CSNbbs

(04-17-2018 01:48 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-17-2018 12:37 PM)McKinney Wrote: [ -> ]It probably will take a lot of money to get to a point where we're even remotely attractive to the AAC. We need to build an IPF for sure and at this rate it could take us another 5 years to get to a point where we're consistently in contention for bowl eligibility.

I think the amount of money that needs to be thrown at the project is up for debate. If it's just the IPF then we're talking $15-20M for a really nice permanent facility or like $5M(?) for a bubble. That's quite a bit of $$$ but it's not out of the realm of reality.

If AAC isn't okay with us using an NFL stadium (like Temple and South Florida) then things get really sticky. Our stadium is "expandable" up to the low to mid 20k's using semi-permanent freestanding bleachers, and that'd be relatively inexpensive. However if we needed an expandable 30k+ stadium, a brand new stadium could be $100M+. Which is definitely out of the foreseeable budget. If the administration had $100M to invest, they'd put it into academic/research facilities over a football stadium (and rightfully so). Although we could could construct a stadium over several phases, which might make the expense a bit more palatable.

I will say, just the talk of improving on-field performance and building infrastructure is better than the alternative we've seen at UMass. We spent over hundred years (with arguably the exception of maybe a few years in the '60s and '90s) doing the absolute minimum effort. No effort to keep successful coaches, no effort to remove unsuccessful ADs and coaches, no effort to build and improve infrastructure, no effort to look at what other schools were doing, no effort to keep an eye on our conference and division affiliation.

Several programs that got in to the AAC (Tulane, SMU, Tulsa) over maybe more deserving programs have several things in common: Investment in university owned infrastructure (Tulane built a stadium to get in), investment in big name coaches in both football and basketball (Frank Heath, Larry Brown, Dunleavy, Willie Fritz, Chad Morris, Phillip Montgomery) and bring average to moderate markets to the fold (Tulsa, NOLA, Dallas).

UMass needs to do several things to be considered for the AAC:

1. Convince UConn you are valuable as a regional partner
2. Bring Army with you
3. Level McGuirk, and build anew on your own campus
4. Upgrade football and basketball facilities across the board
5. Upgrade football and basketball staff across the board.
6. Win.

But then, these strategies aren't unique to UMass... all told they could be applied to USM, ODU, Charlotte, and a handful of others... and I'd say those programs are closer to those goals than UMass, albeit nowhere near complete.

UMass has pretty good basketball facilities imo. The Mullens center is pretty nice imo. Football definitely needs work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-17-2018 07:01 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-17-2018 11:46 AM)beefcake0520 Wrote: [ -> ]Do you realize how far UMass falls short of the AAC, much less CUSA, even the belt?? Marshall falling short of the SEC is not different. We have one of the better IAF in the nation, weight training facilities, upper 1/3 of G5 in football stadiums and basketball arenas..........while being in CUSA. Saying Marshall has ambitions to be in the SEC was said in jest, because really at this point UMass to the AAC is in jest as well. UMass has enormous work to do and needs enormous amounts of money to throw at projects just to reach any sort of athletic standard already set by members of CUSA, AAC. At this point, all you can offer a conference is basketball, which loses value every year, no one wants your football right now. There is nothing wrong with having ambitions, BUT there is a long row to hoe to get it to become a reality. This board provides plenty of amusement, so talk away guys.

UMass is one stadiun renovation phase from being on a short list..

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Not quite, multiple phases, big $$.

(04-17-2018 11:06 PM)Huskypride Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-17-2018 01:48 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-17-2018 12:37 PM)McKinney Wrote: [ -> ]It probably will take a lot of money to get to a point where we're even remotely attractive to the AAC. We need to build an IPF for sure and at this rate it could take us another 5 years to get to a point where we're consistently in contention for bowl eligibility.

I think the amount of money that needs to be thrown at the project is up for debate. If it's just the IPF then we're talking $15-20M for a really nice permanent facility or like $5M(?) for a bubble. That's quite a bit of $$$ but it's not out of the realm of reality.

