Has anyone seen the renderings for the Arena-Aud renovation?

[Cowduck]

Here are some other schools that have had their basketball arenas capacity lowered due to renovations.

Notre Dame 11,418 to 9149

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_P._Joyce_Center

Michigan 13,751 to 12,721

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisler_Arena

Tennesee somewhere around 25,000 to 21,678

http://www.utsports.com/sports/m-baskbl/thompson-boling_arena.html

Butler 11,043 to 10,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkle_Fieldhouse

So obviously we are not the only school that is looking to do this. In fact these schools sell out much more than we do so they would have more to lose by doing this but they still see a benefit of adding club seeting and suites and upgrading the arena. Basketball is different from football and there is nothing wrong with losing some seats if it means a better atmosphere and more revenue coming in.

Now, I have no idea what the renovation plans are for the AA but I would be all for adding club seats and/or suites and more revenue along with a center hung scoreboard and seats closer to the floor at the cost of a couple thousand seats.

That last one is the key for me. My least favorite thing about the AA by far is that stupid concrete barrier that rings the court. That is what hurts the intimacy of the venue the most by a long shot. It sounds they are planning on getting rid of it so that they can have side-by-side practice courts. I sure hope that also means moving seating closer to the court on game days.

 

[McPeachy]

Here are some other schools that have had their basketball arenas capacity lowered due to renovations.

Notre Dame 11,418 to 9149

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_P._Joyce_Center

Michigan 13,751 to 12,721

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisler_Arena

Tennesee somewhere around 25,000 to 21,678

http://www.utsports.com/sports/m-baskbl/thompson-boling_arena.html

Butler 11,043 to 10,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkle_Fieldhouse

All hoops examples, and all not even close to a 25%+ reduction. First the War, soon to be more of the War (West side renovations - hand rails, etc.), and now the reduction in capacity at the AA.

And Tennessee, for example, going from 24,678 to 21678, is peanuts in comparison. You are talking a place that still seats (or will) more than 8500 than UW. So ya, I guess if the AA sat 25,000 and they reduced it to 21,500 with luxury suites, etc., it wouldn't bother me as much. But from 15-16K to what will be 12K?

Question to ponder...how did Tennessee's TB arena fit 25,610 for their all time record? Maybe all the numbers are skewed / inaccurate.

Build it and they will come. Not at UW! Make it smaller, jack up the seating premiums, sell some rich oil mother fuckers some luxury boxes, and strive to become irrelevant in the scheme of D1 athletics. Small time.

:brick:

 

[McPeachy]

There's a lot of pre-occupation with size on this topic!

Blah blah blah blah blah

Blah blah blah blah blah

Basketball example again. Let's also talk about decreasing the size of War Memorial.

If we continued winning at the early 2000's level, your whole post would be irrelevant. Maybe with the exception of the TV situation...that is out of our hands (but that we get supposedly compensated enough from that it makes up for the attendance loss) LMAO.

Crowds in excess of 12,000 were not abnormal then, even though, ya, we are little 'ol Wyoming. Fuck, with that mentality, we should be NAIA in everything! And had we not fucked around with the Burman-Shroyer experiment...and our attendance levels sunk to where they are sickening low...

 

[Cowduck]

Here are some other schools that have had their basketball arenas capacity lowered due to renovations.

Notre Dame 11,418 to 9149

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_P._Joyce_Center

Michigan 13,751 to 12,721

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisler_Arena

Tennesee somewhere around 25,000 to 21,678

http://www.utsports.com/sports/m-baskbl/thompson-boling_arena.html

Butler 11,043 to 10,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkle_Fieldhouse

All hoops examples, and all not even close to a 25%+ reduction. First the War, soon to be more of the War (West side renovations - hand rails, etc.), and now the reduction in capacity at the AA.

And Tennessee, for example, going from 24,678 to 21678, is peanuts in comparison. You are talking a place that still seats (or will) more than 8500 than UW. So ya, I guess if the AA sat 25,000 and they reduced it to 21,500 with luxury suites, etc., it wouldn't bother me as much. But from 15-16K to what will be 12K?

Question to ponder...how did Tennessee's TB arena fit 25,610 for their all time record? Maybe all the numbers are skewed / inaccurate.

Build it and they will come. Not at UW! Make it smaller, jack up the seating premiums, sell some rich oil mother fuckers some luxury boxes, and join the 21st century in arena construction philosophy. Small time.

:brick:

Fixed that for you.

 

[Cowduck]

There's a lot of pre-occupation with size on this topic!

