(07-10-2016 10:23 AM)MplsBison Wrote: That's essentially what James Madison did. The new side of their stadium is very nice. It actually wraps around to one endzone, as well. The other side used to be the home side. They also have a football facility in the endzone, like what UMass built.
And now James Madison is stuck in FCS without a G5 invite possible.
When Texas did their upper deck, they built student gym facilities in it to get some general funding. Several have built endzones as football facilities, but you could also make it a facility for use by the general student population on days other than game days.
(07-10-2016 10:23 AM)MplsBison Wrote: That's essentially what James Madison did. The new side of their stadium is very nice. It actually wraps around to one endzone, as well. The other side used to be the home side. They also have a football facility in the endzone, like what UMass built.
And now James Madison is stuck in FCS without a G5 invite possible.
When Texas did their upper deck, they built student gym facilities in it to get some general funding. Several have built endzones as football facilities, but you could also make it a facility for use by the general student population on days other than game days.
We have rolling capital budgets and continue to spend billions on the UMass campus,
Bullet the students new rec facility was completed in 2009, but do appreciate you ideas. Like most projects think the actual cost was 52 million and not the 50 stated in the video.
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2016 11:41 AM by Steve1981.)
(07-01-2016 10:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote: I edited my post, after doing a bit of looking. Thanks for the info, though.
Can you answer the other part of my edited post?
"I also see that Whipple was re-hired in 2014. UMass had a decent amount of success under him from 1998 - 2003. How do fans perceive it's going so far in his second run?" Thanks!
There is still a good amount of goodwill left, but he will need to start producing some more wins in 2017, else the seat will begin to get warm. Even then do not feel it will get hot, just warm for the first time. Expecting good thing in the future that includes Whipple at the helm.
Regarding McGuirk, it's looking like some temporary seating added for 2017. We'll have to see about major upgrades.
Do think it's ironic that our AD mentions 25-30k for Gillette games. The irony is we can easily get to 25k by 2020 if a few things start happening. Like what, winning games and building the base with good drawing home games. Love to see the Army game played on campus with a nicely upgraded McGuirk.
Quote:All six home games in 2017 are scheduled for McGuirk with only a smattering of future games set for Foxborough.
“We only want to play games at Gillette where we can get 25,000 to 30,000-plus people,” Bamford said. “We’d put games like Mississippi State, BYU or Boston College there.”
Bamford said UMass was already exploring temporary additional seats at McGuirk for the 2017 season, but hoped for more permanent solutions long term.
“There’s a lot of talk right now. I wouldn’t say there’s anything moving in that direction,” Bamford said. “Looking at what our options are, it’s anything from enhancing the bathrooms and concessions, which is not a considerable cost, to adding seats. We haven’t had any real high level conversations about it. I’ve probably done more homework than anything. I need to know what our options are, to be able to go back to our leadership and say this is where I think we need to be.”
Bamford would like to have some improvement in place for the 2017 season.
“I do know we could get (capacity) from 17 to maybe 20,000 pretty easily with some temporary seating options and some (standing room) and feel good about that if we have to for 2017,” he said. “More than that, if we’re bringing 20,000 people here we have to figure out a way to not have them going into Porta-Johns to use the bathroom and not using the makeshift stands for concessions.
“We’ve made the best of the situation with a 50-year old stadium,” Bamford continued. “But in order to act like and FBS and do things at a level where we’re going to bring people here, we’ve got to be better. Now we have to figure out what better looks like.”
..
“I think we can get to 20,000 if we’re playing good football and good teams that people want to come see,” he said.
He hoped any temporary fixes could be a bridge to something more permanent.
“We’re going to have to make some decisions in the next three to five years about what the stadium is, what it looks like and how it acts for is,” he said. “We’re trying to evaluate all our options and see what’s fiscally responsible.”
UMass should just add permanent seats at the end zone opposite the new Football Center and up grade the other facilities like concessions and more permanent bathrooms for now. Forming the horse shoe should add approximately another 8 thousand seats getting McGuirk to 25k until they can get into a conference again. When the stadium is sold out at 25k on a regular basis they can expand it again when the school determines the next capacity level to strive for. (Personally I think they should have stayed in the MAC until the conference they are zeroed in on came calling but that is a discussion for another day.)
