New arena???

[MacGuy]

Just don't overbuild. NIU is a perfect example. Newest arena in the MAC seating 10K. Haven't averaged over 3,500 since it was built. Last season (yes they were bad) under 1,500.

I believe it will be very hard for most MAC schools to average 5,000 on a regular basis. If you consider that Ohio is losing jobs and population, building a large arena for fans/students that may not exist makes little sense.

[ZiggyZoomba]

I have heard lately from a reliable source, that there will be an announcement SOON, concerning this and that it will be a new arena (convocation center) on the intramural fields and major improvements to the ice arena.

Nothing will be built on the intramural fields for this project. This is from an even MORE reliable source.

[BGorDeath]

I heard they are going to either build it in Findlay on the Brandeman site or in Tiffin in place of their courthouse.

[It's the Journey...]

I heard they are going to either build it in Findlay on the Brandeman site or in Tiffin in place of their courthouse.

Now THAT'S funny!

[The Niz]

I have heard lately from a reliable source, that there will be an announcement SOON, concerning this and that it will be a new arena (convocation center) on the intramural fields and major improvements to the ice arena.

Nothing will be built on the intramural fields for this project. This is from an even MORE reliable source.

Which probably means that announcement isn't so soon as you thought.

[BleedOrange]

I have heard lately from a reliable source, that there will be an announcement SOON, concerning this and that it will be a new arena (convocation center) on the intramural fields and major improvements to the ice arena.

Nothing will be built on the intramural fields for this project. This is from an even MORE reliable source.

Is this because they are announcing the building of a task force to support the committee studying the feasibility of a new athletic structure?

[transfer2BGSU]

Is this because they are announcing the building of a task force to support the committee studying the feasibility of a new athletic structure?

Nope.

This is the selection committee to decide who will be the people that will ultimately decide as to whether or not to open the report and read what the feasibility study says.

[BleedOrange]

Is this because they are announcing the building of a task force to support the committee studying the feasibility of a new athletic structure?

Nope.

This is the selection committee to decide who will be the people that will ultimately decide as to whether or not to open the report and read what the feasibility study says.

Oh, yeah. I forgot. By the way, would that require full oversight by the NCAA and auditing by a disinterested third party, per university administration guidelines?

[FalconTurf]

RANDOM THOUGHTS OF MINE;

1. Anderson Arena was a perfect model for what could be built with the future in mind. One end or even both ends could provide room for expansion in the future. Preferrably some seats behind each endline to provide the college arena appearance (leaving room upstairs to add seats).

2. Why is size such a BiG issue when discussing the arena(and this isn't just FalconBoy). Duke is BiG time in a smaller arena and Gonzaga is well respected in an arena comparable to or smaller than AA. It is easier to create a buzz about a sold out arena of any size than a big empty one.

3. When we use the historical numbers of the 60's for attendance at AA we are simply looking at a different era. My father tells of a nationally recognized team coming in every year to AA (DePaul for one). Those teams traveled the circuit back then. Additionally the TV broadcasts were sparse. People are more likely to watch at home than travel today.

4. I've got the Fox Sports package on Dish and I always surf to the various college games mostly out of interest in their facilities. Many appear more HS-ish than AA has been accussed of being and many are no bigger than AA. Many of the little schools with grand arenas have sparse crowds and look no better than the MAC facilities on TV.

5. IMHO we had better take the TV appearance into account when building a new arena. I would guess this is something that architects must take into account today as well since the TV image is often the only image many college fans will ever have of BGSU. A 7,000 seat arena with 4,000 fans will look far better than a 10,000 seat arena with the same fans.

[BleedOrange]

RANDOM THOUGHTS OF MINE;

1. Anderson Arena was a perfect model for what could be built with the future in mind. One end or even both ends could provide room for expansion in the future. Preferrably some seats behind each endline to provide the college arena appearance (leaving room upstairs to add seats).

2. Why is size such a BiG issue when discussing the arena(and this isn't just FalconBoy). Duke is BiG time in a smaller arena and Gonzaga is well respected in an arena comparable to or smaller than AA. It is easier to create a buzz about a sold out arena of any size than a big empty one.

3. When we use the historical numbers of the 60's for attendance at AA we are simply looking at a different era. My father tells of a nationally recognized team coming in every year to AA (DePaul for one). Those teams traveled the circuit back then. Additionally the TV broadcasts were sparse. People are more likely to watch at home than travel today.

4. I've got the Fox Sports package on Dish and I always surf to the various college games mostly out of interest in their facilities. Many appear more HS-ish than AA has been accussed of being and many are no bigger than AA. Many of the little schools with grand arenas have sparse crowds and look no better than the MAC facilities on TV.

5. IMHO we had better take the TV appearance into account when building a new arena. I would guess this is something that architects must take into account today as well since the TV image is often the only image many college fans will ever have of BGSU. A 7,000 seat arena with 4,000 fans will look far better than a 10,000 seat arena with the same fans.

