Quail2theVict0r

July 25th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^

Awesome Farve joke asside, it looks pretty big to me. It almost looks like the screen will be about the same size as the entire scoreboard casing used to be. If you notice the screen itself rests on the same 4 interior pillars that were used for the previous screens and the new portion (assuming the casing?) is what the two (new) outside pillars are for.

You also have to factor in that while most stadiums have 1 huge one, we have two - which is probably why we didn't go all godzillitron on the screens.

 

I also did a little mock-up of what the screen was vs. what it is now using the two live webcam pictures from when they took down the old screen - to now when they're putting the new one up:

 

 

Scoreboard

 

I'd say that's a pretty big difference.

dahblue

July 25th, 2011 at 10:16 AM ^

While the video screen will indeed be much larger, that isn't really saying a lot.  It's like replacing a 13 inch (first generation) color television with a 52 inch HD screen...but on a massive empty wall.  So, yes, it's a lot bigger and will be a much better picture, but there's still a lot of empty space on the "wall".   Also, folks keep mentioning that we will have 2 (rather than 1) scoreboard...and?  Is that news?  Of course we'll have two.

Look, I expect them to look amazing...I just wish our scoreboards were "first" of something (new technology, size, etc...something).  They don't need to be the biggest, but we're Michigan - they should be the best.

[*edit:  I should clarify that I haven't yet seen the construction in person so I'm only basing my comments on photos posted here and the webcam]

blueblueblue

July 25th, 2011 at 10:18 AM ^

People keep mentioning that there will be two because often the comparison is with the size of scoreboards in other stadiums  - but stadiums which have only one huge scoreboard. 

And as for Michigan always being "first" - how about first in overall classiness? Try thinking in terms of the whole. If every part of the whole is the 'best', then we will likely loose the best in terms of the whole. Keep the whole in mind - think in terms of how everything fits together. I would much rather have the best overall classy stadium than a stadium that is collection of individual monstrosities. 

dahblue

July 25th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^

I would much rather have the best overall classy stadium than a stadium that is collection of individual monstrosities. 

I couldn't agree more with this but think that we could still innovate with our scoreboards.  I think that the luxury boxes are pretty innovative in that they blend old and new seamlessly.  Their slight inward curve works to improve gameday noise.  It just doesn't seem like the boards are innovative.  It seems like we're jumping on the technology train well after it left the station...and with the past of technology advances, it'd be a shame to be outdated in the near future.

In any event, when we added the Jock Jamz, we gave up any claim to "classiest stadium" and began to hold hands with the Tidewater Tides and Lansing Lugnuts.  I'd be fine to keep the old boards if that meant we could stop letting the Dawgs out.

blueblueblue

July 25th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^

Completely agree on the rawk music (I forgot about that) - that weakens the "best overall classy stadium" argument. I wish the new regime would do away with that. 

As for the scoreboards - perhaps we should wait and see before complaining. My guess is, taking how the luxury boxes were done into consideration, that we will be happy with the picture quality, as well as how they are used, and perhaps we will even be somewhat surprised. I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt until we see just how good the quality is. My preliminary guess is that these boards are cutting edge - the best technology available now is being installed. That means that they are better quality (instead of quantity) than what is currently in place in other stadiums. That is my assumption, and I will withhold complaints until I see them in operation.  

bziegs99

July 25th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^

Your point is hard to quantify but true. Fact is Texas' scoreboard is something that only a Texan could love. It's a total monstrosity and looks ridiculous. It's completely overdone and I'm glad they didn't go that route in our stadium. I think these will look great, fit the stadium appropriately and offer an enhanced experience without overshadowing the action on the field.

Quail2theVict0r

July 25th, 2011 at 10:30 AM ^

Well the 2  vs. 1 is actually a big deal. If you look at most of the schools that have larger screens than us they only have 1 in their stadium. In fact, very vew schools have two screens. Just one of the screens puts us 8th on the list - and there are two of them. So you have to factor that in. Also, as it's been pointed out, almost every single team above us uses advertising to fill up large portions of the screens. So in reality, while not physically the largest, because of our no-advertising tradition - we're probably going to have one of the largest viewing area's of any team out there. Here are the top five:

1 Texas Big 12 Darrell K Royal – Texas Memorial Stadium 134 x 55.5 &Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character ","7,437[1] 20 2064 x 848 2006
&00000000000000020000002 Miami (FL) ACC Sun Life Stadium 138.5 x 48.5 &Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character ","6,717[2] 20 2112 x 736 2006
&00000000000000030000003 Mississippi State SEC Davis Wade Stadium 111 x 47 &Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character ","5,217[3] 12   2008
&00000000000000040000004 Minnesota Big Ten TCF Bank Stadium 108 x 48 &Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character ","5,184[4] 16 2040 x 900 2009
&00000000000000050000005 Oklahoma Big 12 Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium 166 x 31 &Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character ","5,146[5] 16 3168 x 600 2008

 

And here is Michigan:

Michigan Big Ten Michigan Stadium 84.8 x 47.1 &Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character ","3,991[112] 16 1632 x 900 2011


Now take the square feet of viewing (3,991) and times that by two = 7982, which is a bigger number than anyone on the list. That's why it's important to note that we have two of them.

I think the new screens are proportional to the stadium - and that's what they were going for. I also think they're trying to leave room for expanding the stadium around the scoreboards so they kept that in mind when building the new ones.

dahblue

July 25th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^

How weird and asymmetrical would it look if we only had one screen?  Michigan Stadium's symmetry is a beautiful thing (which is a reason I'm personally concerned about Brandon's plan to expand seating in one endzone).  Also, you can't add separate screens to get a size.  Do you add up all of your televisions at home and say, "My living room set is really 82 inches because you have to include the bedroom tv as well."  

