More AD askin'

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:17 am

We have OOC games set 10 years out? Whoa.

http://www.bgsufalcons.com/genrel/060607aab.html

The big one that doesn't go in the football forum, necessarily... $12M to "band-aid" AA and the Ice Arena for a decade.

This is gonna be one pricey venture.

Tricky_Falcon · Post by **Tricky_Falcon** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:33 am

$10 million band-aid for the next decade or $100 million for a new complex? Sounds like it's time to start the funraising efforts for a new convocation center.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:37 am

Spending $12 million on a band-aid would be disgusting. That $100 million figure is pretty large, but at least you'd get a new facility that you could expect to use for the next 40-50 years.

It is stunning that the total cost of the Sebo was what, $8 million? And it's going to take $100 million to build a new convo center? WOW.

I don't know what we can do to get that money, but we must do something. Anderson is a dump, a lovable dump, but a dump nonetheless.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:45 am

The $100M was for a combined facility, and it sounded like that was the high-end "bookend" of possibilities. I would imagine two separate facilities would be pushing that, but we may come in under $100M.

As was somewhat heatedly discussed in the hockey forum a few months back, GC mentioned "additional ice for the community". I believe that at very least the hockey portion of this deal needs to focus on community as well, both for use and for fundraising, which could be a new avenue that the Sebo Center drive never touched.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:07 pm

Now we're talkin. These are the kind of questions that really need answering. Kudos all around.

I hope as well that we don't do any crazy 10 mil bandaids.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:14 pm

TG1996 wrote:The $100M was for a combined facility, and it sounded like that was the high-end "bookend" of possibilities. I would imagine two separate facilities would be pushing that, but we may come in under $100M.

As was somewhat heatedly discussed in the hockey forum a few months back, GC mentioned "additional ice for the community". I believe that at very least the hockey portion of this deal needs to focus on community as well, both for use and for fundraising, which could be a new avenue that the Sebo Center drive never touched.

The town DEFINITELY needs more ice. There is so much youth hockey & HS hockey, etc. You would think the community would help support the construction of a larger ice facility.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the combined facilities, just because they never seem to do basketball or hockey well. I think we'd be just fine with 2 facilities, both in the 7-8k seat range. We don't need extravagance, we just need functionality. The wooden bleachers at Anderson and the leaky roof with garbage cans collecting water is just a bit run down.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:19 pm

I wish he'd stop saying we moved the Boise State game...we cancelled our two visits from Boise State to help the MACwork out the schedule. We're gonna play there two more times, they're coming here once. We're basically playing a one for three with them. I'm not privy to the details behind that set of changes, so I'm not going to criticize anyone for that.
I do think they should stop couching the situation in amnner that suggests we've simply rescheduled the two games we were owed form Boise in the initial agreement.

Glad to hear that someone is FINALLY addressing the facilities issues with some actual dollars and cents figures. We need two sheets of ice...you can hold tournaments with two sheets of ice. That would make the complex more self sustaining.

Paul Krebs did a great job of stabilizing the department...he made some very tough decisions and kept the department as a whole afloat. The challange facing Greg Christopher is to bring our facilities out of the 1960's and 70's and into this century

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:31 pm

Flipper wrote:I wish he'd stop saying we moved the Boise State game...we cancelled our two visits from Boise State to help the MACwork out the schedule. We're gonna play there two more times, they're coming here once. We're basically playing a one for three with them. I'm not privy to the details behind that set of changes, so I'm not going to criticize anyone for that.
I do think they should stop couching the situation in amnner that suggests we've simply rescheduled the two games we were owed form Boise in the initial agreement.

Word I heard this weekend is that the MAC pulled a lot of scheduling strings behind BG's back to the point where AD's from Pitt and/or Boise St. were calling asking why we weren't on the schedule anymore and our staff didn't know what they were talking about. Sounds like the MAC did what they wanted to do and expected us to cancel previous agreements to suit them.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:49 pm

Two thoughts:

First, I like the idea of one facility for hockey, basketball, volleyball. But, only if there are two distinct playing surfaces. As hammb pointed out, the court on top of the ice thing doesn't work so good.

Two, I am appalled and embarased with the fact that our men's teams finished last in the Reese trophy. That is unacceptable. But kudos to the women for finishing second!

Falcon52 · Post by **Falcon52** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:17 pm

Wow. I always thought we had a good men's sports program. Last???? I'm a little depressed right now. 2 years in a row, last! I never really knew about the Reese.

Tricky_Falcon · Post by **Tricky_Falcon** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:36 pm

Mens Record in the MAC

Soccer 0-5-0

basketball- 3-13

football 3-5

cross country -not sure about x-country

golf -Finished sixth at MAC tourney

Baseball 7-20

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:54 pm

As has been mentioned on here ad nauseam over the past couple years, our men's sports have been AWFUL. The revenue producers (football, basketball, hockey) have been bad, but the non-revenue sports haven't been any better.

I'm sure we'll bounce back, but it's been a tough couple years for the men's programs.

Falcon52 · Post by **Falcon52** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:29 pm

Wow. I guess it's time to face the truth.

ZuluWarrior · Post by **ZuluWarrior** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:30 pm

kudos to ask the ad for finally addressing the tough questions although this Boise thing still drives me crazy. Just put $50 down in vegas for them to win the BCS. Could have had the potential national champs at home.

As for the arena situation I would expect a very expensive band aid vs. the $100 MM fix it. That will be very disappointing, but again I hope I'm wrong and we do the right thing.

Last in mens MAC athletics. 'nuf said.

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:24 pm

Split the difference. What about a sports “complex.” Build it in stages over ten years or more. I dread doing that, if only because something will inevitably get cut, put on hold, etc. But there is a vast stretch of land over by the ice arena. You could build each part of the equation without overtly disrupting other facilities. A single purpose building has lots of issues we have all discussed here. Even Krebs noted he wouldn’t do it that way at BGSU, even if the money were there.

What I hope AD-GC doesn’t do, is use the idea of a $100,000,000 facilities as the reason to build a $12,000,000 band-aid. Compare realistic options, like a 10,000 arena for basketball, a massively rebuilt ice arena with aux. sheets attached.

I think the real task is to develop the “mandate” to spend the big money. Create the image of a crusade that is for “the University” community, not just a few teams.

Revive something Seeliger talked about as far back as 1995 (that I’m aware of personally) and work hard to get a good sized hotel and conference center built as part of the plan.

This aspect of athletics can fairly be described as a major part of the public face of the University. Be cheap, look cheap.

The lousy results the teams are producing I think helps make the case for better faculties, but somebody among the underpaid faculty can argue the reverse and also say that money can be better spent paying people to do what the University is really about.