NCSU Football Needs an Indoor Practice Center

It’s finally raining in the deserts of Raleigh once again.  That’s good news for homeowners, some who depend of wells for water for their homes, others who are trying to care for parched grass, for farmers tending dusty fields, and for nearly everyone.  We’ve needed this rain for a long time.  Unfortunately, however, it comes at a bad time for the NC State Wolfpack football team as it prepares for its most challenging game of the year so far.

The Pack has finally edged into the Top 25 for the first time in forever, and the team is looking forward to returning to the friendly confines of Carter-Finley stadium for a regionally televised contest against Virginia Tech this Saturday at 3:30pm.   Make no mistake about it, despite their seemingly undistinguished 2-2 record so far, the Hokies will challenge the Wolfpack in every phase of the game, and for the Pack to beat them, they will need to be sharp at every position.  That sharpness comes from solid preparation in the game film room and also on the practice field.  A win will raise the profile of the program nationally in both the rankings and with recruits making their college decisions, and a victory over a perennially nationally ranked Hokie team would indeed signal to the country that NC State football should be reckoned seriously.

Unfortunately, thanks to the otherwise much needed rain, it is inevitable that the Wolfpack team’s outdoor practice is in poor condition, and that’s when it isn’t pouring rain today and perhaps tomorrow.   That in turn will slow State’s practices, it will expose the players to unnecessary practice injuries, and at the least it will slow the rhythm of build-up the coaching staff uses from Monday to Friday as it builds their players towards a peak performance on Saturday afternoon inside the stadium and in front of a regional television audience.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Both Chuck Amato and Tom O’Brien have long indicated the need for an indoor practice center, once that could be climate-controlled just enough to allow full practices without fear of summer swelter in the pre-season and without fear of the autumn rainstorms like the one that the area is experiencing today. Both have said that it would help them keep practices on schedule and would greatly aid their maximizing the limited practice hours that is the reality of college football today.An indoor practice center might seem like an unnecessary luxury, especially now in these tough economic times, but it really isn’t: instead, it is a necessary piece of the puzzle the football program requires as it rebuilds itself from the lull that came after the Philip Rivers ended.  We don’t have one, and we’ll have to make do the future, but as State’s football program moves upward, the need for one will happen again, and then again after that.

It’s time for the Wolfpack Club, the Athletic Department and for the well-heeled donors to take seriously and heed the call of the coaches and to find a way to build the facility that they’ve been requesting for at least a decade.  State needs one badly, and that need will not be going away now or at any time in the future.  Of course, spare money in the worst recession since the 1930’s might seem like a bad time to even think about another capital project.  That’s understandable, however, there is another way:

If You Can’t Build It, Rent It.

Granted it would be far from an ideal situation, but if funds are lacking for a true practice facility to be built from the ground up, it would be a great idea for the Wolfpack Sports brain trust to consider leasing an offsite facility and retrofitting it for the team to use.  There is plenty of warehouse space with high ceilings and climate control sitting unused by fallow businesses and commercial real estate concerns, and leasing that sort of property is now almost literally going begging.  Such a place would at least partially fill the need the coaches have outlined, and it would certainly improve the team’s chances of winning when it has to practice in inclement weather.

Done correctly, any upgrades needed to a leased facility could be transferred over to a permanent facility when — not it — it is built.

Leasing space would buy the time the money men need to bridge the program to better times, and it would help the team sooner rather than later.  It’s an idea that should be considered.

AD & Department Chuck Amato College Football Debbie Yow NC State NC State Administration Tom O'Brien

52 Responses to NCSU Football Needs an Indoor Practice Center

  1. packplantpath 09/27/2010 at 10:48 AM #

    Funding may have been running dry, but if the team can keep playing the way they are, I suspect it won’t be a problem for long.

    That is a big if though at this point.

  2. dcpackfan 09/27/2010 at 10:58 AM #

    Bet this is where Va. Tech is practicing today…:Rector Field House- Major construction completed 1971; 71,189-sq-ft.; cost $636,345. Dedicated Sept. 8, 1973. Built primarily of stone and structural steel. Includes full-length AstroTurf football field (artificial turf added 1973) surrounded by 310-yard tartan track. Mondo all-weather surface added to track 1997 and new artificial turf for football field; cost $500,000. http://www.unirel.vt.edu/history/physical_plant/athletic_facilities.html

  3. 94MEGrad 09/27/2010 at 11:02 AM #

    I think an indoor practice facility is a good idea. However, to play devil’s advocate, what happens when you have to play a game in bad weather? Isn’t it a good idea to practice in bad weather occasionally?

