as well as many others) are literally joined at the hip (pocket) to their mobile technology.
If Barnhart truly cared about *winning* in football, he would realize what kind of home field advantage is offered by 7,000 extra seats..but by doing this he showed us that he doesn't care about an intimidating home field environment as much as he does being able to charge more money for seats b/c there are fewer of them available. Decreasing seating and making the seats more "valuable" (in his words) is the only way he thought he would be able to charge more for seats. He wasn't interested in an intimidating home field environment that would give our team a distinct advantage at home and help us win more games. We are the only school in the SEC to decrease seating, and IMO it was a selfish move made for the purposes of making more money, not for helping our program win more games. There's a reason no one in our conference is decreasing, and are instead *expanding*. They realize that more seats=more intimidating environment, which leads to more wins. To deny that, is just not being truthful with yourself.
Well if wifi is good enough for Rupp Arena, it is good enough for CWS.
Vaughts' Views @vaughtsviews 1m1 minute ago
At VaughtsViews: $15 million dollar Rupp Arena technology overhaul will include wireless internet for fans http://bit.ly/1GVnvvY