If AAC isn't okay with us using an NFL stadium (like Temple and South Florida) then things get really sticky. Our stadium is "expandable" up to the low to mid 20k's using semi-permanent freestanding bleachers, and that'd be relatively inexpensive. However if we needed an expandable 30k+ stadium, a brand new stadium could be $100M+. Which is definitely out of the foreseeable budget. If the administration had $100M to invest, they'd put it into academic/research facilities over a football stadium (and rightfully so). Although we could could construct a stadium over several phases, which might make the expense a bit more palatable.

I will say, just the talk of improving on-field performance and building infrastructure is better than the alternative we've seen at UMass. We spent over hundred years (with arguably the exception of maybe a few years in the '60s and '90s) doing the absolute minimum effort. No effort to keep successful coaches, no effort to remove unsuccessful ADs and coaches, no effort to build and improve infrastructure, no effort to look at what other schools were doing, no effort to keep an eye on our conference and division affiliation.

Several programs that got in to the AAC (Tulane, SMU, Tulsa) over maybe more deserving programs have several things in common: Investment in university owned infrastructure (Tulane built a stadium to get in), investment in big name coaches in both football and basketball (Frank Heath, Larry Brown, Dunleavy, Willie Fritz, Chad Morris, Phillip Montgomery) and bring average to moderate markets to the fold (Tulsa, NOLA, Dallas).

UMass needs to do several things to be considered for the AAC:

1. Convince UConn you are valuable as a regional partner
2. Bring Army with you
3. Level McGuirk, and build anew on your own campus
4. Upgrade football and basketball facilities across the board
5. Upgrade football and basketball staff across the board.
6. Win.

But then, these strategies aren't unique to UMass... all told they could be applied to USM, ODU, Charlotte, and a handful of others... and I'd say those programs are closer to those goals than UMass, albeit nowhere near complete.

UMass has pretty good basketball facilities imo. The Mullens center is pretty nice imo. Football definitely needs work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

McGuirk Stadium is designed in such a way that it would appear not be that expensive to expand and renovate as compared to a complete rebuild. The stadium is constructed with a huge amount of open space around it and a relatively low back row. It would be easily possible to build an entire grandstand behind either of the existing grandstands, with suites and club seats incorporated. If they did it behind the east grandstand, they wouldn't have to take down the existing press box. The area below the new grandstand could be used to incorporate significant amenities, such as premium concession areas, an alumni/booster club lounge, better bathrooms, etc. The listed capacity is 17,000. Such a project could easily take capacity to the 30,000 seat range.

These renderings have been around for several years. I believe they were first shown "publicly" (in the Football Performance Center) in August of 2015. However they could be even older than that. The image shows the old "UM" logo on the field, that was used from the mid 2000s right up until maybe the first season of FBS (2012). Also, the posters on the backside of the east grandstand feature players wearing black uniforms which is something from the Molnar era (2012 and 2013 seasons).

Part of the McGuirk problem is ADA. Gutting the building and bringing to code is probably just as expensive and leveling it.

There is a sh*t load of land on and adjacent to campus so they could limp along with the existing building while a new one was built.


Unfortunately Umass does not have a Billionaire Alum with a boner for football.... and that is what it really needs right now.

(04-18-2018 12:03 PM)Eldonabe Wrote: [ -> ]Part of the McGuirk problem is ADA. Gutting the building and bringing to code is probably just as expensive and leveling it.

There is a sh*t load of land on and adjacent to campus so they could limp along with the existing building while a new one was built.


Unfortunately Umass does not have a Billionaire Alum with a boner for football.... and that is what it really needs right now.

I'm not a Billionaire but I got the other part covered.

(04-18-2018 11:02 AM)McKinney Wrote: [ -> ]These renderings have been around for several years. I believe they were first shown "publicly" (in the Football Performance Center) in August of 2015. However they could be even older than that. The image shows the old "UM" logo on the field, that was used from the mid 2000s right up until maybe the first season of FBS (2012). Also, the posters on the backside of the east grandstand feature players wearing black uniforms which is something from the Molnar era (2012 and 2013 seasons).

I hadn't seen these previously, but that's exactly the approach I was suggesting.

(04-18-2018 12:03 PM)Eldonabe Wrote: [ -> ]Part of the McGuirk problem is ADA. Gutting the building and bringing to code is probably just as expensive and leveling it.

My suggestion is that no part of the existing building be gutted.