RANDOM RESPONSES

In construction, it's far, far less expensive to build the the extra size at the outset rather than add-on later. Beyond AA, can you name one structure that is actually a good candidate for this? I can't think of one single facility that has added seats, but I can name a few that have been replaced b/c of size.

When considering the overall fixed and variable building costs, the per-seat cost of 10K v. 7K is relatively tiny. Much of the costs will be relatively fixed.

Again, let me state that this is a building for the NEXT FIFTY YEARS. Size matters because it represents a limit on the types of events and the amount of revenue that it can produce. There's also a prestige factor.

AA, as a model, had some problems. A biggie is location/parking. The east campus built up around it and pushed parking into the next county. Another problem is bathrooms. Even in 1960, why did they cut such corners?

Excellent point about the TV watchers v. the game-attenders.

The 60's demonstrate that people in the area will show up for good teams and games. If not nationally recognized, a consistently good team in a convenient facility will draw very well.

[FalconTurf]

RANDOM THOUGHTS OF MINE;

1. Anderson Arena was a perfect model for what could be built with the future in mind. One end or even both ends could provide room for expansion in the future. Preferrably some seats behind each endline to provide the college arena appearance (leaving room upstairs to add seats).

2. Why is size such a BiG issue when discussing the arena(and this isn't just FalconBoy). Duke is BiG time in a smaller arena and Gonzaga is well respected in an arena comparable to or smaller than AA. It is easier to create a buzz about a sold out arena of any size than a big empty one.

3. When we use the historical numbers of the 60's for attendance at AA we are simply looking at a different era. My father tells of a nationally recognized team coming in every year to AA (DePaul for one). Those teams traveled the circuit back then. Additionally the TV broadcasts were sparse. People are more likely to watch at home than travel today.

4. I've got the Fox Sports package on Dish and I always surf to the various college games mostly out of interest in their facilities. Many appear more HS-ish than AA has been accussed of being and many are no bigger than AA. Many of the little schools with grand arenas have sparse crowds and look no better than the MAC facilities on TV.

5. IMHO we had better take the TV appearance into account when building a new arena. I would guess this is something that architects must take into account today as well since the TV image is often the only image many college fans will ever have of BGSU. A 7,000 seat arena with 4,000 fans will look far better than a 10,000 seat arena with the same fans.

RANDOM RESPONSES

In construction, it's far, far less expensive to build the the extra size at the outset rather than add-on later. Beyond AA, can you name one structure that is actually a good candidate for this? I can't think of one single facility that has added seats, but I can name a few that have been replaced b/c of size.

When considering the overall fixed and variable building costs, the per-seat cost of 10K v. 7K is relatively tiny. Much of the costs will be relatively fixed.

Again, let me state that this is a building for the NEXT FIFTY YEARS. Size matters because it represents a limit on the types of events and the amount of revenue that it can produce. There's also a prestige factor.

AA, as a model, had some problems. Can you even name a current facility that is a good candidate for this? A biggie is location/parking. The east campus built up around it and pushed parking into the next county. Another problem is bathrooms. Even in 1960, why did they cut such corners?

Excellent point about the TV watchers v. the game-attenders.

The 60's demonstrate that people in the area will show up for good teams and games. If not nationally recognized, a consistently good team in a convenient facility will draw very well.

At the very least build it with 2,000 - 3,000 seats split between the 2 ends buried behind a wall (temporary or temporarily permanent).

The idea of AA having that end available could have been the solution in the 60's although are 2 lobbies practical. If the the lobby was the length of the court where the ROTC classes are held this could have been a feasible possibility and restrooms could have been placed at both ends.

IMHO small with decent little crowds will look better on the big home screen.

I must question how we can go from an average attendance under 3,000 possibly every year of my 38 year life to over triple in the next 38 years or so as we see more and more games broadcast on TV including ours. I really wish I was as optimistic but I don't see it. I find it more likely we can find a feasible way to add to an existing arean than find 10,000 fans in the flatlands.

[BleedOrange]

I must question how we can go from an average attendance under 3,000 possibly every year of my 38 year life to over triple in the next 38 years or so as we see more and more games broadcast on TV including ours. I really wish I was as optimistic but I don't see it. I find it more likely we can find a feasible way to add to an existing arean than find 10,000 fans in the flatlands.

Personally, as a life-long BG fan, it pains me a great deal to see sparse attendance and student apathy. Many posters here seem resigned to it and account for it heavily in their size preferences. Another several decades of mediocre public perception seem to be okay with many of us. Not with me.
It is just not something I'm willing to accept. I've always yearned for more for BG hoops.

