AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Official Construction Update Thread
- Thread starter Darth Snow
- Start date
Email from Rick George
Appears that the IPF is a bit ahead of schedule. Good news.
I live out in parker and work by Dove Valley and it is amazing how quickly the indoor practice facility went up for the Broncos. If it is anything similar it should be ready for next winter
Damn that company is putting in work, cool to see.
They probably have weather days figured in their schedule. Although, around here, you can work, pretty much, every day.
Last edited:
I don't think you could get past OSHA if you tried to use Balch as a warehouse.
If it weren't for CU being part of the government, Balch would have long ago been shut down or condemned.
you have a point there
I used to have to do OSHA pre-audit inspections for my artillery battalion - everyone is subject to OSHA, as far as I know. Here is a link to OSHA's website talking about both fines and working collaboratively with universities on a few things.
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasrch.search_form?p_doc_type=news_releases&p_toc_level=0
There is a different between ugly, worn down, and a very poor representation for our university and actually unsafe. It is basically just a metal frame and a rubber floor. Not much to run across potential violations except for the bathrooms and the Flatirons Club.
Again - the thing is a disgrace, but not sure OSHA factors either way.
You wouldn't let anyone up into the bleachers.
1 or 2 people are fine, filling it with 75-80 (capacity) would for sure bring it down.
I am pretty sure they block that off on game days.
Again - an embarrassment on game days that should be fixed, but I do not believe a lack of OSHA oversight has any connection to our ability to overlook this simple point we both agree on.
I'm pretty sure [MENTION=6726]SuperBuff[/MENTION] has been in the Balch bleachers during a game. And with a hell of a lot more than just two people.
Then probably not an OSHA violation, regardless of the embarrassment.
I'm not sure what OSHA would have to do with Balch other than, maybe, people who work there, like a janitor or something. And since it is government owned, I don't even know if it would fall under local (Boulder) city code.
I think CU is kind of self regulating with it's own Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). I'd imagine the code that applies to building occupancy for Balch would be the fire code which, in CU-B's case, I believe, is the International Fire Code.
So there!
I think CU is kind of self regulating with it's own Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). I'd imagine the code that applies to building occupancy for Balch would be the fire code which, in CU-B's case, I believe, is the International Fire Code.
So there!
Last edited:
I think we all agree that Balch has to be on the list of items the CUAD needs to look at for the next round of facilities improvements. I sincerely hope that they include Carlson Gym in that plan. There is a ton of potential with that space. There's so much they could do. If they did it right it could be world class.
Basically, all we're working on right now is the North and North East side of the stadium. There is a lot more to the stadium complex than those spots. The entire West side needs to be re-done. Eventually, even the South side (horseshoe) needs to be looked at.
Basically, all we're working on right now is the North and North East side of the stadium. There is a lot more to the stadium complex than those spots. The entire West side needs to be re-done. Eventually, even the South side (horseshoe) needs to be looked at.
We don't really have an "Upper Corner" unless you mean in the horseshoe with the students, but I think those are better seats view wise
They are pretty bad seats, only advantage is they are right next to where their team comes out.
FLounder
Think Positive and life will be Positive.
THIS! Put those poor bastards in the top corner
I've been in the visitor section a few times (often tickets through the Ralphie's kids program) and the seats are actually pretty good because they're down close to the field. I think they're as good as anywhere in the stadium outside the 20s. You are also very conveniently located for Balch access and getting in and out of the stadium. They're better than the seats we'd get in Lincoln.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
Spread them out around the top few rows of the horseshoe. Do not give them a section.
I like the idea to reduce the ability to generate noise. I do believe most schools try to keep the fans grouped so there is a safety in numbers concept. Not sure I have seen any stadium spread them out.
Exactly. Drives me crazy that the visitor fans can create more noise in the North red zone than the home fans. I'm not aware of another college stadium where they give away that home field advantage like CU does.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
I don't think its the safety in numbers; I think to many season ticket holders would complain if they spread them out.
w/r/t to the visitor section:
1. some of those seats pretty much have to be near the field, even if they're outside the '20s. it's courtesy to reserve near-field seats for visiting administration and boosters, just like CU admins and boosters expect those seats when they travel.
2. one advantage of that section is shade on hot afternoons. At the UCLA game, we moved to the visitor section from the East stands to get out of the sun. Sitting in the east stands was miserable (especially before I took the black jersey off).
3. from the AD point of view, visiting fans are 'customers'. Spreading the visiting fans across multiple sections would be, IMO, a "dick move" and piss off the majority of visiting fans. Given Folsom attendance over the last two years, unless there's a secondary profit motive, I'd have a hard time believing the CUAD would want to do anything to discourage more customers from buying tickets. That being said, when I travel to see my favorite teams play, I would prefer to sit inside the 20's even if I'm in enemy territory, but I'm in the minority: almost every football fan I know who travels to away games, strongly prefers to sit with other fans of their team, even if the seats are less desirable. It should piss us off if visiting fans get louder than the home fans, but the right solution is to get CU fans louder. And yeah, a lot of home teams wouldn't want visiting fans all around them either.
Two factors play here: what seats are allocated for visitors and how participative the home fans are (being participative involves 1. showing up 2. being engaged, yelling and cheering). I'll offer three possibilities:
I saw VT play at Duke 4 times and Alabama play there once -- on each occasion the visiting fans ruled the stadium. They let Carolina fans do the same.
Never attended in person, but visiting teams at Rutgers were always louder on TV than the home fans.
Also never been to a game at Miami, but VT fans have been louder than 'Canes in probably 1/2 the games in Corral Gables that I've watched on TV.
1. some of those seats pretty much have to be near the field, even if they're outside the '20s. it's courtesy to reserve near-field seats for visiting administration and boosters, just like CU admins and boosters expect those seats when they travel.
2. one advantage of that section is shade on hot afternoons. At the UCLA game, we moved to the visitor section from the East stands to get out of the sun. Sitting in the east stands was miserable (especially before I took the black jersey off).
3. from the AD point of view, visiting fans are 'customers'. Spreading the visiting fans across multiple sections would be, IMO, a "dick move" and piss off the majority of visiting fans. Given Folsom attendance over the last two years, unless there's a secondary profit motive, I'd have a hard time believing the CUAD would want to do anything to discourage more customers from buying tickets. That being said, when I travel to see my favorite teams play, I would prefer to sit inside the 20's even if I'm in enemy territory, but I'm in the minority: almost every football fan I know who travels to away games, strongly prefers to sit with other fans of their team, even if the seats are less desirable. It should piss us off if visiting fans get louder than the home fans, but the right solution is to get CU fans louder. And yeah, a lot of home teams wouldn't want visiting fans all around them either.
Two factors play here: what seats are allocated for visitors and how participative the home fans are (being participative involves 1. showing up 2. being engaged, yelling and cheering). I'll offer three possibilities:
I saw VT play at Duke 4 times and Alabama play there once -- on each occasion the visiting fans ruled the stadium. They let Carolina fans do the same.
Never attended in person, but visiting teams at Rutgers were always louder on TV than the home fans.
Also never been to a game at Miami, but VT fans have been louder than 'Canes in probably 1/2 the games in Corral Gables that I've watched on TV.
This could have been a factor at the UCLA game during OT. Colorado deferred and UCLA chose to play in the north end zone. I guess since the game was ultimately decided in the south end zone it may not have been a big factor, but I think it did play a role in the decisions made by the UCLA staff.