As far as the ADA, I do not understand the ADA to require every part of a building to be ADA compliant. Every stall in the bathroom doesn't have to be a handicapped stall, every parking space doesn't have to be a handicapped space. ADA compliance could be met by providing adequate facilities in the new structure.

(04-18-2018 11:02 AM)McKinney Wrote: [ -> ]These renderings have been around for several years. I believe they were first shown "publicly" (in the Football Performance Center) in August of 2015. However they could be even older than that. The image shows the old "UM" logo on the field, that was used from the mid 2000s right up until maybe the first season of FBS (2012). Also, the posters on the backside of the east grandstand feature players wearing black uniforms which is something from the Molnar era (2012 and 2013 seasons).

Quite a few G5 teams have renderings of bigger stadiums. Don't read too much into it other than 'someone had a little extra time one day.'

(04-17-2018 07:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-17-2018 07:05 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-17-2018 04:38 PM)Bronco14 Wrote: [ -> ]UMass wasn't good enough for the MAC; I highly doubt the AAC will come knocking. If it does it'll be because powerhouse AAC teams like Houston and Central Florida have moved elsewhere, meaning the AAC name will be weaker. The AAC with UMass and Toledo (for example) isn't quite the same as the AAC with Houston and Central Florida (for example).

I think one big thing is, as has been posted, UMass will have to be willing to spend AND HAVE the funds to spend. For example, all great coaches are lured to bigger programs. Let's say UMass is able to put together an 11-1 or so season, a truly great season. The lure will come. When he says 'UMass is taking steps to join the AAC' that's him talking, not the institution. UMass would either have to scramble for funds to keep him or hope they hire another great coach after he leaves to keep the momentum going. Facts of being in NCAA football no matter the level.

I'm also not convinced UMass's strategy of 'let's play as many death row payday games as we can' will eventually pay out. For those that know, has this strategy ever worked?

I enjoyed you guys in the MAC (even though you guys sucked every year you were here), and I understand the parting was mutual, but bottom line is, right now no one wants you guys.

"I'm also not convinced UMass's strategy of 'let's play as many death row payday games as we can' will eventually pay out. For those that know, has this strategy ever worked?"

FSU and Miami

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I dont think thats so much a "strategy" as it is the only way to pay the bills and get decent TV exposure.

Wouldn't they get more money playing a ton of top P5 teams then what a G5 Conference pays out to its members? If so, you get more money to improve facilities, coaching staff, etc.

Also, need a little more background on the FSU/Miami (FL) using the 'murderer's row' strategy.

(04-17-2018 09:08 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]UMass is going to be good this year...a surprise team

They don't have quite as many body-bag games this year. 8-4 isn't unreasonable.

That's odd. You try to advance from page 75 and it sends you back to the start of the thread.

Maybe it's a result of having more posts per page? Still doesn't explain how I was able to get to pages 74 and 75, but then have it reset after that. Weird.

(04-18-2018 12:03 PM)Eldonabe Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately Umass does not have a Billionaire Alum with a boner for football.... and that is what it really needs right now.

Lol. This would make a nice signature for a UMass fan.

It's too bad. There must be many billionaires in the state of Mass., some of whom are big sports/football fans. For that matter, why couldn't the NE Patriots show some love for the college game?

(04-18-2018 01:16 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-18-2018 12:03 PM)Eldonabe Wrote: [ -> ]Part of the McGuirk problem is ADA. Gutting the building and bringing to code is probably just as expensive and leveling it.

There is a sh*t load of land on and adjacent to campus so they could limp along with the existing building while a new one was built.


Unfortunately Umass does not have a Billionaire Alum with a boner for football.... and that is what it really needs right now.

S
I'm not a Billionaire but I got the other part covered.

Hahahahaha....plenty of boners in UMASS...unfortunately, they need something else in their pants: Fat wallets.

There are millions committed to a quality IPF and we'll hear more this fall.

On other news, Whips extension is finalized.

Quote:Ryan Bamford
‏
Verified account

@UMassADBamford
1h1 hour ago
My goodness, lots of chatter about the @CoachWhipUMass extension process. The small percentage of our fan base worried about it can relax...Whip will have a multi-year contract retroactive to January. It is finalized and when he is back in town late next week we will announce it.

