The previous post is also seemingly conflating the proposed stadium with a "path to relevance."
The route to being relevant, which Tulane has not been, in football for all but a small part of the past 60 years, is "one way" and only one way. It's winning games, having winning seasons year after year and playing a quality schedule along the way. If Tulane, new stadium or not, does not do those things then the program will continue not to be relevant and few people will pay attention to it.
This article seems to be fairly supportive of the new stadium project, however even those who support the project should realize that the new stadium, as proposed, is going to be neither a re-creation of the (1926 version) old stadium nor in the same physical space as that former structure.
This article also seems to be conflating the effort to bring this project with any effort to "reinvigorate" the Tulane football program. It has to be pointed out that the school pointedly de-emphasized football in the early 1950's and thereafter suffered a long drought of disappointing seasons up until there were a couple of good seasons in the early 1970's right before the opening of the Superdome while in the late 1970's and early 1980's, after having moved home games to the Superdome, the program enjoyed its most productive post-war multi-year stretch in terms of both success on the field and in attendance and interest in the program.
The new stadium might or might not make it convenient for some to follow Tulane football and bring about some reaction from those who are curious to see it but If Tulane is to successfully re-stimulate the interest of alumni and sports fans in the program winning games and playing an attractive schedule are both must-do items.
Powered by Foundation