Golden Nugz 02.09.12
by GopherNation on Feb 9, 2012 10:06 AM CST
in Golden Nuggets
Email
PrintUNLV, the Gophers first football opponent of the 2012 season wants to move up the date of the season opener. The game was originally scheduled for Saturday, September 1st and they are requested permission from the U to move the game up to Thursday, August 30th. This is an interesting decision to be made. Many Gopher fans were planning to take advantage of the Labor Day weekend and make a trip to Las Vegas for the game. Moving the game to Thursday night may prevent many from making the trip. On the other hand flying to Vegas on a Wednesday rather than Friday of Labor Day weekend may save fans some money. But taking an extra two days of vacation and adding an extra two or three days to the weekend does add significant cost to the trip.
For the team this may not be a terrible idea. The game would stand a better chance of being televised nationally and the team would actually get two extra days to prepare for their next opponent. But for Gopher fans who were looking forward to a 3-day weekend in Vegas this may not be the best solution. If you want the game to remain schedule for Saturday, I suggest you e-mail the athletic department, Joel Maturi and President Kaler.
- I answered some questions for Phil at Bucky's 5th Quarter. I'm really looking forward to tonight's game.
- Tubby will be ready to go with his bench and stick with his bench if they are the ones with the hot hands tonight.
- Tubby tweeted for the first time in nearly 2 years! Must be something significant!
- Patrick Reusse and Michael Rand debate if The Barn needs to be replaced or not.
- ESPN's B1G blog is looking back at the 2011 season and ranking the position groups. The Gopher offensive line was not treated too kindly.
- FootballStudyHall is taking a look at the 2012 Gophers.
- Gopher Hockey is getting ready for a trip to Denver and the stretch run to a WCHA title.
45 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Go Gophers!
Most neutral parties I know HATE the Badgers basketball team. So we would be doing the whole country a favor if we beat these inferior rodents. Badgers are so ugly.
I much prefer to play UNLV on the Thursday before Labor Day. I’m supposed to go to a wedding on that Saturday. If the date gets changes, I’ll be there like I was in USC for last year’s opener.
I hate to say this, but I agree with Patrick Reusse. Yes, I just threw up a little in my mouth. But what is so great about Williams Arena? Yes, I am from St. Paul, so I grew up with the “tradition”. But what “tradition” is there, really? It isn’t like we were ever a basketball powerhouse like we were in football. The raised floor can be easily replicated—without the obstructed view seats; the same ones without backs on them. Just because it is old doesn’t mean its worth keeping.
no new arena
Will put the fans as close to the action.
Just ignore the obstructed view seats. The don’t exist because no one sits there.
by amiller92 on Feb 9, 2012 1:56 PM CST via iPhone app up reply actions
Don't be surprised...
…if the raised floor doesn’t meet current code somehow. Wouldn’t shock me at all.
And the "what tradition" thing is kind of the point.
Williams Arena is the source of almost all the basketball tradition. Take it away and you have _?
Take it away and you have _?
Penn State Basketball, with slightly better on court results, particularly a couple B1G Championships and more tournament appearances.
Apparently PSU basketball games used to be an intense experience when we played in our old and way too outdated for B1G play arena, Rec Hall. Now, we play in a lifeless mausoleum, built too big for the basketball program just so they could sell more tickets when the Blue Collar Comedy Tour comes around.
Be careful what you wish for.
I like The Barn.
I’m sorry, but blanket statements are proven false 99% of the time, and if you make a blanket statement about college football, there’s a good chance that one exception will be Joe Paterno. - AdamShell @ BSD
Also; Always carry a bottle opener and the beer will provide itself.
by bconway6 on Feb 9, 2012 3:09 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Here's what's great about Williams Arena
1) It does have tradition … tons of it.
2) It’s where it is (would you build a new Gopher’s basketball arena in Blaine? If not, where would you play for two or three years while Williams was torn down and a new one going up on the same spot?)
3) It’s different and not a sterile cookie cutter like a new one would be.
4) It’s paid for. The last thing the U of M’s new Athletic Director will need is to start looking for the money for a new arena. Forget it.
And if those are not enough reasons to support keeping the place, the fact a SF moron Gopher-hater like Reusse wants it gone is overwhelming evidence it should remain.
something must be wrong
I agree entirely.
Except that they would probably play at Target Center. Which isn’t ideal, but allows the replacement at the same location.
by amiller92 on Feb 9, 2012 1:58 PM CST via iPhone app up reply actions
NOOOOOO!!!!
