Mat68 Posted October 1, 2021 Posted October 1, 2021 Its all alot of money. Another billion or half sounds stupid but a city stadium with multiple uses may be worth the upfront cost. Having UB step in help with the cost could help with the programs status having a decent sized stadium. Im coming to this conclusion of a down town dome stadium by both UB and Buffalo wanting an on campus stadium. The city option would be the middle ground. From a state prospective they get more out of it vs building a better stadium across the street. Maybe in the end thats the decision. Until than I think alot of options are still on the table.
purple haze Posted October 1, 2021 Posted October 1, 2021 10 hours ago, Doc said: Because it kills 2 birds with one stone: a new stadium for both UB and the Bills. I get that. My question was rhetorical. UB’s issue is lack of support. How much worse would the atmosphere be in a bigger stadium? Unless UB/State is serious about going big time in football. Then it makes sense. But if they’re cool staying in the MAC no point to them being in on a Bills stadium.
Doc Posted October 1, 2021 Posted October 1, 2021 2 hours ago, Mat68 said: Its all alot of money. Another billion or half sounds stupid but a city stadium with multiple uses may be worth the upfront cost. Having UB step in help with the cost could help with the programs status having a decent sized stadium. Im coming to this conclusion of a down town dome stadium by both UB and Buffalo wanting an on campus stadium. The city option would be the middle ground. From a state prospective they get more out of it vs building a better stadium across the street. Maybe in the end thats the decision. Until than I think alot of options are still on the table. I think that the OP non-roofed stadium was determined to be the most cost-effective and popular among Bills fans. With the state ostensibly getting more involved now, a downtown roofed stadium might be a real possibility since they could/would fund the $900M in infrastructure changes that need to be made. 10 minutes ago, purple haze said: I get that. My question was rhetorical. UB’s issue is lack of support. How much worse would the atmosphere be in a bigger stadium? Unless UB/State is serious about going big time in football. Then it makes sense. But if they’re cool staying in the MAC no point to them being in on a Bills stadium. Lack of support is no reason to spend hundreds of millions just to have a separate stadium for UB. Just have fans in a preset section like between the 30's or something. Tarp off seats if you need to. And maybe in the near future, going big time might be an option? 3
purple haze Posted October 1, 2021 Posted October 1, 2021 6 minutes ago, Doc said: I think that the OP non-roofed stadium was determined to be the most cost-effective and popular among Bills fans. With the state ostensibly getting more involved now, a downtown roofed stadium might be a real possibility since they could/would fund the $900M in infrastructure changes that need to be made. Lack of support is no reason to spend hundreds of millions just to have a separate stadium for UB. Just have fans in a preset section like between the 30's or something. Tarp off seats if you need to. And maybe in the near future, going big time might be an option? That would be absolutely terrible. UB, if they’re comfortable staying at their current level, need their own building. If they build or renovate, correctly, with amenities, that might help their attendance issues. They deserve the support. But putting them in a partitioned stadium or a too big venue would be yuck. At a certain point money needs to be spent. Everything can’t be done on the cheap or on a discount. UB will be there for generations. Their stadium will be definitely be used.
Doc Posted October 1, 2021 Posted October 1, 2021 39 minutes ago, purple haze said: That would be absolutely terrible. UB, if they’re comfortable staying at their current level, need their own building. If they build or renovate, correctly, with amenities, that might help their attendance issues. They deserve the support. But putting them in a partitioned stadium or a too big venue would be yuck. At a certain point money needs to be spent. Everything can’t be done on the cheap or on a discount. UB will be there for generations. Their stadium will be definitely be used. Avoiding "yuck" likely isn't on their minds. And you can still have a nice time in a larger venue. A crowd of 10K can make the same amount of noise whether they're in a 29K venue or a 60K one. And who knows? Maybe having a nice, new state of the art stadium might attract more students, and people in general, to attend?
billsfan_34 Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 5 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said: This is exactly what anyone would say if we were just now proposing to put the stadium in OP. "All we have is the 219, Milestrip, and Abbott. No way they can support the traffic." But it do. Route 5, 400219 close by - quick spur south or to the 90. The 290 cant handle the load.
The Dean Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 26 minutes ago, Doc said: Avoiding "yuck" likely isn't on their minds. And you can still have a nice time in a larger venue. A crowd of 10K can make the same amount of noise whether they're in a 29K venue or a 60K one. And who knows? Maybe having a nice, new state of the art stadium might attract more students, and people in general, to attend? They make the same amount of noise, but it dissipates throughout the cavernous stadium. The decibel level on the field is dramatically different, I'm guessing. And the visual impact is preposterous. I agree, the Bulls playing in a huge stadium seems ridiculous, unless and until they grow the program. IF this is a cog in them doing just that, I welcome that. But I wouldn't put the cart before the horse in this case. 1
billsfan_34 Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 5 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: I thought it was clear when I said Amherst...I meant UB Amherst. (I went to Sweet Home HS a million years ago. I know EXACTLY where UB's located.) 🙂 Fair enough- cheers 😊
purple haze Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 2 hours ago, Doc said: Avoiding "yuck" likely isn't on their minds. And you can still have a nice time in a larger venue. A crowd of 10K can make the same amount of noise whether they're in a 29K venue or a 60K one. And who knows? Maybe having a nice, new state of the art stadium might attract more students, and people in general, to attend? What should be on their minds is building something specific to them. UB had, what, 10-15 g’s for Coastal Carolina and the placed sounded like an abandoned building. It was embarrassing. I wouldn’t anticipate that foolishness translating in a bigger venue. if it does happen, hopefully people in the city and the students act like they have a pretty good football program in town.
