(03-31-2017 08:36 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  Just a thought but why don't you guys sell the naming rights to your football stadium. Like Duck Dynasty Williams Stadium. Or something like that.

I think that's basically what happened. Art Williams donated the money to build the stadium so it's called Williams Stadium.

(03-31-2017 06:47 AM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 05:31 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I'd rather do it in Baltimore. It isn't much further and M&T Bank Stadium is so much nicer than Fed Ex Field.

D.C. > Baltimore

Yes but M&T Bank Stadium is better than Fed Ex Field. All in all, it's better to play a game in Washington, DC but it unfortunate that the Redskins don't have a better home.

(03-31-2017 08:53 AM)SlyFox Wrote:  And Fed Ex Field is anxious to make money off college games.

I'm surprised how infrequently they host college football games if they truly want to host them. They either aren't offering enough money or are extremely selective.

I hadn't really thought much about the neutral sight home game. Does that still meet the NCAA requirement of 5 home games a season?

Yes it does.

That could make scheduling those 5 "home" games much easier.

I had not heard that former LU coach Danny Rocco left Richmond and was hired by Delaware, and that former LU star Mike Brown is on his staff.

(04-05-2017 03:05 AM)army56mike Wrote:  That could make scheduling those 5 "home" games much easier.

I think only one neutral site home game can count towards the minimum of five required.

UMass designated Gillette Stadium as their seconary home site and the NCAA was fine with it.

I seriously doubt that we'd schedule more than one a year. But it could happen.

(04-05-2017 11:11 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  UMass designated Gillette Stadium as their seconary home site and the NCAA was fine with it.

I seriously doubt that we'd schedule more than one a year. But it could happen.

UMASS was completely different than what was suggested here. They use Gillette to off set seating issues at their stadium. Liberty wouldn't have that isssue. Liberty would be trying to find a way to attract higher profile teams and moving it to D.C. would allow for better exposure for both teams.

No, the UMass situation was more than just seating. Much like Coastal, they have trouble drawing a crowd on campus with most of their alumni far away. In fact, I expect the Chants might be part of a deal in Charlotte at some point. UMass completely remodeled their stadium in Amherst but it was getting Boston area alumni to games and reaching an acceptable attendance number that were their driving factors.

Once again, I don't see this as a proactical deal for us moving forward. But if we are trying to get a P5 from out of the region to give us a return home game, this might be a tactic that comes into play.

(04-07-2017 01:44 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  No, the UMass situation was more than just seating. Much like Coastal, they have trouble drawing a crowd on campus with most of their alumni far away. In fact, I expect the Chants might be part of a deal in Charlotte at some point. UMass completely remodeled their stadium in Amherst but it was getting Boston area alumni to games and reaching an acceptable attendance number that were their driving factors.

Once again, I don't see this as a proactical deal for us moving forward. But if we are trying to get a P5 from out of the region to give us a return home game, this might be a tactic that comes into play.

Regarding what I have in bold, the statement looks as if UMass had the ability to utilize their "on campus" stadium when they first made the move to FBS, when in all actuality it wasn't available for a football game until the 2014 season which was the third season they had been FBS. They were playing their cards the best possible way they could.

Hind sight being 20 - 20, I'm of the opinion since Temple left UMass standing at the alter, they would have been better off waiting until the 2014 season to make the move. Again, Temple was their reason for jumping when they did and Umass needed a facility to begin playing games immediately.

http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/ol...abcf2.html

Interesting idea. Looking to the future we would fit nicely from a geographic footprint standpoint.

This article is on the money with it's concept. I really like the eastern conference proposed (though I'm not so hyped about UMass and would substitute Army if possible). What a great improvement it would be over the BSC, which has been great to us over the years.