If they go like Idaho, they will end up like Idaho. They need to bite the bullet and do something like expand by upgrading half the stadium. That's considerably cheaper than doing the whole thing. They can add cheap seats in the end zone to get to 30k while leaving room for temporary expansion.
As an independent where is UMASS going to get the money to expand half the stadium. They are not in a conference like the B-12, B-10, or SEC where they are making at least $30 million a year. They are a in a heck of position then Idaho with 25k. Idaho only has seating for about 15k.
(07-01-2016 10:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote: I edited my post, after doing a bit of looking. Thanks for the info, though.
Can you answer the other part of my edited post?
"I also see that Whipple was re-hired in 2014. UMass had a decent amount of success under him from 1998 - 2003. How do fans perceive it's going so far in his second run?" Thanks!
There is still a good amount of goodwill left, but he will need to start producing some more wins in 2017, else the seat will begin to get warm. Even then do not feel it will get hot, just warm for the first time. Expecting good thing in the future that includes Whipple at the helm.
Regarding McGuirk, it's looking like some temporary seating added for 2017. We'll have to see about major upgrades.
Do think it's ironic that our AD mentions 25-30k for Gillette games. The irony is we can easily get to 25k by 2020 if a few things start happening. Like what, winning games and building the base with good drawing home games. Love to see the Army game played on campus with a nicely upgraded McGuirk.
Quote:All six home games in 2017 are scheduled for McGuirk with only a smattering of future games set for Foxborough.
“We only want to play games at Gillette where we can get 25,000 to 30,000-plus people,” Bamford said. “We’d put games like Mississippi State, BYU or Boston College there.”
Bamford said UMass was already exploring temporary additional seats at McGuirk for the 2017 season, but hoped for more permanent solutions long term.
“There’s a lot of talk right now. I wouldn’t say there’s anything moving in that direction,” Bamford said. “Looking at what our options are, it’s anything from enhancing the bathrooms and concessions, which is not a considerable cost, to adding seats. We haven’t had any real high level conversations about it. I’ve probably done more homework than anything. I need to know what our options are, to be able to go back to our leadership and say this is where I think we need to be.”
Bamford would like to have some improvement in place for the 2017 season.
“I do know we could get (capacity) from 17 to maybe 20,000 pretty easily with some temporary seating options and some (standing room) and feel good about that if we have to for 2017,” he said. “More than that, if we’re bringing 20,000 people here we have to figure out a way to not have them going into Porta-Johns to use the bathroom and not using the makeshift stands for concessions.
“We’ve made the best of the situation with a 50-year old stadium,” Bamford continued. “But in order to act like and FBS and do things at a level where we’re going to bring people here, we’ve got to be better. Now we have to figure out what better looks like.”
..
“I think we can get to 20,000 if we’re playing good football and good teams that people want to come see,” he said.
He hoped any temporary fixes could be a bridge to something more permanent.
“We’re going to have to make some decisions in the next three to five years about what the stadium is, what it looks like and how it acts for is,” he said. “We’re trying to evaluate all our options and see what’s fiscally responsible.”
UMass should just add permanent seats at the end zone opposite the new Football Center and up grade the other facilities like concessions and more permanent bathrooms for now. Forming the horse shoe should add approximately another 8 thousand seats getting McGuirk to 25k until they can get into a conference again. When the stadium is sold out at 25k on a regular basis they can expand it again when the school determines the next capacity level to strive for. (Personally I think they should have stayed in the MAC until the conference they are zeroed in on came calling but that is a discussion for another day.)
If they go like Idaho, they will end up like Idaho. They need to bite the bullet and do something like expand by upgrading half the stadium. That's considerably cheaper than doing the whole thing. They can add cheap seats in the end zone to get to 30k while leaving room for temporary expansion.
As an independent where is UMASS going to get the money to expand half the stadium. They are not in a conference like the B-12, B-10, or SEC where they are making at least $30 million a year. They are a in a heck of position then Idaho with 25k. Idaho only has seating for about 15k.
