The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(12-08-2012 10:59 AM)the_blazerman Wrote:  It is just Solomon trying to find a new article to write about.

The title being - UAB should move its games to Hoover.

maybe Solomon wants to quote blazertalkers on the topic

I know I've seen some of their "journalists" do that before.

Alright guys, I got the picture. I knew this was a sensitive subject, that is why it is titled as such. I have followed this board for a long time and have seen you guys eat your young plenty of times. I was honestly just trying to see what you guys thought, I had seen the Met mentioned a couple of times but didn't see a real answer to the question, still haven't.

I guess ultimately you did answer the question, your lack of desire to address the real question of "If there were a stadium in Hoover would you want to play there instead of LF"???

We'll keep enjoying LF, hopeing Coach McGee turns the program we all believe it can be and hopefully that will bring the attendance numbers up so the BoT can't continue to ignore us.

GO BLAZERS!!!

(12-07-2012 11:38 PM)BlazerMatt Wrote:  No. we played there.. its not enough seats, the seats it does have offer terrible site lines, and it moves us farther from campus.

i agree , terrible site lines for football

(12-08-2012 10:29 AM)Blazerstadium Wrote:  I have been following UAB football for 10+ years and have been going to games for that long. I was at the Rubin Studdard game, so yes, I've seen 40k+ at a UAB game, I also saw 75% of those people show up mid 2nd quarter and leave just after halftime.

These change to the Met would be made by the city of Hoover, not UAB, so the cost would be up to them. But ultimately you guys have gotten off on tangents. Forget the logistics of getting the Met up to standards. If it were done, what are your feelings about leaving Legion Field for a newly reconfigured Met for the time between now and getting our OCS??? Do you see this as a possitive or would it be worse then what we have right now???

Just trying to have an open discussion without belittling anyone, which for some reason this board has a hard time doing.

I want out of LF badly, but I'm not sure the Met is a good alternative. IF there were nothing else.......

I don't see the Met as an improvement. It's a terrible football venue, nobody would spend the money it would take to make it a good one, it's too small, and it's even further from campus.

If those are my options, I'll grit my teeth and stick with Lesion Field.

(12-08-2012 11:29 AM)Blazerstadium Wrote:  Alright guys, I got the picture. I knew this was a sensitive subject, that is why it is titled as such. I have followed this board for a long time and have seen you guys eat your young plenty of times. I was honestly just trying to see what you guys thought, I had seen the Met mentioned a couple of times but didn't see a real answer to the question, still haven't.

I guess ultimately you did answer the question, your lack of desire to address the real question of "If there were a stadium in Hoover would you want to play there instead of LF"???

We'll keep enjoying LF, hopeing Coach McGee turns the program we all believe it can be and hopefully that will bring the attendance numbers up so the BoT can't continue to ignore us.

GO BLAZERS!!!

Come on, man. No one's trying to be difficult, or I'm not, but you're being a bit obtuse. If you take a step back, you'll see that every time the Met has been mentioned here the question has been answered...this thread being no exception.

1) The Met is not even close to serviceable as an FBS football stadium in required technical capacities, and the amount of money required to remedy that would make the project not feasible for UAB or Hoover (especially if, as in your hypothetical, Hoover is already spending to permanently convert to football dimensions).

2) Your answer on how long you've been attending games is a bit fishy, no disrespect intended. Yes, only the Troy game drew 20k+ in this 3-win season. There was only one game in our 4-win 2011 season that drew 20k+, as well. But in our 4-win 2010 campaign there were 2 games that had 20k+ on hand. Going further back, for comparison, the year after we played in the Hawai'i Bowl we would have had to turn people away at 4 home games if we only had 20k seats. Your mention of only the Reuben game as if that's the high-water mark for our program is, well, suspicious for a "long-time" Blazer fan. Do you anticipate that we will never reach 7 wins again? How about 8? 10? Hosting a Conf Champ game? If we already had one game this season where we would have turned people away, what do you logically think will happen when we see those levels of success?

3) Finally, I'm sorry but there is NO WAY your original post can be construed to actually have been asking what you say was the "real question" of playing in a hypothetical stadium in Hoover vs. LF. That doesn't even make sense. If you didn't specifically mean the Met, then why Hoover? It's hypothetical, so propose it anywhere you wish. Now, I'll attempt to answer that "real" question: No...I would stay at LF if it were still viable. Hoover is even farther from our campus than LF. With a record number of dorm rooms and students residing on-campus, and more on the way, that's about the worst decision possible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

(12-08-2012 10:29 AM)Blazerstadium Wrote:  I have been following UAB football for 10+ years and have been going to games for that long. I was at the Rubin Studdard game, so yes, I've seen 40k+ at a UAB game, I also saw 75% of those people show up mid 2nd quarter and leave just after halftime.

These change to the Met would be made by the city of Hoover, not UAB, so the cost would be up to them. But ultimately you guys have gotten off on tangents. Forget the logistics of getting the Met up to standards. If it were done, what are your feelings about leaving Legion Field for a newly reconfigured Met for the time between now and getting our OCS??? Do you see this as a possitive or would it be worse then what we have right now???