/killitwithfire
When we get the Pig, the Jug and the Axe, we'll have one hell of a picnic
Target Center or Blaine ...
No difference. The Barn stays.
Sure am glad the game is on ESPN tonight
gotta say though, I don’t see how Vegas has this a pick em. This is a terrible match-up for the Gophers. I would put the line at Wisky minus 5. I am afraid UW is going to turn this into a half-court game and I don’t like our chances. Ski-U-Mah.
I sure am glad it's at Williams
Otherwise sittin’ in the upper deck would being a long ways away.
A simple question
If people love the arena so much, why are there 3,000 empty seats for half the games? Seriously, I just gave up season tickets after four years and can state as fact that most non-conference games had at least 3,000 empty seats. If you want to keep the arena, start buying tickets and go to the games and shout. If Williams Arena was packed every game, nobody would be discussing a new arena. It’s that simple.
That said, I’m not sure a new arena is warranted, especially with TWO great basketball facilities within 10 miles (Target Center and Xcel Arena). I can tell you this however….I have equal interest in hockey and basketball, and my money now goes to hockey, mainly because the arena is so much better. Just a better game day experience.
What I’d like to see…spend about $40 million remodeling Williams Arena. If it’s architecturally possible, add a bumpout on the north side of the building (we’re only talking about 30 feet). This would be a spot to add bathrooms, concessions, and best of all, stairs that go directly to upper level seats. Get rid of all bench seating, as well as obstructed seats. Where the obstructed seats used to be, add aisles so people can get in their seats easier, maybe even add a spot to hang jackets. Little things like this may seem trivial if you’ve only been there a couple times, but for frequent fans it would matter.
Drop the capacity to about 12,000 seats. This is perfect for all non-conference games, and about half the Big Ten schedule. Take the four best Big Ten games, play 2 at Xcel and 2 at Target Center. The extra ticket sales for these 4 games actually adds revenue, not to mention the money potential from Club Seats. One other positive to this plan, East Metro residents who don’t like driving to the U just have to head to St. Paul. Don’t laugh, it works for the MN Wild.
You have to be Reusse slow
To think it’s the arena and not the product on court that leads to empty seats.
Or, inversely, to think people would just come if they just have elbow room in the corridor.
As for playing off campus, you are nuts. Enjoy your hockey.
I may be nuts, but you're an idiot if you don't think arenas matter
The Twins were awful last year, but still have 23,000 season ticket holders coming back, and will sell close to 3 million tickets. You don’t think that would be happening if they still played at the dome, do you?
Apparently you are Sid Hartman slow, because you have no idea how things like corridors and amenities matter. Just look at MN Wild attendance. Fans don’t just go there to see the Wild, they go because it is a great arena.
By the way, do you actually pay full price for tickets to support U of M athletics? Or are you another person trolling on this site who sits at home and watches on TV, but criticizes the paying customers who just want a good experience and tell the truth on this site. I spent4 years paying full price for season tickets at Williams Arena, and had an aisle seat. I sat at half the games with one butt cheek hanging in the aisle because the benches aren’t big enough for the customers. No, I don’t weigh 250 pounds, the benches are just not wide enough.
Like I originally said, the arena doesn’t necessarily have to be replaced, but it does need an upgrade. The building just isn’t big enough to adequately support 14,000 people. It isn’t 1970 anymore, people are bigger and also have higher expectations (especially considering the way ticket prices have increased).
So how long do you think that "new stadium" thing lasts?
Working great for TCF isn’t it? Get real. A new stadium would help of course. But just for a couple of seasons at best. Then it’s back to “are they winning?”
I've been going to Williams for games since I was 5
And if you think it’s tight now, you should have seen it back in the day when there were no theater seats. I dont think there was any check on how man people sat in the row. It was awesome.
So, yeah, I’ve got season tickets.
I’m not saying an arena can’t sell some tickets for the first few years when it’s new. I’m saying that over time people don’t go for the building. I also don’t think many stay home because of the building either.
I was also there before the theater seats
and agree it was great, but it just isn’t that way today. Your last paragraph is the point I am trying to make. Are we really going to spend another $150+ million for a new stadium, when we have one of the best arenas in the country in St. Paul, and another adequate facility in Minneapolis. When is enough? The U of M is on a ridiculous facilities building campaign (not just sports). Many of the facilities are justified, just not sure that can be said for a new basketball arena.
The answer is yes.
