Release of Study on Anderson Arena/Convocation Center

[BGSU33]

You might want to research that OSU point a bit...

Oops...I remembered wrong. It was specifically Cincy that they haven't played since '62.

I don't think they've played an instate road game in forever though. I'll see if I can find anything. Although I don't think they've played an instate team period in a number of years. Their previous AD was dead set AGAINST playing instate opponents in basketball.

I'm almost positive Ohio State played an NIT game at Ohio. I'm not talking about the 1994 in Columbus, but I am almost 100 percent sure they played at least once in The Convo. I'll look for it.

[BGSU33]

Edited to add that OSU hasn't played an instate basketball team in like 50 years. THey're playing (or already did) Cincy this year, but it's a neutral court game in Indiana. You won't see them coming up here.

Give me a 6,000 to 8,000 seat arena. I'd much rather see them spend the extra cash on a scoreboard or videoboard for the arena than an additional 2-4k seats that will sit empty until we get Duke to come play here.

Yes, the Buckeyes did play at a MAC school and it wasn't 50 years ago. Ohio State played at Ohio on March 14, 1986 in the NIT in Athens, Ohio. Ohio State defeated Ohio 65-62.

As for the capacity issue for a new arena, I would much rather see an 8,000 arena over a 10,000 seat venue as well. I want it to be clear we don't need a massive arena. The only thing I am saying about a 10,000 seat arena is that we "could" fill it with a big game every blue moon with a big named opponent. I'm debating the point made that it could never be done.

[Flipper]

OSU played (and lost) at TOledo in the late 70's or early 80's...I remember being skinny and having hair, so it must have been in that era...

[BGSU33]

Edited to add that OSU hasn't played an instate basketball team in like 50 years. THey're playing (or already did) Cincy this year, but it's a neutral court game in Indiana. You won't see them coming up here.

Give me a 6,000 to 8,000 seat arena. I'd much rather see them spend the extra cash on a scoreboard or videoboard for the arena than an additional 2-4k seats that will sit empty until we get Duke to come play here.

Yes, the Buckeyes did play at a MAC school and it wasn't 50 years ago. Ohio State played at Ohio on March 14, 1986 in the NIT in Athens, Ohio. Ohio State defeated Ohio 65-62.

As for the capacity issue for a new arena, I would much rather see an 8,000 arena over a 10,000 seat venue as well. I want it to be clear we don't need a massive arena. The only thing I am saying about a 10,000 seat arena is that we "could" fill it with a big game every blue moon with a big named opponent. I'm debating the point made that it could never be done.

Ohio State has actually played at least twice at Ohio University. OU hosted OSU on March 8, 1986 in front of 12,444 and again on December 11, 1971 in front of 12,137. In the 1971 game, Ohio State was ranked #4 in the country and it was a regular season contest.

Funny enough, Ohio's biggest crowd ever was against Bowling Green on February 28, 1970 in front of a Convo record crowd of 14,102!

[hammb]

Well, I stand corrected. I still don't think we could get that caliber of opponent (not that OSU is even all that in hoops) into BG often enough to justify the extra seating.

Ideally I'd like to see a 7,000 or so seat arena and have it placed by the football stadium. Don't know if/when that will happen, but it's what I'd like.

[NWLB]

Well while I'm working on my thoughts on the issue, and since it is topical, take a gander at the concept art from the recent University Master Plan.

http://www.falconsnest.nwlb.net

The Union plans and notes on its renovation are also there.

It might lend some thoughts to the debate.

[It's the Journey...]

My goodness, that all looks very familiar

[NWLB]

Lots to read though.

Points I agree with:

Toledo is not a major metro area, even if there happens to be half to three quarters of a million folks within 50 miles. Its a dumpy blue-collar town major tours avoid for a lot of reasons, most of which center on there being bigger and better towns in every cardinal direction from Toledo.

BGSU does need a major commencement venue, with much higher capacity than what Anderson has. That has been a sore point for many years. How that problem is addressed is open to debate, but the most likely avenue is by way of a new or radically rebuilt basketball facility.

I don't think any amount of work on Anderson Arena/Memorial Hall can ever make the building good enough for what BGSU needs. Sentimentality must be put aside at some point.

I think BGSU is not a good candidate for a hybrid facility that features hockey and basketball. A better solution is to focus on making two great facilities in their own locations, not cram everything into one high-cost, high-maintenance, hard-to-schedule-venue. Also the costs associated with running such a building would create an unwelcome burden to the University. Not that it is beyond BGSU's ability to afford, but rather the money spent would be better used someplace else.

It is true that simply building a new building won't bring fans in on its own. One has to have a decent team. Yet playing in Anderson doesn't exactly draw people either.

People hide behind the money issue as a way to advocate one solution over another, the size of a solution, the location of a solution, etc. A lot of the same debate going on now was seen during the planning for the student union. As in that case, it was a dire need for the campus. I'm not sure building on the same site was a good idea just as I do not believe rebuilding Memorial hall is wise. Likewise as nice as the new union is, its not as good as it could or should have been. That view is hard to defend since most people are very happy with it. A rebuilt Memorial hall would not have the same feel as the current AA, and it wouldn't be as good a solution as a scratch-built facility. Especially looking at the ideas put forth in the Master Plan.

