Page 82 of 135
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:55 pm
by McKinney
dennisdent wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:08 pm
McKinney wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:54 pm
dennisdent wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:36 pm
They actually believe my post on the indoor football facility! I wouldn't have posted it if it wasn't true...From my understanding, they are looking at spending 25-30 million on the indoor facility. This is all subject to change but as of today, this is the plan...
Uhhhh what are you talking about? Who believed you? What post? I'm so confused.
Here's my post about the hopefully good news:
http://www.umasshoops.com/newboard/view ... start=1170
Are you referring to this?
dennisdent wrote: Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:07 pm
Indoor athletic facility (turf field with bubble) is in the works. Nothing is going to happen with the football stadium...
I certainly hope not. It would not be good news that the IPF is not an IPF at all but rather a turf field with bubble. Secondly it would be terrible news that they're spending $30M on a f****** bubble. Anybody ever tell you that you sound like the Anonymous poster on Frank's blog?
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:41 pm
by dennisdent
McKinney wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:55 pm
Are you referring to this?
dennisdent wrote: Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:07 pm
Indoor athletic facility (turf field with bubble) is in the works. Nothing is going to happen with the football stadium...
I certainly hope not. It would not be good news that the IPF is not an IPF at all but rather a turf field with bubble. Secondly it would be terrible news that they're spending $30M on a f****** bubble. Anybody ever tell you that you sound like the Anonymous poster on Frank's blog?
I post as "dennisdent" on football blog also. This information was passed to me from a very good source. I was told that it will be used by the baseball/softball teams, so it will be sturdy.
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:04 pm
by McKinney
dennisdent wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:41 pm
I post as "dennisdent" on football blog also. This information was passed to me from a very good source. I was told that it will be used by the baseball/softball teams, so it will be sturdy.
Is it a bubble or is it sturdy? Bubbles are (by definition) air supported, not beam supported. Maybe your "source" is confusing bubble with fabric structure?
I don't see how it could be a "turf field and bubble" as you stated as air-supported structures are at most $12 per square-foot (
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/gym-fi ... domes.html adjusted for inflation and rounded UP, this is BY FAR the best case scenario) so using your lowest cost estimate of $25M that would mean we're talking about a 2.08M sqft facility. I've drawn a 1,443' x 1,443' square (which would be the MINIMUM dimensions required for this facility) on a map to show you how ridiculous this facility would be in the BEST CASE SCENARIO.
I'd tell your source something's up.
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:11 pm
by dennisdent
McKinney wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:04 pm
dennisdent wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:41 pm
I post as "dennisdent" on football blog also. This information was passed to me from a very good source. I was told that it will be used by the baseball/softball teams, so it will be sturdy.
Is it a bubble or is it sturdy? Bubbles are (by definition) air supported, not beam supported. Maybe your "source" is confusing bubble with fabric structure?
I don't see how it could be a "turf field and bubble" as you stated as air-supported structures are at most $12 per square-foot (
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/gym-fi ... domes.html adjusted for inflation and rounded UP, this is BY FAR the best case scenario) so using your lowest cost estimate of $25M that would mean we're talking about a 2.08M sqft facility. I've drawn a 1,443' x 1,443' square (which would be the MINIMUM dimensions required for this facility) on a map to show you how ridiculous this facility would be in the BEST CASE SCENARIO.
I'd tell your source something's up.
They want money...
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:23 pm
by McKinney
dennisdent wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:11 pm
They want money...
I sincerely hope UMass isn't as foolish as you paint. Granted I don't have much experience, but I've never encountered nor heard of a supplier quoting 10-20x the price of what a product should cost. $25-30M would not be surprising for an IPF, even for a fabric structure (Texas A&M's on which our "concept" is based cost $20.8M), but $25-30M for a bubble is more than an order of magnitude of what it should cost. I'd tell them to GTFO.
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:11 am
by InnervisionsUMASS
Well this thread just got real interesting.
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:07 am
by Crank
I think the term "bubble" often gets conflated with the fabric structures now in vogue. There's a soccer facility near me that is still referred to as a bubble even though it was converted to a fabric structure a decade ago. I say this with absolutely no knowledge of what is being planned, however.
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:58 am
by InnervisionsUMASS
The specifics of the info from the source might be off, but I think the general concept of the info is accurate. No need to nitpick the specific details at this point, lets just be happy that it looks like something really is on the horizon (as has been alluded to by RB for a bit now).
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:05 pm
by dennisdent
Thank you Crank and Innervisions. I was very glad to hear that there is actual movement and didn't go into specifics on the new facility. Love McKinney's enthusiasm and questioning, but he should go work for the Collegian and ask Bamford his questions.
I want the IPF to benefit all UMass students, not just athletes. If the AD sells it that way they will get the funding much faster in my humble opinion.
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:19 pm
by McKinney
dennisdent wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:05 pm
Thank you Crank and Innervisions. I was very glad to hear that there is actual movement and didn't go into specifics on the new facility. Love McKinney's enthusiasm and questioning, but he should go work for the Collegian and ask Bamford his questions.
I want to the IPF to benefit all UMass students, not just athletes. If the AD sells it that way they will get the funding much faster in my humble opinion.
Sorry I didn't mean for my nickpicking to come across as a personal attack on you or your source. I just happen to find digging into "inconsequential" details sometimes leads to surprisingly interesting statistics/research.
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:22 pm
by dennisdent
McKinney wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:19 pm
dennisdent wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:05 pm
Thank you Crank and Innervisions. I was very glad to hear that there is actual movement and didn't go into specifics on the new facility. Love McKinney's enthusiasm and questioning, but he should go work for the Collegian and ask Bamford his questions.
I want to the IPF to benefit all UMass students, not just athletes. If the AD sells it that way they will get the funding much faster in my humble opinion.
Sorry I didn't mean for my nickpicking to come across as a personal attack on you or your source. I just happen to find digging into "inconsequential" details sometimes leads to surprisingly interesting statistics/research.
No problem at all! Wish we could clone you!
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:19 am
by nighttrain777
Here’s another new high school stadium in Texas. This one is just 7 miles from the stadium in Allen.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/mckinne ... g-mckinney
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:52 am
by McKinney
I approve of the name of that Dallas suburb.
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 3:39 pm
by Jack
A multipurpose bubble is okay but it doesn't do anything for the fans. McGuirk is the issue. AD needs a plan to improve McGuirk and a plan to implement that improvement. Even an incremental approach such as replacing and improving the seating in the sections behind the UMass Bench would be a sign of progress. We need to have consistent improvement in all facets of the program and specifically the fan game day experience at McGuirk.
Re: McGuirk Upgrade
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:15 pm
by minutefanjsf
Jack wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 3:39 pm
A multipurpose bubble is okay but it doesn't do anything for the fans. McGuirk is the issue. AD needs a plan to improve McGuirk and a plan to implement that improvement. Even an incremental approach such as replacing and improving the seating in the sections behind the UMass Bench would be a sign of progress. We need to have consistent improvement in all facets of the program and specifically the fan game day experience at McGuirk.
Seating is the last thing that will be touched at McGuirk. The AD has said this. I agree that announcing a plan would be great, but my guess is there is not enough money in the coffers to commit to anything. My guess based on public statements is that we will see some new scoreboards, maybe some endzone seating, maybe bathroom trailers, but nothing big yet.