Are we really going to spend another $150+ million for a new stadium, when we have one of the best arenas in the country in St. Paul, and another adequate facility in Minneapolis. When is enough? The U of M is on a ridiculous facilities building campaign (not just sports). Many of the facilities are justified, just not sure that can be said for a new basketball arena.
The U will either build new or they will renovate. That is the real world. You may not like it, but the U is not going to take the revenue and recruiting hits they’ll be forced to endure by going to Target or the X. Not liking the college sports arms race doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
I pretty much agree with you, and believe that's what I have tried to write
I mentioned I don’t think a new arena is warranted. That said, asking people to pay $30 to sit on a bench in the upper deck, for a non-conference game is just not realistic. At a minimum, they need to gut the benches and make the whole arena individual seats. As I mentioned, getting rid of the benches and obstructed view seats probably drops capacity to 12,000. I’m fine with that, and based on attendance for over half the games, it’s enough. I mentioned a $40 million renovation because that would really improve the arena, and could probably be financed at least half privately via donations and selling naming rights.
If saving $100 million means playing 4 games a year off campus at great arenas, I’m in favor. I might even start buying tickets again. Unfortunately, I guess trying to save $100 million makes me nuts, or dimwitted.
As for TCF, that was wrong headed from the beginning. Not the need for a new stadium, but the thought that a stadium on campus would save the program. It takes about 2 minutes longer to walk from Coffman Union to the dome than it does from Coffman to TCF. Location isn’t and wasn’t the problem. They should have just rebuilt the dome and shared the stadium with the Vikings. I was a freshman when Holtz was here, and had student tickets at the dome. Sure wasn’t a problem playing at the dome when the team had a coach who could sell the product.
That said I have season tickets at TCF, and the stadium is nice. The U doesn’t talk about this much, but they also make about $3 million per year on parking now, which they didn’t when the team was at the dome.
How much money would it cost the program?
To get rid of that many possible season ticket holders and lose out on parking and concessions by playing elsewhere?
I’m sorry if I was less than polite, but I just can’t see anything good about moving their biggest games of the year to a neutral court. It would cost money, it means playing in less familiar surroundings, and it displaces everyone. I do not like the idea at all.
And as I think about it more
At 12000 capacity, the whole B1G season would have to move. No way the money works out.
I mentioned 12,000 on a whim
A remodel getting rid of obstructed seats and benches may still allow 13,000 seats. If you are a season ticket holder, you know very well that they rarely draw over 12,000 for non-conference games. Even a few conference games have 1,000 or so empty seats, especially upstairs on the ends. You don’t necessarily see all the empty seats because of the obstructions, but they empty.
They won’t need to get rid of season ticket holders, they are around 12,000 now, and the new pricing strategy next year is going to lower that number.
I can’t disagree with your parking point, although I will again say, do we spend $150+ million to get $1 million a year in parking revenue? One thing about playing off campus, they can sell beer. Like it or not, that is big revenue. Also, while the football team had a bad lease at the Dome, that wouldn’t necessarily be true for basketball. You have two arenas competing for business, I bet they could get extremely favorable terms.
I can’t disagree with your parking point, although I will again say, do we spend $150+ million to get $1 million a year in parking revenue? One thing about playing off campus, they can sell beer. Like it or not, that is big revenue. Also, while the football team had a bad lease at the Dome, that wouldn’t necessarily be true for basketball. You have two arenas competing for business, I bet they could get extremely favorable terms.
The problem is that the other revenue doesn’t stay the same. So they make more on beer. They also make less on naming rights, advertising, and most importantly, premium seating (where they make MUCH less). Then there is the recruiting disadvantage, the fact that the arena is built and maintained for the pro tenant (thus it will never feel like a “home game” for the U) and the scheduling issues.
There is a reason you NEVER hear the U mention this idea.
Um...
The U didn’t build a $280 million dollar stadium because they thought it would automatically fix everything wrong with the program. They built it because A) it would give them the chance to fix one major thing wrong with the program and B) it would let them start making money on the program again. There were basically no revenue streams for the U when playing in a shared facility with a lease that favored the Vikings. And your proposed solution to that would have been to contiue that situation?
And your proposed solution for the problems facing basketball would be to move them to an arena that the NBA team doesn’t like or a hockey area in a different city and force the Gophers to be the secondary tenant and the U to lose out on all the parking revenue, concessions, premium seating money, naming rights, ad rights, etc, etc etc? That’s called being penny wise and pound foolish. And it’s what they did when they tore down Memorial Stadium. I think you learned the wrong lessons from that debacle.