Nobody will invite them at 17k or 25k. AAC-UConn, Houston, SMU, Tulane and UCF all have built stadiums in the last 20 years. Temple is looking at it while playing in a pro stadium close to campus. USF is in a pro stadium close to campus. Cincinnati and ECU have done major renovations. Basically everyone but Navy, Memphis and Tulsa. Tulsa's seats 40k and the Liberty Bowl seats 62k.
(07-01-2016 12:09 PM)Steve1981 Wrote: There is still a good amount of goodwill left, but he will need to start producing some more wins in 2017, else the seat will begin to get warm. Even then do not feel it will get hot, just warm for the first time. Expecting good thing in the future that includes Whipple at the helm.
Regarding McGuirk, it's looking like some temporary seating added for 2017. We'll have to see about major upgrades.
Do think it's ironic that our AD mentions 25-30k for Gillette games. The irony is we can easily get to 25k by 2020 if a few things start happening. Like what, winning games and building the base with good drawing home games. Love to see the Army game played on campus with a nicely upgraded McGuirk.
UMass should just add permanent seats at the end zone opposite the new Football Center and up grade the other facilities like concessions and more permanent bathrooms for now. Forming the horse shoe should add approximately another 8 thousand seats getting McGuirk to 25k until they can get into a conference again. When the stadium is sold out at 25k on a regular basis they can expand it again when the school determines the next capacity level to strive for. (Personally I think they should have stayed in the MAC until the conference they are zeroed in on came calling but that is a discussion for another day.)
If they go like Idaho, they will end up like Idaho. They need to bite the bullet and do something like expand by upgrading half the stadium. That's considerably cheaper than doing the whole thing. They can add cheap seats in the end zone to get to 30k while leaving room for temporary expansion.
As an independent where is UMASS going to get the money to expand half the stadium. They are not in a conference like the B-12, B-10, or SEC where they are making at least $30 million a year. They are a in a heck of position then Idaho with 25k. Idaho only has seating for about 15k.
Nobody will invite them at 17k or 25k. AAC-UConn, Houston, SMU, Tulane and UCF all have built stadiums in the last 20 years. Temple is looking at it while playing in a pro stadium close to campus. USF is in a pro stadium close to campus. Cincinnati and ECU have done major renovations. Basically everyone but Navy, Memphis and Tulsa. Tulsa's seats 40k and the Liberty Bowl seats 62k.
You have some facts wrong here^ I take it that you haven't watched games at several of these places.
(07-10-2016 07:49 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote: UMass should just add permanent seats at the end zone opposite the new Football Center and up grade the other facilities like concessions and more permanent bathrooms for now. Forming the horse shoe should add approximately another 8 thousand seats getting McGuirk to 25k until they can get into a conference again. When the stadium is sold out at 25k on a regular basis they can expand it again when the school determines the next capacity level to strive for. (Personally I think they should have stayed in the MAC until the conference they are zeroed in on came calling but that is a discussion for another day.)
If they go like Idaho, they will end up like Idaho. They need to bite the bullet and do something like expand by upgrading half the stadium. That's considerably cheaper than doing the whole thing. They can add cheap seats in the end zone to get to 30k while leaving room for temporary expansion.
As an independent where is UMASS going to get the money to expand half the stadium. They are not in a conference like the B-12, B-10, or SEC where they are making at least $30 million a year. They are a in a heck of position then Idaho with 25k. Idaho only has seating for about 15k.
Nobody will invite them at 17k or 25k. AAC-UConn, Houston, SMU, Tulane and UCF all have built stadiums in the last 20 years. Temple is looking at it while playing in a pro stadium close to campus. USF is in a pro stadium close to campus. Cincinnati and ECU have done major renovations. Basically everyone but Navy, Memphis and Tulsa. Tulsa's seats 40k and the Liberty Bowl seats 62k.
You have some facts wrong here^ I take it that you haven't watched games at several of these places.
Cheers!
Tulsa's stadium capacity was reduced as part of a renovation in 2007-08 with an estimated cost of $20 million http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/tu...a2d4a.html. The stadium now has an official capacity of 30,000...not too far away from the 25K.