Building a facility outside of the context of promoting and advancing the programs (and thus the university) just doesn't make sense. In my mind, the two go hand-in-hand. My natural presumption is that building a new facility is not just a construction project. It is part of a long term vision for the sports programs. Again, the NEO population within 20 miles is more than adequate. We're right on a major expressway, not in an inaccessible town (Miami, OU) or nestled in an urban thicket (UT, BU, Akron).

Again, we'll be stuck with what we build for a looooong time. The facility will outlive most of us. Building 6K, to me, is commitment to staying puny. It means permanently embracing the very diminutive public perception of our sports programs. It states that BGSU has rather limited, finite hopes for itself over the next 50 years. It's akin to a banner saying "Hello. We're nobodies, we know it, and it's going to stay that way." Just can't accept that.

Just my $.02. If anyone can console me, please do so.

[BGDrew]

I feel like I've seen at least 100 of these threads. Here's what I'd love to see:
1) Bring Anderson Arena up to code. Put in more bathrooms and fix all the structure issues. Anderson Arena becomes the new exclusive home for volleyball and gymnastics. Also used as an additional practice court.
2) Renovate the Ice Arena. Replace the cooler system with something more modern. Replace the seats from blue line to blue line with chairbacks. Put in a new practice sheet where the old tennis courts are now. Put in/renovate existing locker rooms.
3) New convo center at south end of the Doyt. 6-7k seats with one wall able to be expanded for more seating to bring capacity to around 10k. Base design off of Anderson Arena to appease the traditionalists.

[Falcon137]

6,000 is not puny and it is not saying we're not commited to basketball. Go ask the Fordhams, St. Joes, etc. of the world if they're commited to basketball. Those schools have better tradition than here, both pride themselves on thier hoops and both of thier respective arena's seat under 5,000. How many mid-majors draw 10,000 a game? A few in the A-10 a few out West and a few MVC.

I know us fans want the impossible but we'll never get it. Where are 10,000 people going to come from? If BG can turn it around and students get excited you get maybe 3,000 students, 3,000 season ticket holders and 500-1000 walk up sales if there was a big game. Thats 7,000 for a big game. All those numbers would be absolutley mind boggling by the way considering the program right now.

You will never get huge crowds unless your playing a big name team at home and when I say big name I mean a Xavier or Dayton. Teams that would consider 2 for 1 deals with non-rival MAC schools that would travel well and bring plenty of their own fans. Rarely will you see big crowds for MAC games because there aren't very many people that want to come see BG play the Western or Eastern Michigans of the world.

10,000 just seems way to big for me.

[Falconboy]

I must question how we can go from an average attendance under 3,000 possibly every year of my 38 year life to over triple in the next 38 years or so as we see more and more games broadcast on TV including ours. I really wish I was as optimistic but I don't see it. I find it more likely we can find a feasible way to add to an existing arean than find 10,000 fans in the flatlands.

Personally, as a life-long BG fan, it pains me a great deal to see sparse attendance and student apathy. Many posters here seem resigned to it and account for it heavily in their size preferences. Another several decades of mediocre public perception seem to be okay with many of us. Not with me.
It is just not something I'm willing to accept. I've always yearned for more for BG hoops.

Building a facility outside of the context of promoting and advancing the programs (and thus the university) just doesn't make sense. In my mind, the two go hand-in-hand. My natural presumption is that building a new facility is not just a construction project. It is part of a long term vision for the sports programs. Again, the NEO population within 20 miles is more than adequate. We're right on a major expressway, not in an inaccessible town (Miami, OU) or nestled in an urban thicket (UT, BU, Akron).

Again, we'll be stuck with what we build for a looooong time. The facility will outlive most of us. Building 6K, to me, is commitment to staying puny. It means permanently embracing the very diminutive public perception of our sports programs. It states that BGSU has rather limited, finite hopes for itself over the next 50 years. It's akin to a banner saying "Hello. We're nobodies, we know it, and it's going to stay that way." Just can't accept that.

Just my $.02. If anyone can console me, please do so.

Don't know if this will console you or not , but this is my take. I tend to agree with what you've said BO that I want us building for the future and not permanently boxing us into a tiny arena. But I will say that that I also tend to agree with others who ask where are we gonna get 10k fans? If there was a way to get some football fans to cross over and get into falcon basketball I'd say yeah go ahead with the 10k seat arena, but I don't think the chances of that are very high. I think a 8k seat will suit us fine and if there would be a way to build it in a way for possible expansion (Should we ever need it) that would be even better .

Again the trick is to build a b-ball program that will sustain success for along period and excite the fan base and bring others in and not have these 4-5 year lulls of sucktitude. Another thing probably not though of much, is scheduling smart , getting high quality teams of prestige into AA to bring in the most causal fans. Of course to have all this is to be able to find a premier coach (Orr?) and keep him here for a good long while to build the program to sustained success. Again, whatever we build , it best we use the best attributes of AA and include them in plans for a a new arena/convo.