As for your Coffman tangent related to the Dome and TCF…first, you’re just plain wrong. The Dome is almost a mile farther away from Coffman than TCF is. So, kinda more than 2 minutes farther of a walk. Then there’s the whole issue with Coffman not being the center of campus nor near the main residential living areas (on or off campus). So not the place to judge travel distance from. And then there is the fact that the issue with the Dome was not just proximity, but the fact that it was surrounded by nothing U related and offered nothing in the way of U related experiences.
Minor quibble
The football team had the 22nd (if I recall) most profitable sports program in 2009. That was the last in the dome, no?
I've had season tickets for football for 20 years
I parked (still park) behind the Law School. There is no way it is a mile farther to the Dome that TCF stadium. Sorry man, but I made the walk to the Dome in 10 minutes, that’s less than one mile at the pace I walk. Add another half mile from the Law Library to Coffman, your a little over a mile. BTW, what exactly is the center of campus these days. Have you heard of the Carlson School of Management. The West Bank is closer to the Dome than TCF. As to your point about where the students live…do we really give a damn? Talk to me when the students start to show up for games.
As for basketball, you are assuming the lease off campus would be bad. Have you read the paper lately. Lot’s of stories out there about Xcel and Target Center competing for business (Google Chris Coleman/Xcel and you’ll see my point). They would likely get a good lease deal, and be able to sell alcohol, generating even more money. I’m not saying my ideas are perfect, but spending another $150 million on campus for an arena that will be used once a week needs to be questioned, especially with alternatives nearby.
I’ll mention one other thing, again as a football season ticket holder. One of the biggest drawbacks (for a fan) was playing indoors on a nice, fall, Saturday afternoon. That element will not be in play with this basketball debate. In fact, the fan experience at Xcel will always be better than anything they’ll build on campus. As nice as the football stadium is, it is still very basic in terms of fan amenities (Target Field and Xcel make it seem almost minor league). The reality is, whether the people running the U want to admit it or not, they are competing with pro sports for local fans money.
Some thoughts...
I parked (still park) behind the Law School. There is no way it is a mile farther to the Dome that TCF stadium. Sorry man, but I made the walk to the Dome in 10 minutes, that’s less than one mile at the pace I walk. Add another half mile from the Law Library to Coffman, your a little over a mile.
FYI, I never said “it was a mile farther”. I said almost. I did this on purpose. The reason I said almost was because based on the route Google gave me I knew there was a shorter way. I just didn’t have time to map it at that time. To be extra accurate, today I used MapMyRun. Most direct path from Coffman to the Dome (using MapMyRun which lets you map shortcuts via paths not mappable in Google) is 1.3 miles. FWIW Google says 1.6 miles, so I was off by .3 miles (thus the almost). For your reference, the walk you said you made between the Law School lot and the Dome in 10 minutes was .75 miles.
However, at 1.3 miles the walk from Coffman to the Dome is still about 20-30 minute walk for most folks (your pace would put you just below the 20 minute mark, which most folks won’t do). Compare that to .6 miles (and that’s using multiple routes) between Coffman and TCF and you’re talking over double the distance and double the time. Is it the end of the world? Not even close. Is it significantly more than the over exaggerated “2 minutes” line you used? Yup. Which is what I was pointing out.
As for basketball, you are assuming the lease off campus would be bad. Have you read the paper lately. Lot’s of stories out there about Xcel and Target Center competing for business (Google Chris Coleman/Xcel and you’ll see my point). They would likely get a good lease deal, and be able to sell alcohol, generating even more money.
And I do think an off campus lease will be bad. Why? Because Xcel and Target will want to make money and the only way to do that is to give the U terms that result in a deal that makes the revenue worse then if they were on campus. The U could probably cut favorable terms on concessions (which was pretty much the only way they made money at the Dome – thus the reason beer was sold) but they still won’t get parking revenue, or naming rights, or much if any proceeds on the premium seating (which is where the real money is made). They wouldn’t be able to charge seat licensing fees, etc like they will be able to in their own facility. And they would still play second fiddle to the primary tenant, which means their home schedule would not be in their control. This also assumes the B1G conference would be comfortable with that fact (no guarantee there).
I’m not saying my ideas are perfect, but spending another $150 million on campus for an arena that will be used once a week needs to be questioned, especially with alternatives nearby.