Quote:...The stadium renovation included new seating throughout the stadium, restrooms, concession areas, new press box with luxury suites and club level seating, and a new scoreboard on the south side of the stadium, among other amenities...
The lowest capacity for AAC stadiums is 30,000, but there are several stadiums within the 25,000 capacity range in the CUSA, MAC, Sun Belt. (MAC is probably out since UMass didn't want full membership there.) The Mountain West also has a stadium around 25K, but UMass is probably outside of the geographic footprint for that conference.
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2016 11:53 AM by LUSportsFan.)
(07-10-2016 07:49 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote: UMass should just add permanent seats at the end zone opposite the new Football Center and up grade the other facilities like concessions and more permanent bathrooms for now. Forming the horse shoe should add approximately another 8 thousand seats getting McGuirk to 25k until they can get into a conference again. When the stadium is sold out at 25k on a regular basis they can expand it again when the school determines the next capacity level to strive for. (Personally I think they should have stayed in the MAC until the conference they are zeroed in on came calling but that is a discussion for another day.)
If they go like Idaho, they will end up like Idaho. They need to bite the bullet and do something like expand by upgrading half the stadium. That's considerably cheaper than doing the whole thing. They can add cheap seats in the end zone to get to 30k while leaving room for temporary expansion.
As an independent where is UMASS going to get the money to expand half the stadium. They are not in a conference like the B-12, B-10, or SEC where they are making at least $30 million a year. They are a in a heck of position then Idaho with 25k. Idaho only has seating for about 15k.
Nobody will invite them at 17k or 25k. AAC-UConn, Houston, SMU, Tulane and UCF all have built stadiums in the last 20 years. Temple is looking at it while playing in a pro stadium close to campus. USF is in a pro stadium close to campus. Cincinnati and ECU have done major renovations. Basically everyone but Navy, Memphis and Tulsa. Tulsa's seats 40k and the Liberty Bowl seats 62k.
You have some facts wrong here^ I take it that you haven't watched games at several of these places.
Cheers!
Pretty lazy comment. And a useless one without specifics.
(07-10-2016 10:14 AM)bullet Wrote: If they go like Idaho, they will end up like Idaho. They need to bite the bullet and do something like expand by upgrading half the stadium. That's considerably cheaper than doing the whole thing. They can add cheap seats in the end zone to get to 30k while leaving room for temporary expansion.
As an independent where is UMASS going to get the money to expand half the stadium. They are not in a conference like the B-12, B-10, or SEC where they are making at least $30 million a year. They are a in a heck of position then Idaho with 25k. Idaho only has seating for about 15k.
Nobody will invite them at 17k or 25k. AAC-UConn, Houston, SMU, Tulane and UCF all have built stadiums in the last 20 years. Temple is looking at it while playing in a pro stadium close to campus. USF is in a pro stadium close to campus. Cincinnati and ECU have done major renovations. Basically everyone but Navy, Memphis and Tulsa. Tulsa's seats 40k and the Liberty Bowl seats 62k.
You have some facts wrong here^ I take it that you haven't watched games at several of these places.
Cheers!
Tulsa's stadium capacity was reduced as part of a renovation in 2007-08 with an estimated cost of $20 million http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/tu...a2d4a.html. The stadium now has an official capacity of 30,000...not too far away from the 25K.
Quote:...The stadium renovation included new seating throughout the stadium, restrooms, concession areas, new press box with luxury suites and club level seating, and a new scoreboard on the south side of the stadium, among other amenities...
The lowest capacity for AAC stadiums is 30,000, but there are several stadiums within the 25,000 capacity range in the CUSA, MAC, Sun Belt. (MAC is probably out since UMass didn't want full membership there.) The Mountain West also has a stadium around 25K, but UMass is probably outside of the geographic footprint for that conference.
UMass could be in the MAC now. Maybe in CUSA. But that's not where they want to go. They aren't going to get P5 teams to play them in Springfield and they aren't going to get the AAC to invite them.
(07-10-2016 10:14 AM)bullet Wrote: If they go like Idaho, they will end up like Idaho. They need to bite the bullet and do something like expand by upgrading half the stadium. That's considerably cheaper than doing the whole thing. They can add cheap seats in the end zone to get to 30k while leaving room for temporary expansion.
