from LOOKING AT THAT ONE PHOTO, I think it looks nice.
There is no need to make negative remarks about it.

(07-13-2017 11:50 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Not bad for a place that killed off football.

Better than what we have at the moment.

Smart use of limited funds

(07-13-2017 01:38 PM)TG4 Wrote:  

(07-13-2017 01:28 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(07-13-2017 01:22 PM)bsp34 Wrote:  I assume they will make that an IPF and not leave it open?

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...out-walls/

UAB will pay $4.7 million for the pavilion instead of about $15 million for a regular indoor facility, Ingram said. Since walls don't need to be built, UAB will save significant money by not paying for windows, doors, air conditioning, a fire and sprinkler system, and additional lighting that would be needed for a truly enclosed indoor field.

"If it's raining, the field is dry. If it's hot, you're under shade," Ingram said. "So what do we need the walls for? At the end of the day, what are we talking about? It doesn't get cold here.

Geez. Memphis is spending $40 million on their IPF. Not of the line or are they getting fleeced?

I drove by it on Sunday and Monday. From the I-65 viaduct it doesn't look half bad.

Give it 2 years. It will get bhamed

I ask this without any snark or condescension - is this structure less susceptible to major wind than it would be if it were an actual closed building? Genuinely curious about this.

Bama must have stepped in and stopped the walls and windows,

(07-14-2017 06:16 PM)tigerlands Wrote:  Bama must have stepped in and stopped the walls and windows,

They do that by holding the checkbook.......& if UAB has some success, Bama will stop writing the checks all together.

(07-14-2017 06:16 PM)tigerlands Wrote:  Bama must have stepped in and stopped the walls and windows,

(07-14-2017 02:35 AM)SMUleopold Wrote:  I saw the schematics for this a few years ago and I thought it was smart then and I think it's smart now. C'mon, it's UAB; they killed their own program before bringing it back - recruits know their financial problems. Good for them for being smart and addressing a need at a fraction of the cost.

Yep

So the pavilion basically is to protect players from getting wet?

Because if it's not protecting against the heat or the cold, what's really the point? Why not just be outside?

Just buy a tent that can be put up if the forecast calls for rain.

How did that cost $5 million?

First of all, I wish our friends at UAB well. I hope their program succeeds. It'd be a great story.

It doesn't get cold in Birmingham? One of the coldest evenings of my life was spent at a Birmingham Vulcans game! I have a feeling it gets hot, too...but I understand the huge spin that has to be applied here.

Having said that, well done, UAB. Ya do the best with what ya got. That's all you can do.

(07-15-2017 08:57 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  So the pavilion basically is to protect players from getting wet?

Because if it's not protecting against the heat or the cold, what's really the point? Why not just be outside?

Just buy a tent that can be put up if the forecast calls for rain.

How did that cost $5 million?

I'd say that protecting them from the sun is more important than from the rain. Summer workouts and practices in August /September can be brutal in the sun. My son played soccer on Birmingham on artificial surfaces and there were days when kids cleats were melting off of their feet. If it offers lightning protection, that can be an even bigger deal as lightning in the area can shutdown practices for hours. In addition, it probably helps to extend the life of the turf, itself. Do you really need to hold practices at 72F? No, just protect the players from the most extreme elements. It is not a sexy solution, but it probably provides 80-90% of the benefit at 40-50% of the cost.

(07-15-2017 08:57 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  So the pavilion basically is to protect players from getting wet?

Because if it's not protecting against the heat or the cold, what's really the point? Why not just be outside?

Just buy a tent that can be put up if the forecast calls for rain.

How did that cost $5 million?

have you never gone looking for shade on a hot summer day?

put a 'port-a-cool' on each side of the field and you suddenly have shade and a nice breeze.



part of the cost is that new turf field...the covered pavilion will also help protect that investment

(07-16-2017 09:40 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-15-2017 08:57 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  So the pavilion basically is to protect players from getting wet?

Because if it's not protecting against the heat or the cold, what's really the point? Why not just be outside?

Just buy a tent that can be put up if the forecast calls for rain.

How did that cost $5 million?

have you never gone looking for shade on a hot summer day?

put a 'port-a-cool' on each side of the field and you suddenly have shade and a nice breeze.



part of the cost is that new turf field...the covered pavilion will also help protect that investment

These don't work in high humidity. In Arizona they work great.

(07-13-2017 04:32 PM)AlonsoWDC Wrote:  What's the o/u on how long a major wind event blows this thing down?

I'm sure they planed on that possibility and made the needed corrections. If not, and worse happens, the Alabama lawyers will be moving in like a swarm of red ants.

(07-16-2017 09:17 AM)hsvtiger Wrote:  

(07-15-2017 08:57 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  So the pavilion basically is to protect players from getting wet?

Because if it's not protecting against the heat or the cold, what's really the point? Why not just be outside?

Just buy a tent that can be put up if the forecast calls for rain.

How did that cost $5 million?

I'd say that protecting them from the sun is more important than from the rain. Summer workouts and practices in August /September can be brutal in the sun. My son played soccer on Birmingham on artificial surfaces and there were days when kids cleats were melting off of their feet. If it offers lightning protection, that can be an even bigger deal as lightning in the area can shutdown practices for hours. In addition, it probably helps to extend the life of the turf, itself. Do you really need to hold practices at 72F? No, just protect the players from the most extreme elements. It is not a sexy solution, but it probably provides 80-90% of the benefit at 40-50% of the cost.

It's both. Practice gets sloppy in the rain even if you are on turf and is not as effective. Also, It probably feels 15 degrees cooler under that roof on a 100 degree sunny day. It looks pretty freaking awesome for an urban University that didn't have a team last year. I remember two a days in Memphis in 1978 when we had 15 consecutive days over 100 degrees. One kid had a heat stroke and never played again. A 300 pound lineman will lose about 6 to 10 pounds a day of mostly water during two a days in the summer.