It’s clear you don’t like the “building arms race” in college sports. That’s understandable. But the fact is, that’s what college sports is now. You can ignore it or pretend the U doesn’t need to participate to win, but that’s BS wishful thinking. If the U wants to win, their facilities need to be competitive with other schools and their facilities NEED TO BE THEIR OWN. That means a renovation or replacement to Williams (I prefer renovation), not the use of an NBA or NHL arena that are way (and in the case of Excel, WAY WAY) off campus. Going off campus would hurt revenue and recruiting. It would put the program at a massive disadvantage compared to every other BCS school. Plus it would kill tradition and every “home” game would feel like a neutral site venue at best.
Here’s a little tip. The U isn’t completely stupid. If moving off campus was a viable option they’d consider it. The fact they don’t should tell you something.
The reality is, whether the people running the U want to admit it or not, they are competing with pro sports for local fans money.
This is true. But most Gopher fans aren’t like you. They don’t expect pro ammenities, they expect quality college ammenities (and many don’t even care about that, though they won’t complain if they are available). The “college feel” of the games is one thing the U can actually market that is different about Gophers sports that can make them stand out in the marketplace. It’s why I favor a renovation of Williams to a wholesale replacement.
You are taking a couple of my points a little too literally
As for the walk, I agree with your last analysis. BTW, thanks for the mileage, I was always curious about the exact distance I was walking. That said, the point I’m trying to make, and that your stats help make, is the distance to the Dome was very little detriment to the football program. U of M “boosters” tried to sell the point that student involvement was hurt by playing at the dome. I happen to disagree, we are talking about an extra 5-10 minute walk for a19 year old. The “boosters” also tried to say that attendance was hurt because the dome failed to cultivate students that would become long time season ticket holders. REALLY?? A 19 year old who won’t walk an extra ten minutes to the dome isn’t going to be buying season tickets as a 30 year old when they’ll be driving and walking to get to a game. Agree or not with my reasoning, the fact is, the BANK is not helping student attendance. I sit on the ten yard line near the student section and can confirm that section is almost half empty for most games.
As for game day revenues from advertising and naming rights, I think you are too optimistic. In present value money, they get about $1 million a year from TCF (present value is probably less, but I won’t quibble this point). But most people fail to realize that million dollars gets more than naming rights to the stadium. It also gets TCF extra access to the campus (think ATMs and deals for student accounts). The U publicly focused all of the money on the stadium so they could claim a $30 million contribution toward stadium costs.
Also, depending on how you define premium seating, the U can still collect extra contributions at Xcel or Target Center. The preferred seating plan they are rolling out at Williams Arena could be done elsewhere. The are charging for rights to sections of seating, they can charge extra for mid-court lower level seats at any arena in town. It is true they won’t get suite money, but a remodeled Williams is still only going to have about 15 suites….that’s not that much money. They can also upcharge for club seating. The current holders probably have first dibs, but they still pay the premium per ticket. You also can’t forget about the extra 4,000+ seats they can sell per game. At an average of about $300 per season, that’s $1.2 million.
Last point on the arena, if you go back in time to my original post, you’ll see I pretty much was advocating an upgrade to Williams, just like you. I may see a different plan, but we are probably not that far apart.
Final thought. You are right, the U isn’t completely stupid. However, when it comes to revenue sports, they certainly are borderline incompetent in many areas. If you have season tickets for basketball or football, you will know what I mean. If, like me, you also have season tickets for the Twins, you will totally understand. Even though the per game costs are comparable, the treatment of fans just isn’t the same.
I’ll give you a couple examples.
For years, the U has pushed gold shirts to their fans. The problem is, 90% percent of their fans wear maroon (an exception is the students). Why, because they want maroon. The athletic department has battled their fans for a decade on this issue, that is borderline incompetence.
Seating upgrades. They refuse to offer season ticket holders a website to upgrade their seats. This is available. The same site they used to sell initial tickets at the Bank could be used for annual seating upgrades, but they won’t offer this option. And yet the Twins offer this convenience. If I was paying more for Twins tickets, that would make sense, but I am not. I’ve upgraded my Twins tickets twice in two years and am thrilled by the tickets I just received today in the mail. I have yet to upgrade at TCF. Part of the reason is I tried this at the dome, and they totally screwed up my seating (I literally said I only wanted to upgrade if the seats were on an aisle, they stuck me in the middle of a section about 30 seats long).
Lastly, maybe the reason the U won’t even discuss playing at one of the other arenas is because they are like a spoiled child who complains until they get their way. An example is how they cry about the alcohol policy forced on them by the legislature. They refuse to sell to fans because it is wrong to sell on campus. Of course, it is OK in the same arena if those same fans just pay a premium to get into the club. They also sell at the Alumni Center, which sits on the site of the previous on campus stadium. That’s whining at it’s best, which is why I am a skeptic regarding a $150 million arena.