  4. old13 09/27/2010 at 11:16 AM #

    Not necessarily. (1) Warming up in rain before a game provides time to acclimate and (2) the other team is in the same boat. From waaaaaaaaaaay back in my HS playing days, I don’t recall any kind of carryover from practice to the game weatherwise.

  5. Alpha Wolf 09/27/2010 at 11:27 AM #

    I agree with Old13. Sure, it can be fun to practice in bad weather, and it can “toughen you up” especially when it is going to be a cold weather game.

    On the other hand, rain and heat are two different animals because of the chance of serious injuries. In rain, footing gets iffy and the very last thing you want is to lose a player for a game thanks to a freak sprain or tear on the practice field. Heat is another animal for summer practice, some of the most critical time of the year because it can create lost practice hours if a player gets dehydrated or worse.

    Someone here suggested the practice center, and there’s another suitable place a little close for limited use: Dorton Arena. The idea of going someplace like Dorton or the Indoor Soccer Center is to keep your team sharp, to be able to work through the game plan without losing their attention as they stand in pouring rain and so forth and so on.

  6. Ismael 09/27/2010 at 11:27 AM #

    unc does not have an indoor facility, its one of the things Head Cheater is asking for as well.

  7. Phang 09/27/2010 at 11:31 AM #

    What’s wrong with practicing in the rain?

  8. NCMike 09/27/2010 at 11:44 AM #

    In the ACC, Virginia Tech and North Carolina are the only schools that have a dedicated indoor practice area. Georgia Tech will have theirs open for the 2011 season, and Florida State has plans for theirs pretty far along. Clemson also uses an indoor track but UNC and Va. Tech have the only indoor facilities totally dedicated for football. If you can stand all the blue, scroll all the way down to the bottom for UNC’s Ismael.

    http://tarheelblue.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/073002aaa.html

  9. NCMike 09/27/2010 at 11:52 AM #

    Ismael, they already have one. If you can stand all the blue, scroll all the way down to the bottom for pics. Clemson also uses an indoor track but not an indoor facility dedicated totally to football like Va.Tech or UNC have and like Ga.Tech will have next year.

  10. NCMike 09/27/2010 at 11:52 AM #
  11. Alpha Wolf 09/27/2010 at 11:54 AM #

    What’s wrong with practicing in the rain?

    From the article: [practicing in rain] will slow State’s practices, it will expose the players to unnecessary practice injuries thanks to bad footing.

    We DO NOT want to lose any players to a freak injury like a sprain or a tear.

  12. wolfbuff 09/27/2010 at 12:21 PM #

    I’m all for an indoor practice facility and agree the program needs one for the long term. However, the timing of and justification for this article are questionable. I don’t think the rain is going to put us at a disadvantage FOR THIS GAME. Yeah, maybe there is a slight injury risk with wet sod, maybe not. Second, it’s just rain. They ain’t going to melt. Third, as others have suggested, there are other options if the coaching staff wants to move them inside. Hell, we used to put on our sneakers and go run suicides in the gym when I played in high school. I hated it when it rained. You can at least go half speed and have some dry runs so all’s not wasted. Finally, it sounds a little like whining before our next biggest-game-of-the-year this week. VaTech fans will claim we’re gearing up for a built-in excuse in the event we lose. Blacksburg is getting this rain too. Do we know for sure they have an indoor practice facility? Even if they do, I just don’t see the advantage being all that great. No excuses.

  13. acc 10k 09/27/2010 at 12:42 PM #

    VT (described above), UNC, and Clemson all have full-sized indoor track facilities. To my knowledge no one else in the ACC does, nor does anyone have a similar-sized practice building without a track. At VT the track is banked and raised – sections that are set up for track and taken out for football. UNC and Clemson have a flat track set into the floor. In that set-up, you can easily roll out another surface over the track.
    Any building that can hold a 200-meter track can fit the full width of a football field between the walls. It may not necessarily fit the full length (120 yards), but should be at least 90-100 yards. UNC may actually have a little less, because instead of a pure rectangle they have lean-to extensions on the ends of the building to allow space to walk around the curves. But as recently as 10 years ago there were certainly places using much smaller and less open places than that for indoor practice areas.
    UNC might legitimately be able to claim no indoor practice space, due to both the space issues I described and location. I don’t know where they normally practice football, but their indoor track is right next to the track/soccer stadium. It might not be feasible to switch from their regular outdoor practice location to the indoor facility.