As an independent where is UMASS going to get the money to expand half the stadium. They are not in a conference like the B-12, B-10, or SEC where they are making at least $30 million a year. They are a in a heck of position then Idaho with 25k. Idaho only has seating for about 15k.
Nobody will invite them at 17k or 25k. AAC-UConn, Houston, SMU, Tulane and UCF all have built stadiums in the last 20 years. Temple is looking at it while playing in a pro stadium close to campus. USF is in a pro stadium close to campus. Cincinnati and ECU have done major renovations. Basically everyone but Navy, Memphis and Tulsa. Tulsa's seats 40k and the Liberty Bowl seats 62k.
You have some facts wrong here^ I take it that you haven't watched games at several of these places.
Cheers!
Pretty lazy comment. And a useless one without specifics.
Ok. So I'm not being "lazy": Tulsa does not seat 40k. Not even close. Some of the NFL stadiums you listed as being close to campus are not close to campus. USF does not play "close to campus". Neither does Temple. That's why I wondered if you've been to the actual stadiums and schools you wrote about. That's lazy. Not me pointing out the errors you made.
Cheers!
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2016 04:19 PM by billybobby777.)
(07-11-2016 11:52 AM)LUSportsFan Wrote: The lowest capacity for AAC stadiums is 30,000, but there are several stadiums within the 25,000 capacity range in the CUSA, MAC, Sun Belt. (MAC is probably out since UMass didn't want full membership there.) The Mountain West also has a stadium around 25K, but UMass is probably outside of the geographic footprint for that conference.
If the MAC is out because of the perceived status of its BBall competition, then full membership in CUSA and the Sun Belt is also out. And with the $1m/school from the CFP now capped at $10m, there's no reason for any G5 conference to consider UMass FB-only.
So it's pretty much the AAC or nothing for UMass unless there is some big conference realignment quake that has a side effect of gutting the A-10 BBall competition or puts a G5 conference in need of a quick FB-only add.
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2016 09:01 PM by BruceMcF.)
(07-10-2016 10:23 AM)MplsBison Wrote: That's essentially what James Madison did. The new side of their stadium is very nice. It actually wraps around to one endzone, as well. The other side used to be the home side. They also have a football facility in the endzone, like what UMass built.
And now James Madison is stuck in FCS without a G5 invite possible.
(07-10-2016 09:42 PM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote: As an independent where is UMASS going to get the money to expand half the stadium. They are not in a conference like the B-12, B-10, or SEC where they are making at least $30 million a year. They are a in a heck of position then Idaho with 25k. Idaho only has seating for about 15k.
Nobody will invite them at 17k or 25k. AAC-UConn, Houston, SMU, Tulane and UCF all have built stadiums in the last 20 years. Temple is looking at it while playing in a pro stadium close to campus. USF is in a pro stadium close to campus. Cincinnati and ECU have done major renovations. Basically everyone but Navy, Memphis and Tulsa. Tulsa's seats 40k and the Liberty Bowl seats 62k.
You have some facts wrong here^ I take it that you haven't watched games at several of these places.
Cheers!
Pretty lazy comment. And a useless one without specifics.
Ok. So I'm not being "lazy": Tulsa does not seat 40k. Not even close. Some of the NFL stadiums you listed as being close to campus are not close to campus. USF does not play "close to campus". Neither does Temple. That's why I wondered if you've been to the actual stadiums and schools you wrote about. That's lazy. Not me pointing out the errors you made.
Cheers!
Who gets to define what 'close' is, you?
USF plays at a Pro stadium on Dale Mabry Hwy, USF is a bit to the Northeast on Fowler... I consider it close. Not walking distance, but most students have access to these wonderful inventions called 'cars'.
It's close enough that USF didn't feel the need to build 'another' stadium too soon, not too soon after Hillsborough County built a palace for the Bucs. As RJS ages a bit, the OCS talk will ramp up. It's actually already started with the MOSI move freeing up a great space adjacent to the campus.
(07-12-2016 10:31 PM)Bull Wrote: Who gets to define what 'close' is, you?