That said, the point I’m trying to make, and that your stats help make, is the distance to the Dome was very little detriment to the football program.
I never said “distance” was the biggest issue. Simply being off campus in a facility they didn’t control was always the largest problem. And my point was that even when not taken literally (which I never thought you were trying to be) that your exaggeration was simply too silly for the point you were trying to make. Hyperbole has limits.
U of M "boosters" tried to sell the point that student involvement was hurt by playing at the dome. I happen to disagree, we are talking about an extra 5-10 minute walk for a19 year old. The "boosters" also tried to say that attendance was hurt because the dome failed to cultivate students that would become long time season ticket holders. REALLY?? A 19 year old who won’t walk an extra ten minutes to the dome isn’t going to be buying season tickets as a 30 year old when they’ll be driving and walking to get to a game.
First off, most students (particularily underclassmen from the SuperBlock) weren’t walking to games. Most of the drove, parked, and tailgated (when that was still possible) or they rode shuttle buses. Super drunk kids don’t like walking long distances when they don’t have to.
2nd, the biggest issue I ever heard called out was that being off campus killed tradition and separated football from the student experience. That’s what killed student (and in turn young alum) involvement/interest. Distance is a part of that, but it wasn’t the primary factor. A sterile environment off campus combined with loss of history and traditions combined with mediocre teams is what’s at fault. The move back to campus hasn’t solved anything because the school still hasn’t built football back into being an essential part of the student experience. Kill talks about improving that all the time and making football part of the “party” for students.
3rd: We’re not talking about football here. Pointing to the current football attendance woes is silly because the student involvement in football was already hurt from 27 years at the Dome. What you’re suggesting is taking the pretty strong student involvement in basketball and making it WORSE by moving off campus. What I’m saying is that being off campus only hurts, never helps, student attendance.
As for game day revenues from advertising and naming rights, I think you are too optimistic. In present value money, they get about $1 million a year from TCF (present value is probably less, but I won’t quibble this point). But most people fail to realize that million dollars gets more than naming rights to the stadium. It also gets TCF extra access to the campus (think ATMs and deals for student accounts). The U publicly focused all of the money on the stadium so they could claim a $30 million contribution toward stadium costs.
While your correct that the naming rights are pretty effectively monotized already for TCF, there are still yearly advertising monies that they get that the school would not have access to when they don’t own the facility. Plus, again, you’re trying to use football as a substitute for basketball. A renovation or new stadium opens new ad/naming rights dollars that are not currently in play.
Also, depending on how you define premium seating, the U can still collect extra contributions at Xcel or Target Center. The preferred seating plan they are rolling out at Williams Arena could be done elsewhere. The are charging for rights to sections of seating, they can charge extra for mid-court lower level seats at any arena in town.
You assume they’d be allowed to do this by the TWolves or Wild. They might very well be. But that’s not a given.
A few points, then you can have last word
I wholeheartedly disagree with your comment regarding hyperbole. I can state for fact I can walk from Coffman to the Dome in fifteen minutes. As I mentioned, it was a ten minute walk from the Law Library lot to the Dome, and I can walk from that lot to Coffman in 5 minutes (I do this now going to TCF). At the same pace, it is ten minutes from Coffman to TCF (again, I make this walk to games). I’ll admit I didn’t do the math when I originally wrote my point, but even at that, stating 2 minutes longer rather than 5 minutes longer is not nearly severe enough hyperbole to be concerned and called silly.
I also happen to believe the basketball woes are not that dissimilar to the football woes. In fact, they prove my point. If being on campus is so important, where are the 35-45 year old basketball fans. Williams Arena has 2,000 students and 8,000 AARP eligible fans at every game. You state yourself there is already pretty strong student involvement in basketball. Unfortunately, that just doesn’t lead them to pay real money ten years later. I specifically mention 35-45 year olds for two reasons. One is they have money today. The other is they were at Williams during the good Clem Days (I am in that group). All that said, they aren’t buying tickets today, and they weren’t 10-15 years ago when Williams was considered a gem. If the current support of student seating led to future sales, I’d be in favor, but they just don’t.
Bottom line is, students at games are great, but they don’t pay the bills, especially at student rates. I’d rather have 500 adults paying $75 each to sit in club seats at the X.
I’ll also add that if any part of your reason to stay on campus is for drunk students, it’s misguided and an insult to students who can find a game enjoyable without being drunk.