(04-18-2018 05:51 PM)Cyniclone Wrote: [ -> ]That's odd. You try to advance from page 75 and it sends you back to the start of the thread.

Maybe it's a result of having more posts per page? Still doesn't explain how I was able to get to pages 74 and 75, but then have it reset after that. Weird.

Is this a product of a late implementation of the number of posts per page.

This is dated January 18th and not April 18th.

https://csnbbs.com/announcement-349.html

Quote:The new default is 20 posts per page. And the options are now 5, 20, and 40 posts per page. With Aurora, 60 will be added as an option as well. The 5 is there for people on dial up or metered (cellular data) connections who want to use as little bandwidth as possible.

RFP are out for the IPF and improvements for fan experience with new video boards, concessions ADA upgrades, which will open up McGuirk for future upgrades.

Reported by Mike Traini on 247sports.

Quote:The University of Massachusetts is taking the next step towards stadium and facilities upgrades at McGuirk Alumni Stadium and Richard F. Garber Field.

According to a request for proposals (RFP) posted on the University of Massachusetts Building Authority web page, the school is looking for proposals to be submitted by the end of May 2018 to construct an indoor practice facility, permanent concession and bathroom options at McGuirk, and new HD video scoreboards at both McGuirk and Garber.

The complete 245-page document, which can be downloaded from the UMBA site via the link above, outlines a plan that would see project construction begun in March of 2019 and completed by June of 2020. There is also a pre-proposal briefing set to be held at the Football Performance Center at 10:00am on Monday, May 14th, 2018.

Per the outlined goals above, which can be found on page 4 of the RFP, the entire project is estimated to have a budget in the range of $10 million.

https://247sports.com/college/massachuse...-118199415

(05-14-2018 01:05 PM)Steve1981 Wrote: [ -> ]RFP are out for the IPF and improvements for fan experience with new video boards, concessions ADA upgrades, which will open up McGuirk for future upgrades.

Reported by Mike Traini on 247sports.

Quote:The University of Massachusetts is taking the next step towards stadium and facilities upgrades at McGuirk Alumni Stadium and Richard F. Garber Field.

According to a request for proposals (RFP) posted on the University of Massachusetts Building Authority web page, the school is looking for proposals to be submitted by the end of May 2018 to construct an indoor practice facility, permanent concession and bathroom options at McGuirk, and new HD video scoreboards at both McGuirk and Garber.

The complete 245-page document, which can be downloaded from the UMBA site via the link above, outlines a plan that would see project construction begun in March of 2019 and completed by June of 2020. There is also a pre-proposal briefing set to be held at the Football Performance Center at 10:00am on Monday, May 14th, 2018.

Per the outlined goals above, which can be found on page 4 of the RFP, the entire project is estimated to have a budget in the range of $10 million.

https://247sports.com/college/massachuse...-118199415

UMASS needs to close the South end to form a "U" with an additional 4-6k seats. Put the food trucks and permanent restrooms under the stands if you want the food trucks to be temporary, and put a new HD scoreboard in there too at the top of the South seats. The planning stage should also allow for future upper decks to potentially bring capacity up to at least 35k for future use if UMASS intends to stay at the FBS level for FB and hopes to gain admission to any conference for FB again. Still think you should have worked something out with the MAC while building the program and the facilities up while waiting to get to where you really want to be with a bid to the AAC. What is the 17,200 sqf repurposed facility. Is it a garage for field maintenance purposes. Nice start though if you can pull it off while building your home game fan base.

Quote:What is the 17,200 sqf repurposed facility. Is it a garage for field maintenance purposes. Nice start though if you can pull it off while building your home game fan base.

That is the existing bathrooms at each end and locker room areas for some teams and the visitors locker room.

Its a start and the plans have evolved from the 2013 plans. Will quote McKinney's post on our board.

Quote:Perkins & Will, Page 202 wrote:
In the summer of 2013, UMass secured the services of Perkins+Will to study various stadium expansion options to increase seating capacity; improve the overall structure and site amenities; and enhance the fan experience with improved concessions, restrooms, and fanfare amenities. Since 1965, the stadium has seen minimal improvements. Today, the stadium includes the original 17,000 seats, a new 65,000 gsf Football Training and Performance Center, and a new 7,000 gsf Press Box.