No, I do, because I reek of awesomeness. "Close to campus" means within walking distance. Your typical FBS college has lots and lots of students living on campus (or in private housing just off campus) which means a lot of them aren't driving on a daily basis.
So if your pro stadium is not within drunken stumbling distance of your campus, no, it's not close.
Quote: Not walking distance, but most students have access to these wonderful inventions called 'cars'.
As RJS ages a bit, the OCS talk will ramp up.
Because your leadership understands that your situation is not ideal.
Quote: It's actually already started with the MOSI move freeing up a great space adjacent to the campus.[/close]
Cheers!
Adjacent! Usin' them big words at DRive-Thru U!
Seriously, I understand that different schools are different. My mother drove to St Johns from Brooklyn, 15 miles each way. St Johns finally built dorms partially because the athletic housing allowance was becoming an issue. But the FBS model, and one that USF is driving towards, is undergraduates living on (or very near) campus and an on-campus stadium, all in walkable distances.
(07-12-2016 10:31 PM)Bull Wrote: Who gets to define what 'close' is, you?
No, I do, because I reek of awesomeness. "Close to campus" means within walking distance. Your typical FBS college has lots and lots of students living on campus (or in private housing just off campus) which means a lot of them aren't driving on a daily basis.
So if your pro stadium is not within drunken stumbling distance of your campus, no, it's not close.
Quote: Not walking distance, but most students have access to these wonderful inventions called 'cars'.
As RJS ages a bit, the OCS talk will ramp up.
Because your leadership understands that your situation is not ideal.
Quote: It's actually already started with the MOSI move freeing up a great space adjacent to the campus.[/close]
Cheers!
Adjacent! Usin' them big words at DRive-Thru U!
Seriously, I understand that different schools are different. My mother drove to St Johns from Brooklyn, 15 miles each way. St Johns finally built dorms partially because the athletic housing allowance was becoming an issue. But the FBS model, and one that USF is driving towards, is undergraduates living on (or very near) campus and an on-campus stadium, all in walkable distances.
Ah... A St. John fan is the latest expert about what USF 'needs'... How nice! ;-)
I get you are kidding around, so no offense taken. Seriously though, everyone with an axe to grind about USF beats the stadium situation to death. The bottom line is this, it's a awesome stadium. It's posh. It's hosted super bowls. It has a HUGE capacity, that's relevant for attracting some of the bigger name schools. Multiple coaches have said it's a recruiting positive, not the opposite. We would MUCH rather play at RJ (yes even with red seats), than in some middling cheap OCS.
So anyone who does not like USF goes on ad-nauseam online about how it's just 'awful' how we don't have an OCS... Don't fret about us, we're doing just fine. when we were winning, we PACKED RayJay... so somehow, someway, the kids and everyone else are found their way to Dale Mabry... That alone blasts the point that RJ is some 'disadvantage' for us... which is absolutely laughable anyway. Because everyone just HATES all those great NFL amenities, right...? (lol)
I agree with you that an OCS is indeed, and should be, our long term goal. We will build one soon, and we'll build up something pretty awesome. But because we have RJ 'nearby', we have been patient. In the meantime, if you get drunk at RJ, I will personally get you an Uber.
FWIW, I hope someday I 'reek of awesomeness'. Not yet though...
PS Sorry to derail off topic. Go Umass!!!
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2016 09:31 AM by Bull.)
(07-12-2016 10:31 PM)Bull Wrote: Who gets to define what 'close' is, you?
No, I do, because I reek of awesomeness. "Close to campus" means within walking distance. Your typical FBS college has lots and lots of students living on campus (or in private housing just off campus) which means a lot of them aren't driving on a daily basis.
So if your pro stadium is not within drunken stumbling distance of your campus, no, it's not close.
Quote: Not walking distance, but most students have access to these wonderful inventions called 'cars'.
As RJS ages a bit, the OCS talk will ramp up.
Because your leadership understands that your situation is not ideal.
Quote: It's actually already started with the MOSI move freeing up a great space adjacent to the campus.[/close]
Cheers!
Adjacent! Usin' them big words at DRive-Thru U!
