How exciting! This is great news and makes me very proud! Shout out to all who worked to make this happen. I hope we can keep this AD, but his stock is soaring right now.

It's great that they addressed adding shade to baseball, soccer and softball but I don't see anything new about shade at the football stadium. Heat is a big problem in the stadium and, at times, even in the late games. The heat on the east side of the field is particularly brutal since they don't get any relief from the sun until it pretty much sets.

The crowd looked really small well into the first half of the Idaho game but , when I went up to the concession area, I saw that lots of people were crowded around in the shaded areas and that was a 4 pm start in November! I'm not sure what they can do in the stadium to create more shade but it's a real problem because the lots of people simply won't come to a game if they're going to have to sit in the sun and get fried.

The only real design in the package is for softball, which they already had. The “plan” was put together by a planning firm not a design or development group. Wouldn’t put much stock in any of those renderings. You’d think with this many administrators on staff they would be better at rollouts by now but I guess some things never change.

As said earlier, the second story on the west side should give more shade on the east side at an earlier time when the sun starts setting.

I thought about that. I wonder how much earlier that area will actually be shaded. The west side seats are hot until the shade comes. Can't imagine how it feels for the students, the band and the visitors on the west side when its hot and the sun is in their eyes.

Let's see how much ground they break in the spring. Hay is not in the barn -- secure the money -- get the permits and plans updated and proceed, on time. Once the contractors get going, it's just a matter of time.

Pretty cool to see some of the ideas thrown around in the forum become proposals that have a realistic path of completion

While a lot of this plan is not football-oriented, it seems like Davis is positioning itself to be the premier college SPORTS program & venues in the Sac Metro. These facilities (and MW opponents) will draw fans across the board, and think about all the sports camps, HS championship games, etc. we can host.

The rising tide will float all ships, and I think that broad focus across athletics is the biggest contrast with the school across the causeway.

Anyone have any idea about which projects will break ground first and how soon that might be?

Depends which one you fund first.

I'm guessing the new tower might have 60-65% campus funding with the large Event Space. Then, softball might get solid funding bc LaRue will be used for other campus purposes (what???).

The new lodge / press area (??) in the Pavilion looks like it will reduce seating and reduce the facilities flexibility in the upper areas.

they mentioned that the whole ascent project will be completed in 8 years and that the football suites/event space, track&field enhancements, and golf are phase one of that. So I would assume that will start in late 2026 and be completed by 2028.

I thought basketball would be a priority since we want to get up to MW standards ASAP. It will be interesting to see a timeline.

Yeah I thought the same thing, this confused me. The only thing I could think was drive revenue from football asap, or that they plan to try and join the MW as soon as possible for football and want to be prepared?

The UCU renovation looks pretty nice. Hard to tell in the rendering, but I wonder if they will fill in seating at the north end to make up seat count from the loge? Hopefully can undo the aesthetic atrocities of the 2008-ish renovation. Maybe they can hold a ceremony to cut down the horrible divider net?

I think, regardless of whatever timeline UCD admin may have in mind, it’s the “be prepared.” Realignment chaos probably isn’t over, and may not be for sometime. Having a better football facility will allow us to have maximum flexibility, come what may.

What's the divider net? What was bad w the remodel - beyond losing seating up high?

All these modifications are for ICA, while this is a student facility.

FWIW, Chancellor has a suite, so only five available.

This is great stuff to have on TV!

The argument that they need to attract out of state students because California students are going out of state, which seemed logical for the interviewer, suffers when one considers how many California students aren’t offered admission.

I thought the arena would be first too but I think since they are also building/adding a whole new training/practice facility connected to arena for gymnastics/volleyball/basketball that they wouldn’t have the funds for that for another 2-3 years and that they would likely do both projects/arena/training facility at same time. So having that as phase 2 of Aggie ascent makes sense.

“ FWIW, Chancellor has a suite, so only five available.”

I hope he’s donating to the cause!

Hey, it's good to be the King!

yeah in state applicants isn’t our (or any UC) issue. But they still want a decent percentage of good out of state students too, who would bring additional revenue due to higher fees, plus more brand recognition can bring in more sponsorships and sometimes bring in more research money.

It looks like we're in the perpetual athletics facilities / $$$ race.

On the flip side, like w the major donors who funded Dobbins and field hockey facilities, one or two key donors can fund one of the 'smaller' venues. Thus probably the wish list.

Before things get too far down the track, I hope they consult the community and folks like Phil Swimley, baseball lifer.

What’s your take on sticking the premium area way back in the rafters? Seems like the building is already set up nicely to have a few loge boxes in that mezzanine level much closer to the action. Curious to get your thoughts on the stadium also. Sticking boxes on top of the press box is the most expensive and least flexible path forward. Shouldn’t they be looking at those mezz clubs like UNT or Kansas’ new stadium? Cheaper, closer, and wouldn’t get in the way of a future expansion.

my thought is that if you boxed in the mezzanine, the building might not have the vertical height to make a sightline work from the upper level. With the boxes pulled back as proposed, you potentially create a sizable cavern under them to put modern ADA-accessible restrooms and concessions. I suppose use cases vary, but when I got invited to my company’s box for an NBA game, watching the game was secondary to the open bar situation and executive politicking in the back of the suite so maybe the view wasn’t that important.

For the stadium, I would probably recommend they just demo the press box and build a simpler tower including all the press boxes and suites, especially considering Scott and Scott have mentioned the press box is cramped. In my experience, interlocking two independent structures like that is always more expensive and complicated than planned. I’d be curious to know what they mean by an open food court. I don’t love food trucks. In a stadium, your transaction time goal is 15-20 seconds and food trucks are super slow. You want 1-step foods that limit customization to deliver quality at volume.