Just trying to have an open discussion without belittling anyone, which for some reason this board has a hard time doing.

Ok, let's try this logic. Set aside everything that Blazr said, which is dead accurate and a dealbreaker by itself. Assume that Hoover spends the multi-millions needed to get the Met up to holding 20-25k. If we fill it then we'll build the OCS and move away, leaving them a multi-million dollar white elephant that is used perhaps a couple of times a year.

Why would the city of Hoover be dumb enough to do this?

While we're at it, let's go back to the stone age, before there was a Reuben Studdard. Our high water mark was the TCU game on ESPN on a Thursday night, when we were BCS ranked. We drew 38k. Where do you propose to put the other 18k of that crowd?

Maybe he is really a South Alabama fan? hummmmmmm Am I warm jag?

IMHO, the only real & effective alternative to Legion Field is an OCS seating at least 40,000 in a double level stadium that builds most seats where they are most valuable, along the sidelines on each side. Many of the other school's stadiums we have been shown are built on this plan. End zone seating, like the majority at Legion Field, are fine for school bands and student seating since they are free or of minimal cost. They are the "cheap seats" in almost every stadium. Build what UAB needs from the first because adding on later probably isn't going to happen unless a "sugar daddy / mommy" comes forth to pay for it. UAB won't be allowed by the BOT to incur that additional debt when they finally allow it to be built in the first place.

I have seen the horseshoe design that has been posted, but my inquiry as to the disposition of seats along the sideline vs those behind the end zone has never been answered. For reference, I recall the Park Board letter which I copied and gave to several BTs at a coach's radio show on Valley Ave., which said there are only 26,000 seats between the goal lines at Legion Field - TOTAL for BOTH east and west stands. All the rest of the 70,000 are in the wrap around end zone seats behind the two goal lines. NOTE: The letter said there were 32,000 before the upper deck was demolished.

(12-08-2012 02:28 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Maybe he is really a South Alabama fan? hummmmmmm Am I warm jag?

That would explain a lot as USA fans should be hitting the "Anger" stage of grief about now.

Alls I know is I have a facebook friend who had a kid in the USA band and is always posting pics of their show (in what appears to be an empty stadium).

If we'd field a .500 ballclub, we have a solid 17k right now, and it grows from there. With a winning season or two and a little excitement in the air, 25k and up is very easily doable. As much as I distrust the BoT, I think a couple seasons like that would go a long way toward getting the OCS.

That and a couple of them having massive coronaries anyway.

(12-08-2012 02:33 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  IMHO, the only real & effective alternative to Legion Field is an OCS seating at least 40,000 in a double level stadium that builds most seats where they are most valuable, along the sidelines on each side. Many of the other school's stadiums we have been shown are built on this plan. End zone seating, like the majority at Legion Field, are fine for school bands and student seating since they are free or of minimal cost. They are the "cheap seats" in almost every stadium. Build what UAB needs from the first because adding on later probably isn't going to happen unless a "sugar daddy / mommy" comes forth to pay for it. UAB won't be allowed by the BOT to incur that additional debt when they finally allow it to be built in the first place.

I have seen the horseshoe design that has been posted, but my inquiry as to the disposition of seats along the sideline vs those behind the end zone has never been answered. For reference, I recall the Park Board letter which I copied and gave to several BTs at a coach's radio show on Valley Ave., which said there are only 26,000 seats between the goal lines at Legion Field - TOTAL for BOTH east and west stands. All the rest of the 70,000 are in the wrap around end zone seats behind the two goal lines. NOTE: The letter said there were 32,000 before the upper deck was demolished.

The horseshoe is the perfect layout to get something built that has a sufficient number of seats (while actually being small enough to create some sellouts & ticket demand) and comes at minimum cost per aesthetic gain. As an example of that last point consider that a ground-level parking lot on UAB's campus cost around $300 per space to build just under 10 years ago while a parking deck was around $1,000 per space. A seat built in an elevated deck is going to cost 5 to 10 times more than a seat built on the main, "foundational" level. Definitely not worth it when our #1 goal is cost efficiency.

Build something decent for now that is designed to be expanded upon. I just want the damn thing built.

Yeah, bring my football team home. Everything else is arguing over the seat cushions.

(12-08-2012 03:40 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  Build something decent for now that is designed to be expanded upon. I just want the damn thing built.

Amen!

For some reason the last page of answers seem better then what I felt like I was getting the page or two. I accept those answers and withdraw any further questions about the Met.

Now that I got my, "let's stir up the crowd" question out of the way, I will return to normal interwebs banter.

GO BLAZERS!!!

(12-08-2012 05:41 PM)Blazerstadium Wrote:  For some reason the last page of answers seem better then what I felt like I was getting the page or two. I accept those answers and withdraw any further questions about the Met.

Now that I got my, "let's stir up the crowd" question out of the way, I will return to normal interwebs banter.

GO BLAZERS!!!

This is normal message board banter......you idiot

I love you guys!!!

....except MB right?