Blah blah blah blah blah

Blah blah blah blah blah

Basketball example again. Let's also talk about decreasing the size of War Memorial.

If we continued winning at the early 2000's level, your whole post would be irrelevant. Maybe with the exception of the TV situation...that is out of our hands (but that we get supposedly compensated enough from that it makes up for the attendance loss) LMAO.

Crowds in excess of 12,000 were not abnormal then, even though, ya, we are little 'ol Wyoming. Fuck, with that mentality, we should be NAIA in everything! And had we not fucked around with the Burman-Shroyer experiment...and our attendance levels sunk to where they are sickening low...

And also, yes, we're talking about basketball because this was a thread about AA renovations in the motherloving basketball forum. Changing the topic is a favorite tactic of people who are getting whooped in a debate.

Eliminating seats that we have never filled even remotely consistently and replacing them with club/luxury seating and improved concourses is not small time thinking, because it is about making money. Which is the lifeblood of "big time" athletics. What do you have against making money, anyways?

 

[McPeachy]

And also, yes, we're talking about basketball because this was a thread about AA renovations in the motherloving basketball forum. Changing the topic is a favorite tactic of people who are getting whooped in a debate.

Eliminating seats that we have never filled even remotely consistently and replacing them with club/luxury seating and improved concourses is not small time thinking, because it is about making money. Which is the lifeblood of "big time" athletics. What do you have against making money, anyways?

I never changed topics (or the premise of my arguement) Duck. For me, it is all about small time thinking at UW...not just shrinking the AA, but also shrinking the War, etc.

I'm telling you right now, if Burman had his way, we would be playing FCS football, against the likes of Montana, Montana State, Northern Colorado, etc. Not that they aren't competitive either...just that they are what they are.

To say, that UW is just fine with a 12,000 seat arena...and that we should downsize it (like we downsized the War)...is not growing, and is not striving to be the best.

 

[Cowduck]

And also, yes, we're talking about basketball because this was a thread about AA renovations in the motherloving basketball forum. Changing the topic is a favorite tactic of people who are getting whooped in a debate.

Eliminating seats that we have never filled even remotely consistently and replacing them with club/luxury seating and improved concourses is not small time thinking, because it is about making money. Which is the lifeblood of "big time" athletics. What do you have against making money, anyways?

I never changed topics (or the premise of my arguement) Duck. For me, it is all about small time thinking at UW...not just shrinking the AA, but also shrinking the War, etc.

I'm telling you right now, if Burman had his way, we would be playing FCS football, against the likes of Montana, Montana State, Northern Colorado, etc. Not that they aren't competitive either...just that they are what they are.

To say, that UW is just fine with a 12,000 seat arena...and that we should downsize it (like we downsized the War)...is not growing, and is not striving to be the best.

I just don't understand why you correlate arena size with the ambitions of an athletic program. Especially in 2012, and especially with respect to men's basketball. This thread is littered with evidence that these things don't have much to do with one another. You know what is big time thinking? Investing in facilities upgrades that maximize your revenue. You know what is small time thinking? Leaving a million or two of revenue on the table every year in hopes that "15 sellouts every 30 years" magically turns into "15 sellouts every year." Because it won't. You said in another post "if we kept winning like we were in the early 2000's and routinely drawing 12k this wouldn't be a topic of conversation" or some such. Except I've already proven that this is utter nonsense - we sold the building out once in 2001-2002, drew 13k two other times, 12k once, and 11k once. That's one crowd that is significantly bigger than the proposed new AA capacity in our best season in 25 years. Look it up.

And what is the "etc." that you refer to as other examples of small time thinking in UW's athletic department? What evidence do you have that Burman would have us drop to FCS football if it were up to him? Because I believe that if you were right about this he would have been canned a long time ago. He certainly isn't above criticism but I'd say he's overseen pretty sound investments facilities-wise.

 

[WyoExpat]

My least favorite thing about the AA by far is that stupid concrete barrier that rings the court. That is what hurts the intimacy of the venue the most by a long shot. It sounds they are planning on getting rid of it so that they can have side-by-side practice courts. I sure hope that also means moving seating closer to the court on game days.

The court-side seating makes sense to me. I just hope that we do not end up like the NBA or some corporatized college programs where they shove the students and pep band as far away from the action as possible.

As for the practice space, while it makes some sense to me, the white paper that someone linked to on this thread talks about a dedicated basketball practice facility.

 

[Cowduck]

My least favorite thing about the AA by far is that stupid concrete barrier that rings the court. That is what hurts the intimacy of the venue the most by a long shot. It sounds they are planning on getting rid of it so that they can have side-by-side practice courts. I sure hope that also means moving seating closer to the court on game days.