I see no indication that building a new facility either means the end of basketball at Anderson, nor that the building would be torn down. The state report on facilities already accounted for academic costs of renovating Memorial hall. That dollar figure was in the 5.4 million range. You can rest assured that does not factor any accommodation for the basketball program. Given that recent newspaper articles have University affiliated people talking about coming up with creative approaches towards capital improvement funding, that should signal something else. It means the University is recognizing that ideas such as those in the Master Plan aren't just cute rah-rah themes. BGSU's campus is functional, but nearing a point where truly deep renovations and improvements are needed. When I hear University officials say donors have indicated they are willing to give to debt-servicing funds, that means a lot more conversation on that topic has been had. The state estimates BGSU needs about $163,000,000 in rehabilitation work. Fact into that the dorms (which have their own revenue streams) and things like a convocation center, maybe we are looking at $250,000,000 in work.

We are looking at the end of a $128,000,000 capital campaign.

It took years to get the $128,000,000 but it was done. With the alumni base growing in number and affluence, donations can and will be had. There will be some state money factored into the mix, and it is fair to expect a reasonable amount of debt serviced by students. Plus the existing University budget will see some funds come available as older buildings and projects are paid off. That has already happened recently with the lights at the football stadium for example. Factor in undetermined sources, you could see a way in which that huge sum could be tackled.

Finally, this is long-term debt. Not all the money has to be raised RIGHT NOW.

So lets not let the money get in the way. Plus lets face facts. If we don't sell-out AA now, who cares if there are still some empty seats in a bigger facility if there are also twice as many people there. I can deal with nose-bleed seats being empty if there are half again as many folks down front. Plus we can't let basketball attendance drive EVERYTHING.

[NWLB]

My goodness, that all looks very familiar

Yeah, you'd think a former student figure on campus let me look at a tube full of charts, reports, and artwork!

Someday I'll have to get that thing back to him if I remember to take it to a football game.

[It's the Journey...]

Or that former student figure will just have to come over and see the new place sometime.....

[DrDesert]

Toledo built a new arena for 8,000-9,000 fans in 1976 and opened with Indiana, the defending national champs. (and beat them) Look at their attendance now. Entertaining basketball and wins will bring fans to the games, despite the fact that BG will always suffer from being in a "small market."

[BGSU33]

Lots to read though.

Points I agree with:

Toledo is not a major metro area, even if there happens to be half to three quarters of a million folks within 50 miles. Its a dumpy blue-collar town major tours avoid for a lot of reasons, most of which center on there being bigger and better towns in every cardinal direction from Toledo.

BGSU does need a major commencement venue, with much higher capacity than what Anderson has. That has been a sore point for many years. How that problem is addressed is open to debate, but the most likely avenue is by way of a new or radically rebuilt basketball facility.

I don't think any amount of work on Anderson Arena/Memorial Hall can ever make the building good enough for what BGSU needs. Sentimentality must be put aside at some point.

I think BGSU is not a good candidate for a hybrid facility that features hockey and basketball. A better solution is to focus on making two great facilities in their own locations, not cram everything into one high-cost, high-maintenance, hard-to-schedule-venue. Also the costs associated with running such a building would create an unwelcome burden to the University. Not that it is beyond BGSU's ability to afford, but rather the money spent would be better used someplace else.

It is true that simply building a new building won't bring fans in on its own. One has to have a decent team. Yet playing in Anderson doesn't exactly draw people either.

People hide behind the money issue as a way to advocate one solution over another, the size of a solution, the location of a solution, etc. A lot of the same debate going on now was seen during the planning for the student union. As in that case, it was a dire need for the campus. I'm not sure building on the same site was a good idea just as I do not believe rebuilding Memorial hall is wise. Likewise as nice as the new union is, its not as good as it could or should have been. That view is hard to defend since most people are very happy with it. A rebuilt Memorial hall would not have the same feel as the current AA, and it wouldn't be as good a solution as a scratch-built facility. Especially looking at the ideas put forth in the Master Plan.

I see no indication that building a new facility either means the end of basketball at Anderson, nor that the building would be torn down. The state report on facilities already accounted for academic costs of renovating Memorial hall. That dollar figure was in the 5.4 million range. You can rest assured that does not factor any accommodation for the basketball program. Given that recent newspaper articles have University affiliated people talking about coming up with creative approaches towards capital improvement funding, that should signal something else. It means the University is recognizing that ideas such as those in the Master Plan aren't just cute rah-rah themes. BGSU's campus is functional, but nearing a point where truly deep renovations and improvements are needed. When I hear University officials say donors have indicated they are willing to give to debt-servicing funds, that means a lot more conversation on that topic has been had. The state estimates BGSU needs about $163,000,000 in rehabilitation work. Fact into that the dorms (which have their own revenue streams) and things like a convocation center, maybe we are looking at $250,000,000 in work.

We are looking at the end of a $128,000,000 capital campaign.

It took years to get the $128,000,000 but it was done. With the alumni base growing in number and affluence, donations can and will be had. There will be some state money factored into the mix, and it is fair to expect a reasonable amount of debt serviced by students. Plus the existing University budget will see some funds come available as older buildings and projects are paid off. That has already happened recently with the lights at the football stadium for example. Factor in undetermined sources, you could see a way in which that huge sum could be tackled.

Finally, this is long-term debt. Not all the money has to be raised RIGHT NOW.

So lets not let the money get in the way. Plus lets face facts. If we don't sell-out AA now, who cares if there are still some empty seats in a bigger facility if there are also twice as many people there. I can deal with nose-bleed seats being empty if there are half again as many folks down front. Plus we can't let basketball attendance drive EVERYTHING.

Excellent post NWLB! That was about the most insighful post I have read in some time....some very good points.