C-USA/SunBelt
NORTH:
UMass/Army
JMU
Liberty
ODU
Marshall
WKU
Middle Tenn St.
SOUTH:
Appalachian St.
Charlotte
Georgia St.
Georgia So.
Coastal
FAU
FIU

(04-07-2017 11:34 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 01:44 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  No, the UMass situation was more than just seating. Much like Coastal, they have trouble drawing a crowd on campus with most of their alumni far away. In fact, I expect the Chants might be part of a deal in Charlotte at some point. UMass completely remodeled their stadium in Amherst but it was getting Boston area alumni to games and reaching an acceptable attendance number that were their driving factors.

Once again, I don't see this as a proactical deal for us moving forward. But if we are trying to get a P5 from out of the region to give us a return home game, this might be a tactic that comes into play.

Regarding what I have in bold, the statement looks as if UMass had the ability to utilize their "on campus" stadium when they first made the move to FBS, when in all actuality it wasn't available for a football game until the 2014 season which was the third season they had been FBS. They were playing their cards the best possible way they could.

Hind sight being 20 - 20, I'm of the opinion since Temple left UMass standing at the alter, they would have been better off waiting until the 2014 season to make the move. Again, Temple was their reason for jumping when they did and Umass needed a facility to begin playing games immediately.

The reason that we played at Gillette was that our press box was unacceptable to FBS requirements for a separate play back room etc and the locker rooms where sub standard by FCS standards, never mind FBS standards. What our former AD, who was pushed out should be regarded lightly. We needed two years to put out to bid, bond and build, but the Kraft group required us to go with a 4 year deal. That has rolled off and almost all games will be back on campus starting this year. There have been no improvements to the stadium due to building codes requiring everything will have to come up to code. There are no hand railings and the aisle are 2 inches to narrow etc. We've been teased with expansion plans, but we are cleaning up from the last AD mistakes. Nearly 3 million to date for coaches buyouts and one more possible left, men's lacrosse.

Current stadium showing the Performance center in the end zone and the press and sky box on the left side.


We've been teased with these drawings:

(04-12-2017 10:27 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 11:34 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 01:44 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  No, the UMass situation was more than just seating. Much like Coastal, they have trouble drawing a crowd on campus with most of their alumni far away. In fact, I expect the Chants might be part of a deal in Charlotte at some point. UMass completely remodeled their stadium in Amherst but it was getting Boston area alumni to games and reaching an acceptable attendance number that were their driving factors.

Once again, I don't see this as a proactical deal for us moving forward. But if we are trying to get a P5 from out of the region to give us a return home game, this might be a tactic that comes into play.

Regarding what I have in bold, the statement looks as if UMass had the ability to utilize their "on campus" stadium when they first made the move to FBS, when in all actuality it wasn't available for a football game until the 2014 season which was the third season they had been FBS. They were playing their cards the best possible way they could.

Hind sight being 20 - 20, I'm of the opinion since Temple left UMass standing at the alter, they would have been better off waiting until the 2014 season to make the move. Again, Temple was their reason for jumping when they did and Umass needed a facility to begin playing games immediately.

The reason that we played at Gillette was that our press box was unacceptable to FBS requirements for a separate play back room etc and the locker rooms where sub standard by FCS standards, never mind FBS standards. What our former AD, who was pushed out should be regarded lightly. We needed two years to put out to bid, bond and build, but the Kraft group required us to go with a 4 year deal. That has rolled off and almost all games will be back on campus starting this year. There have been no improvements to the stadium due to building codes requiring everything will have to come up to code. There are no hand railings and the aisle are 2 inches to narrow etc. We've been teased with expansion plans, but we are cleaning up from the last AD mistakes. Nearly 3 million to date for coaches buyouts and one more possible left, men's lacrosse.

Current stadium showing the Performance center in the end zone and the press and sky box on the left side.


We've been teased with these drawings:

So Steve, UMass has been kicked around pretty hard by many posters. is the position that UMass is in due to the past AD or admins? If it's the AD, that can be an easy fix. If it's from the admins, that can be a larger obstacle to overcome?