The court-side seating makes sense to me. I just hope that we do not end up like the NBA or some corporatized college programs where they shove the students and pep band as far away from the action as possible.

As for the practice space, while it makes some sense to me, the white paper that someone linked to on this thread talks about a dedicated basketball practice facility.

Couldn't agree more re: student section/band. The best college basketball arenas have students right on top of the court. One of the things that made Mac Court so awesome.

See this short interview w/ Burman regarding some hints on AA renovations, including a plan for side-by-side practice courts at the AA:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJsID9ckO1M[/youtube]

 

[Wyokie]

Kevin McKinney looks a hell of a lot older. Almost didn't recongnize him. I met him while in Laramie in 1996. He came off as a bit strange.

 

[NowherePoke]

And also, yes, we're talking about basketball because this was a thread about AA renovations in the motherloving basketball forum. Changing the topic is a favorite tactic of people who are getting whooped in a debate.

Eliminating seats that we have never filled even remotely consistently and replacing them with club/luxury seating and improved concourses is not small time thinking, because it is about making money. Which is the lifeblood of "big time" athletics. What do you have against making money, anyways?

I never changed topics (or the premise of my arguement) Duck. For me, it is all about small time thinking at UW...not just shrinking the AA, but also shrinking the War, etc.

I'm telling you right now, if Burman had his way, we would be playing FCS football, against the likes of Montana, Montana State, Northern Colorado, etc. Not that they aren't competitive either...just that they are what they are.

To say, that UW is just fine with a 12,000 seat arena...and that we should downsize it (like we downsized the War)...is not growing, and is not striving to be the best.

I just don't understand why you correlate arena size with the ambitions of an athletic program. Especially in 2012, and especially with respect to men's basketball. This thread is littered with evidence that these things don't have much to do with one another. You know what is big time thinking? Investing in facilities upgrades that maximize your revenue. You know what is small time thinking? Leaving a million or two of revenue on the table every year in hopes that "15 sellouts every 30 years" magically turns into "15 sellouts every year." Because it won't. You said in another post "if we kept winning like we were in the early 2000's and routinely drawing 12k this wouldn't be a topic of conversation" or some such. Except I've already proven that this is utter nonsense - we sold the building out once in 2001-2002, drew 13k two other times, 12k once, and 11k once. That's one crowd that is significantly bigger than the proposed new AA capacity in our best season in 25 years. Look it up.

And what is the "etc." that you refer to as other examples of small time thinking in UW's athletic department? What evidence do you have that Burman would have us drop to FCS football if it were up to him? Because I believe that if you were right about this he would have been canned a long time ago. He certainly isn't above criticism but I'd say he's overseen pretty sound investments facilities-wise.

While I disagree with McPeachy on the A-A, I agree with him totally in regards to the overall athletic department. Burman's public statements themselves corroborate the small-time thinking (and quite frankly, do not do UW any favors in public relations). His comment regarding not paying a coach a million dollars has already been referenced on this thread I think, but he has also stated on multiple occasions that the departure of Utah/BYU/TCU would make it easier for us to compete in the MWC. IOW, instead of striving to reach that level as an athletic department we are hoping that a lower level of competition saves us. Well, that won't work because the other teams in the MWC that are currently at our level are not satisfied with their position and they are striving to improve. We must keep pace.

The Heath Schroyer hire though is the ultimate example and one that, quite frankly, still boggles my mind. Not only was there a strong whiff of cronyism in the hire, but it was inherently small-time. Heath was the lowest paid coach in the league. CSU and Wyoming were hiring coaches at the same time and CSU outspent us to get an up and coming coach, while we settled on a 2nd tier assistant that came cheap. That is infuriating enough, but what really sets it off is the fact that in Basketball we were generating far more revenue than CSU. I can understand if they pay their FB or VB coach more than UW, but not Men's Basketball. Not only were we generating more revenue but we were only a few years away from demonstrating the ability to earn 2-3 times in revenue what CSU was earning. It is just a complete failure on our part to not pursue a quality coach at that time.

 

[laxwyo]

And also, yes, we're talking about basketball because this was a thread about AA renovations in the motherloving basketball forum. Changing the topic is a favorite tactic of people who are getting whooped in a debate.

Eliminating seats that we have never filled even remotely consistently and replacing them with club/luxury seating and improved concourses is not small time thinking, because it is about making money. Which is the lifeblood of "big time" athletics. What do you have against making money, anyways?