Doc Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 (edited) 17 hours ago, The Dean said: They make the same amount of noise, but it dissipates throughout the cavernous stadium. The decibel level on the field is dramatically different, I'm guessing. And the visual impact is preposterous. I agree, the Bulls playing in a huge stadium seems ridiculous, unless and until they grow the program. IF this is a cog in them doing just that, I welcome that. But I wouldn't put the cart before the horse in this case. 15 hours ago, purple haze said: What should be on their minds is building something specific to them. UB had, what, 10-15 g’s for Coastal Carolina and the placed sounded like an abandoned building. It was embarrassing. I wouldn’t anticipate that foolishness translating in a bigger venue. if it does happen, hopefully people in the city and the students act like they have a pretty good football program in town. The theoretical decrease in crowd noise during games is the least of the concerns and not a reason to not do something like this. Build it and (hopefully) they will come. If not, UB has a nice new stadium to play in, in front of nobody. Still. Edited October 2, 2021 by Doc 1
clayboy54 Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 (edited) I imagine that UB could get a few non-conference games with the likes of Syracuse,Penn State, Ohio State, West Virginia and maybe even Notre Dame. But, none of those schools are coming in to play in a slightly better than high school stadium, like they currently have. It might help elevate their program in the eyes of the big conferences and then if they want to make the commitment, they could make the leap. Edited October 2, 2021 by clayboy54 1
klos63 Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 19 hours ago, Doc said: Avoiding "yuck" likely isn't on their minds. And you can still have a nice time in a larger venue. A crowd of 10K can make the same amount of noise whether they're in a 29K venue or a 60K one. And who knows? Maybe having a nice, new state of the art stadium might attract more students, and people in general, to attend? I would agree with this, and UB has a pretty decent program, this may help it grow as well.
UConn James Posted October 3, 2021 Posted October 3, 2021 While we don’t exactly know what caused the “technical difficulties” / broadcast failure today (to go with a number of such failures in recent years — Mylar balloon anyone?) is it safe to say that aged infrastructure probably has something to do with it? You just don’t see this stuff happening anywhere else with such frequency. The other point today is making is that these kind of games suck for the fans and don’t help the team in a league that is more and more built for the pass. And it reduces the risks of slips as may have contributed to Milano’s hamstring injury. The Buffalo weather takes a beating on structures , if you haven’t seen the condition of even the 8-year-old refurbishments; EIGHT YEAR OLD concrete is literally eroding and they don’t want any part of protecting new construction from the elements? Having a retractable roof on a new stadium isn’t a completely obscene expenditure. It’s pouring 🌧 there almost all game. And the beauty of retractable is that it doesn’t necessarily have to be closed for weather games. I just fail to see how this is a contentious issue.
Doc Posted October 3, 2021 Posted October 3, 2021 2 hours ago, UConn James said: While we don’t exactly know what caused the “technical difficulties” / broadcast failure today (to go with a number of such failures in recent years — Mylar balloon anyone?) is it safe to say that aged infrastructure probably has something to do with it? You just don’t see this stuff happening anywhere else with such frequency. The other point today is making is that these kind of games suck for the fans and don’t help the team in a league that is more and more built for the pass. And it reduces the risks of slips as may have contributed to Milano’s hamstring injury. The Buffalo weather takes a beating on structures , if you haven’t seen the condition of even the 8-year-old refurbishments; EIGHT YEAR OLD concrete is literally eroding and they don’t want any part of protecting new construction from the elements? Having a retractable roof on a new stadium isn’t a completely obscene expenditure. It’s pouring 🌧 there almost all game. And the beauty of retractable is that it doesn’t necessarily have to be closed for weather games. I just fail to see how this is a contentious issue. A retractable roof costs $200M more and they rarely get used. A fixed roof OTOH is definitely what they should do. 1
Greatdane21 Posted October 4, 2021 Posted October 4, 2021 Pegula was seen looking at land north of Fredonia 2000 acres available adjacent to thruway!
The Dean Posted October 4, 2021 Posted October 4, 2021 16 minutes ago, Greatdane21 said: Pegula was seen looking at land north of Fredonia 2000 acres available adjacent to thruway! Making a Marx Brothers movie?
Saxum Posted October 4, 2021 Posted October 4, 2021 22 minutes ago, Greatdane21 said: Pegula was seen looking at land north of Fredonia 2000 acres available adjacent to thruway! 5 minutes ago, The Dean said: Making a Marx Brothers movie? Fraking to pay for Allen's contract.
Recommended Posts