As for portion of screen used, I think most of us assumed the entire substructure was going to be screen.  Now that we see the full dimension, it feels like taking off a stuffed bra for the first time (my earlier kinda corny metaphor)...still nice, but not as big as expected.  I expect to love the screens in person, but (again) just wish we set a standard of some sort with the boards.

Quail2theVict0r

July 25th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^

If I had two 60 inch plasma's in one room in my house I would definitely think that's much more impressive than one 70 inch one - if that's what you're asking. I'm not adding in the size of the Yost and Crisler boards (like your "whole house" example). You also have to take into account that at most of the schools above us on the list - a portion of their fans can't even see the scoreboard because they're sitting under it.

Why would you assume anything? They gave us a rendering when they first approved the plan for new scoreboards:

http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/040511aaa.html

One final thing to not is the cost of all of this - like you said the symmetry is important at Michigan stadium. Therefore whatever they put on one side they have to put on the other to make it "look right". If we were going to put a texas-sized scoreboard in we'd have to but two of them. I really don't think that would even be on the table. The cost of putting one of those screens in was probably equivalent to us installing two of the ones we are currently installing.

Raoul

July 25th, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^

Also, as it's been pointed out, almost every single team above us uses advertising to fill up large portions of the screens. So in reality, while not physically the largest, because of our no-advertising tradition - we're probably going to have one of the largest viewing area's of any team out there.

I think you’re off-base here. The scoreboards at the other stadiums may display ads in side panels at times or even most of the time, but they are capable of going full screen, for example, to show replays. So the viewing areas of the Michigan Stadium boards won’t be bigger than those others that include display ads.

Here, for example, are two rendering of what the new scoreboard at Georgia's Sanford Stadium will look like in action:


blueblueblue

July 25th, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^

So, your argument is based on the reasoning that at most, 5% of the time scoreboards with ads will not display those ads. Ok...... He may be off-base, but not significantly so (statistically speaking). 

And what about the times when ads will take up most or all of the scoreboards? Like perhaps before and after they show those replays or during time outs, moving the chains, and halftime? I think not having ads makes a difference in the amount of screen area used for football for a vast majority of the time.

Raoul

July 25th, 2011 at 11:25 AM ^

I don't have a problem with the size of the new scoreboards. I was merely pointing out that the others are capable of displays larger than the new ones at Michigan Stadium.

Also, aren't replays one of the most important things shown on any scoreboard? I don't understand why you and hail2thevict0r are trying to play down the significance of how large the video replays will be.

Again, I don't have a problem with the new scoreboards' size. But it's simply wrong to say that the replays at Michigan Stadium will be larger than those at the stadiums that have display ads on their scoreboards.

blueblueblue

July 25th, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^

"But it's simply wrong to say that the replays at Michigan Stadium will be larger than those at the stadiums that have display ads on their scoreboards."

Sneaky - you slip "replay" in there as if that was the primary focus of the conversation. Your argument was based on replays alone - nobody else's. Others were making the case that ads reduce the size of the screen devoted to football alone. You said, 'not true in terms of replays.' In which care you are right. I  tried to revise the argument to accommodate both aspects - for the significant portion of the time, screens without ads will have more space devoted to football than screens with ads. For an insignificant portion of the time, statistically speaking in terms of amount of time, ads will not matter. I think that holds true. 

Quail2theVict0r

July 25th, 2011 at 11:50 AM ^

On an individual screen the replays will be smaller that the 7 teams ahead of us, you are correct, but there are still 112 teams that are below us as well - and like I said, having only 1 screen means that a portion of the stadium can't even see the scoreboard. Examples:

 

 

Those are only 4 but how would you feel if you were one of the thousands sitting under one of those boards and couldnt' see any replays at all? Personally I'd rather have two top 10 scoreboards that everyone can see rather than the biggest scoreboard that 1/4th of the stadium couldn't see at all.

FreddieMercuryHayes

July 24th, 2011 at 8:58 PM ^

I would normally agree, but I think that making them too big would lessen the available space for expansion seating in the endzones.  Keeping the tradition of the largest stadium is probably a bit more important.  I'm pretty sure that's the reasoning Brandon is probably thinking.  Plus, these boards will still be top 10, and we'll have two of them.  And no ads.

Blue Blue Blue

July 25th, 2011 at 12:49 AM ^

no ads? wake up. 

 

 Brandon is a smart guy.  He doesnt have to put signage up and besmirhc Michigan Stadium to sell ads........that is what the new video scoreboards are for.  And the Michigan football program is the big U's biggest cash cow, and Dave B is going to milk it.

 

It may not be this year (hohoho) but it will be soon.   Brandon can sell exclusivity, message frequency, "sight, sound and motion"........do you think they spent $20 millon on these boards so we could watch replays?

its a bidness, son.

BlueGoM

July 24th, 2011 at 8:56 PM ^

I think the top row will of the scoreboard will house the speakers for the sound system, IIRC that's what was done with the old scoreboard.  Not sure what will be on the sides...

Fhshockey112002

July 24th, 2011 at 9:17 PM ^

I think the size was more determined by load forces, and other construction limitations than anything.  The fact both the scoreboards are fully exposed to the wind, and act like wind sails it is tough to see how much larger that they could have been.

Picktown GoBlue

July 24th, 2011 at 9:28 PM ^

on mgoblue with the rendition of the expected final product.  The enclosure adds 23 feet to the width (11 1/2 on each side with a block M and maybe speakers??) and 15 feet to the height (vital stats of the game below, Michigan Stadium above, in case you forgot where you were...and maybe MOAR speakerz):