I never changed topics (or the premise of my arguement) Duck. For me, it is all about small time thinking at UW...not just shrinking the AA, but also shrinking the War, etc.

I'm telling you right now, if Burman had his way, we would be playing FCS football, against the likes of Montana, Montana State, Northern Colorado, etc. Not that they aren't competitive either...just that they are what they are.

To say, that UW is just fine with a 12,000 seat arena...and that we should downsize it (like we downsized the War)...is not growing, and is not striving to be the best.

I believe you are the one with small time thinking McPeach. Old ass grey haired smalltime thinking. Michigan has 12K.....Michigan!!!!!!! and they probably sell out more than one game a century.

 

[Cowduck]

And also, yes, we're talking about basketball because this was a thread about AA renovations in the motherloving basketball forum. Changing the topic is a favorite tactic of people who are getting whooped in a debate.

Eliminating seats that we have never filled even remotely consistently and replacing them with club/luxury seating and improved concourses is not small time thinking, because it is about making money. Which is the lifeblood of "big time" athletics. What do you have against making money, anyways?

I never changed topics (or the premise of my arguement) Duck. For me, it is all about small time thinking at UW...not just shrinking the AA, but also shrinking the War, etc.

I'm telling you right now, if Burman had his way, we would be playing FCS football, against the likes of Montana, Montana State, Northern Colorado, etc. Not that they aren't competitive either...just that they are what they are.

To say, that UW is just fine with a 12,000 seat arena...and that we should downsize it (like we downsized the War)...is not growing, and is not striving to be the best.

I just don't understand why you correlate arena size with the ambitions of an athletic program. Especially in 2012, and especially with respect to men's basketball. This thread is littered with evidence that these things don't have much to do with one another. You know what is big time thinking? Investing in facilities upgrades that maximize your revenue. You know what is small time thinking? Leaving a million or two of revenue on the table every year in hopes that "15 sellouts every 30 years" magically turns into "15 sellouts every year." Because it won't. You said in another post "if we kept winning like we were in the early 2000's and routinely drawing 12k this wouldn't be a topic of conversation" or some such. Except I've already proven that this is utter nonsense - we sold the building out once in 2001-2002, drew 13k two other times, 12k once, and 11k once. That's one crowd that is significantly bigger than the proposed new AA capacity in our best season in 25 years. Look it up.

And what is the "etc." that you refer to as other examples of small time thinking in UW's athletic department? What evidence do you have that Burman would have us drop to FCS football if it were up to him? Because I believe that if you were right about this he would have been canned a long time ago. He certainly isn't above criticism but I'd say he's overseen pretty sound investments facilities-wise.

While I disagree with McPeachy on the A-A, I agree with him totally in regards to the overall athletic department. Burman's public statements themselves corroborate the small-time thinking (and quite frankly, do not do UW any favors in public relations). His comment regarding not paying a coach a million dollars has already been referenced on this thread I think, but he has also stated on multiple occasions that the departure of Utah/BYU/TCU would make it easier for us to compete in the MWC. IOW, instead of striving to reach that level as an athletic department we are hoping that a lower level of competition saves us. Well, that won't work because the other teams in the MWC that are currently at our level are not satisfied with their position and they are striving to improve. We must keep pace.

The Heath Schroyer hire though is the ultimate example and one that, quite frankly, still boggles my mind. Not only was there a strong whiff of cronyism in the hire, but it was inherently small-time. Heath was the lowest paid coach in the league. CSU and Wyoming were hiring coaches at the same time and CSU outspent us to get an up and coming coach, while we settled on a 2nd tier assistant that came cheap. That is infuriating enough, but what really sets it off is the fact that in Basketball we were generating far more revenue than CSU. I can understand if they pay their FB or VB coach more than UW, but not Men's Basketball. Not only were we generating more revenue but we were only a few years away from demonstrating the ability to earn 2-3 times in revenue what CSU was earning. It is just a complete failure on our part to not pursue a quality coach at that time.

I totally agree with you about the Schroyer hire.

I agree somewhat about the Burman statements in your first paragraph, moreso about coaching salaries than the "easier to compete" claim. I also remember being pissed when he said these things but in retrospect I kind of view them as being PR mistakes in the vein of being too honest about his perception of practical realities than evidence that he somehow is satisfied with being in the middle tier of the new-look MWC. And it wasn't much later that Coach Christensen's total compensation package got bumped to right around a million per, so maybe Burman turned out to be a PR genius: lower expectations by erecting false barriers so that when you break them you look like a hard working visionary.