Am I On Crack

pdt1081 · Post by **pdt1081** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:12 pm

Or is the following starting to sound like a good idea:

With the University having to come up with $22 million dollars for the Stroh Center, why not delay construction for a year. This will give time to do some minor redesigns to make it a dual purpose facility. Attach it to the back of the Ice Arena so the team can continue to use one locker room. The University ponies up $4 million dollars to do the necessary improvements to the current Ice Arena as well as some cosmetic upgrades outside. Then start a major fundraiser for the rest of the money needed. The university shows a MAJOR commitment to the hockey program, the donors open up their check books. and the students don't get an increase in student fees. Does this make way too much sense?

It's the Journey... · Post by **It's the Journey...** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:22 pm

No! It makes no sense at all. The fesability (sp?) was done and a multipurpose factility would cost in the 90 million range. We can not come up with that. Plus a dual facility is an absolute cluster *#$% and will eliminate almost all of the time the facility could be used for non University events during the season The Univrersity needs to have TWO facilities it can make a lot of money with, not ONE facility that is tied up and cannot be used to make money 60% of the time. I know people at Ohio State who believe making the Schotenstein (sp?) Center a dual facility was just about the WORST decision the athletic department there has ever made. If you want the University to make a MAJOR commitment to hockey it needs to be a facility with hockey as its specific purpose for existing.

bgpuckster · Post by **bgpuckster** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:08 pm

I have a hard time believing a feasibility study found a dual purpose facility would cost $90 million. Stroh is at $36 million and Miami built a fancy top end rink with 2 sheets of ice for around $30 million. Those two combined built entirely separate would total $66 million. How does a dual use facility (one building to build, not two) end up almost the cost the price of 3 separate buildings? I think someone is blowing smoke somewhere. I'm not saying to combine them or not, I'm just questioning the dollar amount as I've heard that same $90 million number.

murphdogg · Post by **murphdogg** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:39 pm

There's also the issue of switching floors. If they wanted to continue to do those hockey/basketball doubleheaders that I love so much, either the hockey team would have to play some of its games in the Ice Arena or the basketball team would have to play in Anderson part of the season because switching floors takes several hours and lots of equipment (one of the reasons for $90 million). It would be an absolute scheduling nightmare, one that I am sure BGSU doesn't want to deal with.

Chimie · Post by **Chimie** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:00 pm

Remember the series with OSU in the playoffs? It was held at their old arena due to an event at the Shot. Ultimately, the dual-use facility would cost more due to the extra cost of size, floor switching, equipment. It just wasn't feasible.

Freddie · Post by **Freddie** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:14 pm

I'm sure that 96mil number is way off, but the schedule problems and set up/conversion is a REAL problem. The process of changeover takes 3-4 hours even with a large crew. Who would do that here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwq1tFc3 ... re=related

MACMAN · Post by **MACMAN** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:53 pm

I like the idea of attaching the Stroh to the rink, sharing the hall of fame etc.. real neat.
I also like the idea of taking some much needed pause on the shelling out 20+ mil to pay for it, when the University has exisiting buildings that need to be taken care of first. New needs to be put on hold until old is upgraded and properly maintained!