Seriously, I understand that different schools are different. My mother drove to St Johns from Brooklyn, 15 miles each way. St Johns finally built dorms partially because the athletic housing allowance was becoming an issue. But the FBS model, and one that USF is driving towards, is undergraduates living on (or very near) campus and an on-campus stadium, all in walkable distances.
Ah... A St. John fan is the latest expert about what USF 'needs'... How nice! ;-)
Not a USF expert, just know what "close" means in FBS stadium-speak.
(And I get that walkable-cobblestone-streets is not the only model.)
Quote:I get you are kidding around, so no offense taken. Seriously though, everyone with an axe to grind about USF beats the stadium situation to death.
Guess I don't have an axe to grind about USF stadium--from where I sit, your main problem is too few people in it.
But your own leadership, apparently, is moving ultimately in the walkable OCS direction.
Quote:The bottom line is this, it's a awesome stadium. It's posh. It's hosted super bowls. It has a HUGE capacity, that's relevant for attracting some of the bigger name schools. Multiple coaches have said it's a recruiting positive, not the opposite. We would MUCH rather play at RJ (yes even with red seats), than in some middling cheap OCS.
I have no problem with any of that. Far as I know, Rose Bowl isn't that close to USC or UCLA, right?
Quote:So anyone who does not like USF goes on ad-nauseam online about how it's just 'awful' how we don't have an OCS... Don't fret about us, we're doing just fine. when we were winning, we PACKED RayJay... so somehow, someway, the kids and everyone else are found their way to Dale Mabry... That alone blasts the point that RJ is some 'disadvantage' for us... which is absolutely laughable anyway. Because everyone just HATES all those great NFL amenities, right...? (lol)
I agree with you that an OCS is indeed, and should be, our long term goal. We will build one soon, and we'll build up something pretty awesome. But because we have RJ 'nearby', we have been patient. In the meantime, if you get drunk at RJ, I will personally get you an Uber.
FWIW, I hope someday I 'reek of awesomeness'. Not yet though...
PS Sorry to derail off topic. Go Umass!!!
I forgot this was a UMass thread.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2016 10:11 AM by johnbragg.)
(07-10-2016 10:04 PM)bullet Wrote: Nobody will invite them at 17k or 25k. AAC-UConn, Houston, SMU, Tulane and UCF all have built stadiums in the last 20 years. Temple is looking at it while playing in a pro stadium close to campus. USF is in a pro stadium close to campus. Cincinnati and ECU have done major renovations. Basically everyone but Navy, Memphis and Tulsa. Tulsa's seats 40k and the Liberty Bowl seats 62k.
You have some facts wrong here^ I take it that you haven't watched games at several of these places.
Cheers!
Pretty lazy comment. And a useless one without specifics.
Ok. So I'm not being "lazy": Tulsa does not seat 40k. Not even close. Some of the NFL stadiums you listed as being close to campus are not close to campus. USF does not play "close to campus". Neither does Temple. That's why I wondered if you've been to the actual stadiums and schools you wrote about. That's lazy. Not me pointing out the errors you made.
Cheers!
Who gets to define what 'close' is, you?
USF plays at a Pro stadium on Dale Mabry Hwy, USF is a bit to the Northeast on Fowler... I consider it close. Not walking distance, but most students have access to these wonderful inventions called 'cars'.
It's close enough that USF didn't feel the need to build 'another' stadium too soon, not too soon after Hillsborough County built a palace for the Bucs. As RJS ages a bit, the OCS talk will ramp up. It's actually already started with the MOSI move freeing up a great space adjacent to the campus.
Cheers!
The poster I responded to said the following:
1. Tulsa seats 40k--No it doesn't.
2. USF plays close to campus--no they don't.
3. Temple plays close to campus.--no they don't.
So what does "close to campus" mean? I'd say a fair comparison would be based on it's college football peers. Out of the 130 or so FBS schools, how many of them play football as far away from campus as USF? 100? 50? 20? No, only a few schools play that far away from campus. Most play on campus, a few play a couple miles away.
So compared to its peers, USF does not play "close to campus"
Cheers!