I would welcome games with UMass.

(04-12-2017 06:22 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 10:27 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 11:34 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 01:44 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  No, the UMass situation was more than just seating. Much like Coastal, they have trouble drawing a crowd on campus with most of their alumni far away. In fact, I expect the Chants might be part of a deal in Charlotte at some point. UMass completely remodeled their stadium in Amherst but it was getting Boston area alumni to games and reaching an acceptable attendance number that were their driving factors.

Once again, I don't see this as a proactical deal for us moving forward. But if we are trying to get a P5 from out of the region to give us a return home game, this might be a tactic that comes into play.

Regarding what I have in bold, the statement looks as if UMass had the ability to utilize their "on campus" stadium when they first made the move to FBS, when in all actuality it wasn't available for a football game until the 2014 season which was the third season they had been FBS. They were playing their cards the best possible way they could.

Hind sight being 20 - 20, I'm of the opinion since Temple left UMass standing at the alter, they would have been better off waiting until the 2014 season to make the move. Again, Temple was their reason for jumping when they did and Umass needed a facility to begin playing games immediately.

The reason that we played at Gillette was that our press box was unacceptable to FBS requirements for a separate play back room etc and the locker rooms where sub standard by FCS standards, never mind FBS standards. What our former AD, who was pushed out should be regarded lightly. We needed two years to put out to bid, bond and build, but the Kraft group required us to go with a 4 year deal. That has rolled off and almost all games will be back on campus starting this year. There have been no improvements to the stadium due to building codes requiring everything will have to come up to code. There are no hand railings and the aisle are 2 inches to narrow etc. We've been teased with expansion plans, but we are cleaning up from the last AD mistakes. Nearly 3 million to date for coaches buyouts and one more possible left, men's lacrosse.

Current stadium showing the Performance center in the end zone and the press and sky box on the left side.


We've been teased with these drawings:

So Steve, UMass has been kicked around pretty hard by many posters. is the position that UMass is in due to the past AD or admins? If it's the AD, that can be an easy fix. If it's from the admins, that can be a larger obstacle to overcome?

I would welcome games with UMass.

Yes many mis-steps dating back to the 70's when we were Div 1 and chose 1AA, huge mistake. Same with not going to the Big East when it was formed. Then in 1998 there where inquires from CUSA and the MAC and we stayed with 1AA. We were National Champs in FCS football.

Since going FBS we've corrected a lot of things and have a new President, Chancellor, Athletic Director and Football, men's and women's basketball, and hockey coaches.

The UMass System President is Marty Meehan, former U S House of Representatives and graduate of UMass Lowell and is a huge sports fan. UMass Chancellor know as Swamy ( Kumble R. Subbaswamy) came to us from Kentucky and understand FBS football. Love our AD Ryan Bamford, who came to us from Georgia Tech.

Getting kicked around happens and you've seen some as well. If we're going to be Independent through 2020, see no reason not to schedule you guys as it's a win-win. 2018 is full except for a FCS game.

I remember when UMass stepped up to FBS. I thought they would have similar success as UConn. I still think that is possible. I am pulling for UMass to succeed. I'm also thinking we'll play a few football games with one another.

(04-13-2017 08:50 PM)army56mike Wrote:  I remember when UMass stepped up to FBS. I thought they would have similar success as UConn. I still think that is possible. I am pulling for UMass to succeed. I'm also thinking we'll play a few football games with one another.

Hope so, would prefer playing Liberty on Nov 24 versus a FCS home game where attendance would be chilling. That said don't see any reason for not scheduling 2019-20 with low cost buyouts if either of us get a conference invite.

Wouldn't that be nice problem to have to resolve? Who knows what the landscape will be by next summer?

I respect UMass. They haven't had the easiest path in their FBS journey. I'd like for Liberty to regularly play them as independents. Maybe not annually but frequently and at the end of the season. We both could use a rivalry game and if something develops then it would be great for us both.