Simple point on advertising and naming rights. At best, we’re talking about $1 million per year. Take what they are getting now for football (the game on campus), and cut it in half. That’s about $1 million. I can’t justify spending $150 million for a new stadium to get $1 million in ads. The U will make a lot more money selling 4,000 extra seats per game at the X or Target Center.
I’m not really assuming anything regarding the Wolves or Wild. I’d just like to know they asked and were turned down.
I think you biggest issue...
…is that you assume your experience is universal and would be the same for others.
For instance. To walk 1.3 miles in 15 minutes means you are walking at 5.2 miles per hour. Now, I’m a 6’ 9" guy with very long strides. I walk VERY fast when I feel like it. And I know (from my current running training on a treadmill) that 5.2 mph is pretty much an insane walking pace, even for someone with my stride length. So for you to think that most people would get it done at your pace is, well, not very logical. The average person walks at just over 3 mph which means it would take most folks 25 min to walk from Coffman to the Dome.
You also betray this flaw when you assume everyone else will be happy with games played well off campus.
n fact, they prove my point. If being on campus is so important, where are the 35-45 year old basketball fans.
This doesn’t prove your point at all. All it proves is that the U needs to figure out how to better draw that demographic. You haven’t put forth a single fact (besides your own experience which is not universal) that suggests that Williams is the cause. Also, you’re making a gross generalization about the demo of the Barn crowd with numbers you made up to support your case. Not very scientific. The Barn crowd is def older on the whole, but unless you can show me a link you’re just tossing up numbers for fun.
I’ll also add that if any part of your reason to stay on campus is for drunk students, it’s misguided and an insult to students who can find a game enjoyable without being drunk.
No, my point is that you stay on campus to get the MOST students (of whom, drunk ones are a part). Also because staying on campus makes sports PART of the student experience by default, which in turn leads to stronger ties long term.
Bottom line is, students at games are great, but they don’t pay the bills, especially at student rates. I’d rather have 500 adults paying $75 each to sit in club seats at the X.
So in addition to playing in a sterile atmosphere that has no connection to the U you want to remove more of the home court advantage and noise. Color me unimpressed by this line of argument.
Simple point on advertising and naming rights. At best, we’re talking about $1 million per year. Take what they are getting now for football (the game on campus), and cut it in half. That’s about $1 million.
And your citation for this is where? At least when I’m putting my opinion out there I’m not making up numbers.
I stated you would get the last word on the subject
and you will. However, I can’t help comment on how you debate.
1.If you can’t refute an argument, you call it a straw man or debate minor flaws. As I said earlier, I’m not trying to debate a couple minutes, the walk is the same whether it’s 15 minutes or 18. Rather than debate the point, you focus on arguing over minutia that doesn’t change my point.
2. You make up arguments I am not making. I state that I students don’t pay the bills, and like adults paying for club seats. Somehow you interpret that as not having a student section. That’s funny coming from someone who expects the other person to cite sources.
One final point. If you dispute things I’m saying like how much is raised from naming rights, do yourself a favor and do some research yourself. It’s not my job to do it for you. Better yet, if you think I’m wrong, do the research and cite how I am wrong.
One last thing about walking. I walked exactly 1.1 mile from my house to Junior High. I did that walk daily in 15 minutes. At the time I was in 7th grade and about 5 feet tall. Sorry, but that’s just a fact. If height determined speed, centers would be the fastest guys on the court.
1) I didn’t claim you never made the walk at your speed, I simply pointed out that others likely can’t/wouldn’t choose too. That would be the part where I said your fallacy is to assume everyone is the same as you. When the pace you walk is considered a competitive walking pace then it isn’t the pace an average person walks for leisure. This is not rocket science. Also, I’d note that you’re still using numbers that are skewed to fit your argument That would be the 18 minute quote from above to be precise. The difference between your speed and the average person was not 3 minutes. It’s 10 (avg person would take 25 minutes). Unless the meaning of “a couple” changed I don’t think 10 qualifies. =)
BTW, it would help if you point out my straw man. As for debating minor flaws, I don’t consider attempting to point out innaccuracy to be a bad thing. The walking debate has been completely superflous I’ll admit, but you hit one of my personal buttons by overusing hyperbole early on.
2) No, I made an error. Rereading what I wrote I realize I misunderstood your intent. My apologies. As you said, I mistook what your wrote…I read past the club seats part of it and only took the “would rather have adults” part of it.
One final point. If you dispute things I’m saying like how much is raised from naming rights, do yourself a favor and do some research yourself. It’s not my job to do it for you. Better yet, if you think I’m wrong, do the research and cite how I am wrong.