The project team, consisting of Perkins+Will, UMass Athletics, UMass Senior Administration, and members of the Design & Construction Department, met over the course of four design charrettes to develop a series of improvement projects and build-out options for the existing stadium seating bowl and support facilities. The report was completed in the summer of 2013. Projects identified in the report included upgrading the existing stadium structure to improve accessibility; new restroom and concession areas support existing and increased seating capacities; addition of clubs and suites; south end zone seating; and the addition of an upper east grandstand seating structure. These improvements supported a stadium in the range of 30,000 – 35,000 seats. The combination of projects were studied with the existing east seating bowl left in place and renovated to current codes and the demolition and reconstruction of the east seating bowl.

More recently, UMass secured the services of Perkins+Will to update the 2013 Stadium Expansion Study to support a stadium, required code improvements, and fan amenities in support of a stadium in the range of 20,000 – 25,000 seats with the ability to expand in the future. The following chapters document the various projects and build-out options with associated project costs escalated to the mid-point of construction in 2019.

(05-15-2018 08:40 AM)panite Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-14-2018 01:05 PM)Steve1981 Wrote: [ -> ]RFP are out for the IPF and improvements for fan experience with new video boards, concessions ADA upgrades, which will open up McGuirk for future upgrades.

Reported by Mike Traini on 247sports.

Quote:The University of Massachusetts is taking the next step towards stadium and facilities upgrades at McGuirk Alumni Stadium and Richard F. Garber Field.

According to a request for proposals (RFP) posted on the University of Massachusetts Building Authority web page, the school is looking for proposals to be submitted by the end of May 2018 to construct an indoor practice facility, permanent concession and bathroom options at McGuirk, and new HD video scoreboards at both McGuirk and Garber.

The complete 245-page document, which can be downloaded from the UMBA site via the link above, outlines a plan that would see project construction begun in March of 2019 and completed by June of 2020. There is also a pre-proposal briefing set to be held at the Football Performance Center at 10:00am on Monday, May 14th, 2018.

Per the outlined goals above, which can be found on page 4 of the RFP, the entire project is estimated to have a budget in the range of $10 million.

https://247sports.com/college/massachuse...-118199415

UMASS needs to close the South end to form a "U" with an additional 4-6k seats. Put the food trucks and permanent restrooms under the stands if you want the food trucks to be temporary, and put a new HD scoreboard in there too at the top of the South seats. The planning stage should also allow for future upper decks to potentially bring capacity up to at least 35k for future use if UMASS intends to stay at the FBS level for FB and hopes to gain admission to any conference for FB again. Still think you should have worked something out with the MAC while building the program and the facilities up while waiting to get to where you really want to be with a bid to the AAC. What is the 17,200 sqf repurposed facility. Is it a garage for field maintenance purposes. Nice start though if you can pull it off while building your home game fan base.

There's something to be said for tearing down one side and building a new structure. That side could be big enough to bring capacity to around 30,000 and it could include practice facilities as well as concessions.

(04-19-2018 06:49 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote: [ -> ]It's too bad. There must be many billionaires in the state of Mass., some of whom are big sports/football fans. For that matter, why couldn't the NE Patriots show some love for the college game?

In most large Metros people have short attention spans and only pull for a winner. UMass is going to have win regularly for people to turn their heads in their general direction.

Houston and UCF have had great success getting fans on their side and getting donors but it takes winning a lot for a while. So one of two things has to happen. Either the University invests in adding south end zone seating and other expansion or wait to win and hope a few alumni do or or local businessman decide to support the home team.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

In Athlon's QB ratings,

Quote:#60. Andrew Ford, UMass

Ford won’t have standout tight end Adam Breneman to throw to in 2018, but the senior quarterback has plenty of weapons to keep the offense performing at a high level. After tossing 26 touchdowns in 2016, Ford delivered another solid all-around season for coach Mark Whipple last fall. Ford connected on 63.2 percent of his passes for 2,924 yards and 22 touchdowns, while tossing only four interceptions. With Ford guiding the offense, along with a favorable schedule, UMass has a chance to push for its first winning record since moving to the FBS.

https://athlonsports.com/college-footbal...kings-2018