Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
UMass Football
Author Message
Huskypride Offline
New Kid on the Block
*

Posts: 1,820
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Bad Jokes
Location: Happy Town
Post: #1121
UMass Football
(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 11:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
beefcake0520 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 201
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 21
I Root For: marshall
Location:
Post: #1122
RE: UMass Football
(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 $$.
Yesterday 07:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
orangefan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,976
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 195
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #1123
RE: UMass Football
(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.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=9434]


Attached File(s)
.png  mcguirk.png (Size: 196.02 KB / Downloads: 113)
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 10:34 AM by orangefan.)
Yesterday 10:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 272
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #1124
RE: UMass Football
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).
[Image: IMG_3529.JPG]
[Image: IMG_3530.JPG]
[Image: IMG_3531.JPG]
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 11:06 AM by McKinney.)
Yesterday 11:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eldonabe Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 397
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 58
I Root For: Umass
Location: Van by the River
Post: #1125
RE: UMass Football
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.
Yesterday 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,479
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 635
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Gulfport, FL
Post: #1126
RE: UMass Football
(Yesterday 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.
Yesterday 01:16 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
orangefan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,976
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 195
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #1127
RE: UMass Football
(Yesterday 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.

(Yesterday 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.
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 02:13 PM by orangefan.)
Yesterday 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bronco'14 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,663
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 11
I Root For: WMU Broncos
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Post: #1128
RE: UMass Football
(Yesterday 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.
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 04:12 PM by Bronco'14.)
Yesterday 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cyniclone Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,056
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 218
I Root For: ODU and VCU
Location:
Post: #1129
RE: UMass Football
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.
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 05:53 PM by Cyniclone.)
Yesterday 05:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,965
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 92
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #1130
RE: UMass Football
(Yesterday 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.
Yesterday 07:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ohio Poly Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 701
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Ohio Poly
Location:
Post: #1131
RE: UMass Football
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?
Today 06:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,151
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 339
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #1132
RE: UMass Football
(Yesterday 01:16 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(Yesterday 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.
Today 11:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.