No, I’d argue that if you bring numbers to the table you should attempt to back them up. If it’s simply an opinion based on previous experience of some kind then say so. People can then take it for what it’s worth. If you read it in a primary source but can’t find the link, can’t recall the source, or don’t have time/energy/inclination then just say so, people will take it for what it’s worth. Otherwise if you know the source you put it in. Then people can evaluate it’s validity, etc.
One last thing about walking. I walked exactly 1.1 mile from my house to Junior High. I did that walk daily in 15 minutes. At the time I was in 7th grade and about 5 feet tall. Sorry, but that’s just a fact. If height determined speed, centers would be the fastest guys on the court.
Good for you. This does nothing to refute your desire to use your own experiences as the baseline for everyone else, but I’m glad you were (are?) a fast walker. I never said height determined speed, I simply pointed out that as a tall person who walks fast I can vouch that the speed you were talking about isn’t normal. A simple Google search for average walking speed tells you that. FWIW, the number I cited was from Wikipedia.
And to clarify above...
…competitive walking pace should have been fitness walking pace. Racewalkers can of course beat 5.2 mph.
I get this.
Last point on the arena, if you go back in time to my original post, you’ll see I pretty much was advocating an upgrade to Williams, just like you. I may see a different plan, but we are probably not that far apart.
We are very far apart though, because only one of us views a terrible idea as another viable solution when it is not.
Two points on this
Ten years ago, I would have been called nuts to say the Twins could play behind Target Center. Not enough room to play. I’m not saying I have the ultimate solution, but I just don’t trust the U to find one when they won’t consider off campus options.
Lastly, on renovating Williams Arena. We may both like the idea, but it won’t happen. I’ve avoided saying this because it’s in a different direction, but it’s fact. Don’t believe me, look for Lou Nanne’s podcast on either KFAN or ESPN1500 the last couple weeks. He is an insider who knows what is going on and has declared renovating a non-option. The problem is simple, too much infrastructure (plumbing, electrical, etc.) would need to be replaced. Remodeling saves no money, so there are three options:
1. Stay at the current Williams.
2. Play off campus in an arena that fans will love. All fans, not just U alum. We shouldn’t dismiss the attendance possibilities of basketball fans who did not attend the U.
3. Spend at least $150 million for a new arena on campus. That’s a lot of money for an arena used 30-40 times a year. Of course it will fit in nicely next to the $288 million dollar stadium used 10 times a year. Yes, I know they have functions at the club room, but those functions could be held in a renovated Northrup (or just a new meeting hall) and cost a lot less money.
Ten years ago, I would have been called nuts to say the Twins could play behind Target Center. Not enough room to play. I’m not saying I have the ultimate solution, but I just don’t trust the U to find one when they won’t consider off campus options.
Not even the same situation. Different organizations, different decision makers. This is a straw man.
Play off campus in an arena that fans will love.
You’re generalizing off your own opinions again. You have no way of knowing this is true. In fact, the constant backlash from many Gopher fans suggests this is false.
I get it, you’re in the “no new money for stadiums crowd”. Bully for you. But you’re not living in the same world as the rest of us if you think the U can play by different rules and succeed. The building race in college sports is real. Hate it all you want, but having the U pretend they can ignore it will simply put them at a disadvantage.
Also, you completely ignore the "competitive with other colleges" aspect...
…when it comes to recruiting and home court advantage. While money plays into the decision, the fact is that playing a couple of miles away (if Target Center) to almost 8 miles away (if Excel) does not put the U on a competitive footing when compared to other B1G and BCS level schools. It will hurt recruiting.
If being on campus helps recruiting
why has the basketball team had few good recruiting classes. Not just now when Williams is outdated, but 20 years ago when it was considered one of the best arenas in the Big Ten. Lou Holtz had no problem recruiting off campus, perhaps you are too young to remember that time.
That’s it, last word is yours.
Oh boy...
…this is some horrible logic. So you think Tubby and other coaches suck at recruiting to the U now? Why would putting the U at a further disadvantage compared to it’s peers/competitors make that better?
As for Lou Holtz…I’m sorry, but when your argument is to bring up a coach in a different sport, from over 25 years ago, who got the U placed on NCAA sanctions, and who operated in a different environment in every way compared to today…that’s when you know you’ve tossed up a straw man.
Then there's the fact that you're in the minority...
…of Gopher fans who enjoy being off campus for games. That isn’t the norm.
As an alumnus
Going back to campus is one of the fun parts of going to games.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