    This is what Clemson has – advertised as purely track, but larger than the Rector fieldhouse at VT, and if they aren’t using that space for football practice, it is just because they don’t want to.
    “Clemson track and field opened its new $3.6 million dollar indoor track facility in December of 2003. The track is located adjacent to the Rock Norman Outdoor Track Complex. The new indoor facility contains a 200m Mondo track with an eight lane (44″) straightaway and a six-lane oval with a 73-foot radius. In the infield, the facility features one high jump apron, two pole vault runways and two long and triple jump runways. A permanent throwing cage is located outside the track for the weight throw and shot put. The facility also includes an athletic training room, seating for 1800 spectators, restroom and concession facilities. The mezzanine level serves as home to the Tigers’ FinishLynx timing system, public address system, sports information and media work area.”
    There is nothing in NC remotely this good for hosting a meet, even though UNC has hosted ACC championships (with no seating). I’m not sure what is meant by “multi-purpose facility,” but I would think 1800 seats, 60,000 square foot floor, locker-rooms, and press box would cover most of what you need. Even if you add a little length for football, and budget for a football surface to put down over the track, I have no idea where the $20 million figure comes from when Clemson did theirs for under $4M.

  14. mafpack 09/27/2010 at 1:08 PM #

    On rainy days our coaches would run indoor practices in one of the gyms (ie the upper section of Carmichael, courts 9-11, that aren’t available for public recreational use anyway).

    Just helmets and shorts, no pads. Good for running through schemes, play by play walk throughs, and some technique drills but awful for conditioning or doing any kind of contact drills.

    Always had to hope you only had 1 or 2 of these in a week leading up to a big game… any more than that and you’re SOL, back on the field practicing in the rain.

  15. CannonballJunior 09/27/2010 at 4:05 PM #

    AlphaWolf said: “Someone here suggested the practice center, and there’s another suitable place a little close for limited use: Dorton Arena. The idea of going someplace like Dorton or the Indoor Soccer Center is to keep your team sharp, to be able to work through the game plan without losing their attention as they stand in pouring rain and so forth and so on.”

    Yes, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Dick Sheridan made some use of the Dorton Arena. Dorton is also extremely close to the Murphy Center, so it’s got that going for it. Which is nice.

  16. highstick 09/27/2010 at 6:22 PM #

    Absolutely on the injury situation for you guys that have never played on snow, ice, and slush…Rain and mud can be as bad!

  17. Primewolf 09/27/2010 at 8:07 PM #

    I disagree with you Alpha. In terms of funding, I would place my football priority on a North End Zone uppder deck coupled with the renovation of East Side amenities. That is more important to building our brand as a football program than a dedicated practice facility. This priority assumes a growing demand for tickets and a Upper North facility that has some neat indoor areas with high def screens, food options , but outdoor seating. It would attract LTR plus general seating. Taking a year to study options, etc, it would take 3 years to get it, so we are talking 3-4 more years with our current 60,000 limit.

    I don’t think an indoor practice facility is essential to being a good team. Many storied and many better programs don’t have one. I don’t know if it will help us win additional games or bring in better recruits. However, I do know that (assuming our ticket demand continues to increase with better team performance) that an upper deck will make CF a more powerful attraction to recruits, enhanced noise level, and major football program appearance. My guess is that a closed in NEZ upper with 6,000 more screaming fans (about 66,000) will help us win more games and get better recruits than a mostly ignored indoor practice facility.

    I like the option of renting space for the few occasions it may be needed.

    My fear is that, instead of having such an enhancement in 3-4 years, it will be a decade or more, and we still have those awful looking temp bleachers in the NEZ. I am surprised anyone would buy those seats and I don’t know why we would want any of our alumni to sit in them.

    The indoor facility would be priority number 2.