P.S. As far the "wonderful invention called cars" you mentioned. I went two years without one while living at an ECU affiliated apartment village where many of us walked and rode bikes to class and sporting events. That's what's wonderful about a college campus. You don't need a car. Did you drive from class to class in your car at USF? Were you a commuter?
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2016 10:49 AM by billybobby777.)
(07-10-2016 09:42 PM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote: As an independent where is UMASS going to get the money to expand half the stadium. They are not in a conference like the B-12, B-10, or SEC where they are making at least $30 million a year. They are a in a heck of position then Idaho with 25k. Idaho only has seating for about 15k.
Nobody will invite them at 17k or 25k. AAC-UConn, Houston, SMU, Tulane and UCF all have built stadiums in the last 20 years. Temple is looking at it while playing in a pro stadium close to campus. USF is in a pro stadium close to campus. Cincinnati and ECU have done major renovations. Basically everyone but Navy, Memphis and Tulsa. Tulsa's seats 40k and the Liberty Bowl seats 62k.
You have some facts wrong here^ I take it that you haven't watched games at several of these places.
Cheers!
Pretty lazy comment. And a useless one without specifics.
Ok. So I'm not being "lazy": Tulsa does not seat 40k. Not even close. Some of the NFL stadiums you listed as being close to campus are not close to campus. USF does not play "close to campus". Neither does Temple. That's why I wondered if you've been to the actual stadiums and schools you wrote about. That's lazy. Not me pointing out the errors you made.
Cheers!
UMass plays in a pro stadium on the opposite side of an entire state. So relative to our discussion of UMass, yes, USF and Temple play in pro stadiums "close" to campus. So the error was in your interpretation. I didn't know Tulsa's stadium had been reduced, but they used to seat over 40k. That means they have been renovated, so they fit into the category with UC and ECU. Again, UMass falls short. And so yes, your comment was lazy. If you had explained why you thought I was in error, I could have pointed out your error at the time.
They have been taking the cheap way out like Idaho. They either need to go all in or go back to FCS. They will kill their program if they continue like this for an extended period. When they moved to FBS, Idaho had a better program than Boise. Now they are one of the worst in the division.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2016 11:33 AM by bullet.)
(07-10-2016 10:04 PM)bullet Wrote: Nobody will invite them at 17k or 25k. AAC-UConn, Houston, SMU, Tulane and UCF all have built stadiums in the last 20 years. Temple is looking at it while playing in a pro stadium close to campus. USF is in a pro stadium close to campus. Cincinnati and ECU have done major renovations. Basically everyone but Navy, Memphis and Tulsa. Tulsa's seats 40k and the Liberty Bowl seats 62k.
You have some facts wrong here^ I take it that you haven't watched games at several of these places.
Cheers!
Pretty lazy comment. And a useless one without specifics.
Ok. So I'm not being "lazy": Tulsa does not seat 40k. Not even close. Some of the NFL stadiums you listed as being close to campus are not close to campus. USF does not play "close to campus". Neither does Temple. That's why I wondered if you've been to the actual stadiums and schools you wrote about. That's lazy. Not me pointing out the errors you made.
Cheers!
UMass plays in a pro stadium on the opposite side of an entire state. So relative to our discussion of UMass, yes, USF and Temple play in pro stadiums "close" to campus. So the error was in your interpretation.
No offense, but I don't think anyone else interpreted "close" as "closer than Gillette to UMass."
It sounded like you had a warped view of how far Temple is from the Linc and/or how far USF is from the Buc's stadium. Especially combined with missing Tulsa's reduction to 30K.
All that said, I think an AAC invite to UMass is pretty unlikely. A bunch of things would ALL have to line up.
(07-10-2016 10:23 AM)MplsBison Wrote: That's essentially what James Madison did. The new side of their stadium is very nice. It actually wraps around to one endzone, as well. The other side used to be the home side. They also have a football facility in the endzone, like what UMass built.
And now James Madison is stuck in FCS without a G5 invite possible.
![[Image: project_images-s3-amazonaws-com--1325258...70x450.jpg]](https://www.galvanizeit.org/images/sized/images/sized/remote/project_images-s3-amazonaws-com--1325258391-JamesMadisonUniv1-770x450.jpg)