  18. packalum44 09/27/2010 at 8:41 PM #

    http://blog.al.com/goldmine/2010/06/auburn_approves_construction_o.html

    SEC indoor facilities
    Alabama: 110-yard facility
    Arkansas: 100-yard facility.
    Auburn: New $16.5 million 120-yard facility approved. Currently 40-yard practice facility.
    Florida: None
    Georgia: Under construction
    Kentucky: 100-yard facility
    LSU: 100-yard facility
    Mississippi: 100-yard facility
    Mississippi State: 100-yard facility
    South Carolina: 60-yard facility.
    Tennessee: 70-yard facility; two full end zones; expansion approved
    Vanderbilt: None

  19. packalum44 09/27/2010 at 8:46 PM #

    Florida seems to be doing fine without one huh. I’m not convinced an indoor practice facility would sway a recruits decision but I fully support building one. Practice time is a valuable resource we have to maximize plus we are at a disadvantage to programs that have one. I like Auburn’s idea because it will benefit several sports.

  20. packalum44 09/27/2010 at 8:57 PM #

    http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-tech-sports/2010/08/18/tech-trying-to-raise-funds-for-indoor-football-facility/?cxntfid=blogs_georgia_tech_sports

    GA Tech’s facility – $7M solely used for football.

    FL State – wow this looks first class:
    http://www.seminoles.com/chat/072009aaa.html

    Boris, Orlando: Greetings Mr. Spetman, I would like to know what is the latest on the indoor practice facilities? Thank you. Go ‘Noles!
    Randy Spetman: The indoor football practice facility remains one of our top priorities, but the simple truth is that now is not a great time to be out trying to do much fund raising. The economy has hit this University and all our fans hard and we are sensitive to the circumstances we are facing. The plans have been drawn up and the location has been selected. We would like to build the facility within the footprint of our current practice fields, which will require that we rotate one of the grass fields to run in the opposite direction it does now. We do have some seed money committed for the project and a number of interested donors, but are not at a point to announce any kind of time line. Here are some preliminary pictures that have been provided by Ellerbe Becket design firm.

    Texas A&M:
    A&M is currently one of four schools in the Big 12 that doesn’t have an indoor practice complex – building one for 9M

    http://www.thebatt.com/2.8484/aggie-upgrade-9-million-given-for-indoor-practice-facility-1.1198228

  21. highstick 09/27/2010 at 9:59 PM #

    While the SEC info was posted above, keep in mind that most stadiums in the ACC don’t even seat 70,000. If you can put another 15-20,000 butts in the seats every week, it pays for a lot of other things…and not just from the ticket prices.

  22. VaWolf82 09/27/2010 at 10:07 PM #

    I would place my football priority on a North End Zone uppder deck

    I would be interested in hearing your business plan for this project. Based on available seats from the Wolfpack club site, about 900 people have defaulted on their LTR seats over the last four years.

    http://www.statefansnation.com/index.php/archives/2010/08/31/financing-college-athletics-part-5/

  23. Alpha Wolf 09/28/2010 at 9:45 AM #

    ^ That’s not too surprising, given the effect of the economy on a lot of folks. LTR’s would go first, much as I would hate that.

    As for the idea that the NEZ should be expanded first, I will politely disagree. I *like* the idea of fewer seats being available than demand. I think it is good that State is a tough ticket. Keeps the visitors out. Keeps the LTR retention high. Makes selling LTRs when you do expand later pie job simple.

    Build the indoor facility because it demonstrates to the lifebood of the program that you are serious about being top-notch: your recruits. You show them a first class operation and they will want to be a part of it. We have the Murph. We have a nice stadium but if you show them another grandstand and they won’t remember that as easily as a place to practice that’s devoted to them.

  24. gcpack 09/28/2010 at 1:19 PM #

    By the way here is a link to ESPN’s college football live extra that has the initial portion about R. Wilson & State’s good start. Not very long but good to get as much national attention as we can.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/

  25. skywalkerdt 09/28/2010 at 1:56 PM #

    packalum44, I just moved away from College Station a couple months ago. Texas A&M has had an indoor facility for a couple of years now. I should know I worked right beside it. They put it up at the same time they built an indoor track facility that last year hosted the NCAA indoor championships right beside the football practice facility on the southwest side of Kyle Field. The last year before they had a true facility they rented a very large tent that was placed directly above an old artificial turf practice field.

Leave a Reply