MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: ErickJD08 on March 19, 2018, 01:13:55 AM
-
It looks really fun to be at. Something I have wondered as a fan/alum, why can't the team do like week night games at the Al and weekend in the arena? From my watching, I don't see us having much of home court advantage when the stadium is less than half full. I think the Al would give us more home court advantage on the low turnout games. Does anyone know if this was ever considered?
-
It looks really fun to be at. Something I have wondered as a fan/alum, why can't the team do like week night games at the Al and weekend in the arena? From my watching, I don't see us having much of home court advantage when the stadium is less than half full. I think the Al would give us more home court advantage on the low turnout games. Does anyone know if this was ever considered?
Because we have 10,000+ season ticket holders and the Al holds 3,700. Asked and answered. It's just not happening. Ever. Good night.
-
All of these threads are pretty humorous. The reality is MU is moving to a brand new top level facility a mile from campus. MU is not going to invest 100mil(+) of their funds in an arena that has huge competition in the 5k seat range, some competition in the 10k range, and a larger venue for the big stuff. They do this to hold what, 30-40 revenue generating events a year? (If they're lucky.)
-
If the Warriors go to the Al, many of us who are occasional attendees but huge fans would never see them.
Th Big East probably also has minimum arena requirements.
I know of no faster way to become a mid-major than to play games in a 3,700 seat arena.
-
If the Warriors go to the Al, many of us who are occasional attendees but huge fans would never see them.
Th Big East probably also has minimum arena requirements.
I know of no faster way to become a mid-major than to play games in a 3,700 seat arena.
Nah - their just talking about spending tens of millions of dollars to cut the average attendance anywhere from 30 - 40% (to 8-10K) just so that the bball team can play in a louder setting. All while a brand new, state of the art, basketball designed arena is constructed for our partial use.
-
It looks really fun to be at. Something I have wondered as a fan/alum, why can't the team do like week night games at the Al and weekend in the arena? From my watching, I don't see us having much of home court advantage when the stadium is less than half full. I think the Al would give us more home court advantage on the low turnout games. Does anyone know if this was ever considered?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$, or lack of it.
-
Nah - their just talking about spending tens of millions of dollars to cut the average attendance anywhere from 30 - 40% (to 8-10K) just so that the bball team can play in a louder setting. All while a brand new, state of the art, basketball designed arena is constructed for our partial use.
As much fun as this on campus arena sounds, this is the hard truth. Spending $100 million (probably low end) for an arguably better game day experience and more home court advantage when a brand new $524M arena was just built would be silly. For fan experience - the amenities of the new arena should be first class, better than a budget-conscious on campus arena would provide. For home court advantage - since the Pavilion is being renovated, Villanova played at the Wells Fargo Center all year and lost only one home game. Good basketball teams and home court advantages have a strong positive correlation.
-
If the Warriors go to the Al, many of us who are occasional attendees but huge fans would never see them.
Th Big East probably also has minimum arena requirements.
I know of no faster way to become a mid-major than to play games in a 3,700 seat arena.
I agree the Al is too small, but I doubt the BE has minimum capacities. Carnesecca Arena and the Villanova Pavilion both hold around 6,000.
IMHO, the ideal for MU would be about 8-10k. The arrangement would have the big-ticket games (Nova, X, Rodents, etc) at the Chaluparena, and play the mid-majors on campus. That way, you'd have more capacity or near-capacity crowds.
That said, it isn't happening unless someone gives a ton of $$$$$ specifically earmarked for an arena. They'd probably also need to throw in a bag of Beef 'n Cheddars.
-
That said, it isn't happening unless someone gives a ton of $$$$$ specifically earmarked for an arena. They'd probably also need to throw in a bag of Beef 'n Cheddars.
If Marquette builds on onsite arena, they would never see another penny of donation money from me. I am not saying that alone would cause the BOD to start shaking in their boots, but I am sure many more generous donors would feel the same way.
The school has a laundry list of far more important financial needs. The kind of money it would take to build a new arena and maintain would pay for several sorely needed academic buildings, or endow enough scholarships to put a couple of hundred poor kids through Marquette every year for free.
Spending that kind of money because of the completely unproven theory that it might allow us to win an additional game or two per season? Idiotic.
-
If Marquette builds on onsite arena, they would never see another penny of donation money from me. I am not saying that alone would cause the BOD to start shaking in their boots, but I am sure many more generous donors would feel the same way.
The school has a laundry list of far more important financial needs. The kind of money it would take to build a new arena and maintain would pay for several sorely needed academic buildings, or scholarships that would put a couple of hundred poor kids through Marquette every year for free.
Spending that kind of money because of the completely unproven theory that it might allow us to win an additional game or two per season? Idiotic.
What if it was from a combo of donors that stated specifically it must be used on basketball?
-
Chick
I respect your opinion and what you do with your donation money, but I think you may wrong on what other donors would feel. I might not run in the same circle as you, but I know many folks that would support on campus facility. As a matter of fact, of the people I have talked to about this I would say overwhelming majority like the idea.
-
Arby's Arena does have a nice ring to it, though.
-
I think it'd be nice to play some of the small mid-week buy games at the AL that are lightly attended at the BC and now the new arena, but understand the logistics issues with having more STH than seats in the Al.
-
What if it was from a combo of donors that stated specifically it must be used on basketball?
chick's point is that many of those donors could be convinced to support other projects if communication is handled correctly.
-
chick's point is that many of those donors could be convinced to support other projects if communication is handled correctly.
What if it was from a combo of donors that stated specifically it must be used on basketball?
Exactly.
-
Chick
I respect your opinion and what you do with your donation money, but I think you may wrong on what other donors would feel. I might not run in the same circle as you, but I know many folks that would support on campus facility. As a matter of fact, of the people I have talked to about this I would say overwhelming majority like the idea.
If that's the case, why have all of the recent 7 and 8 figure donations gone to non-athletic pursuits? Has anyone donated that kind of money to the athletic department since the Al has been built?
-
If that's the case, why have all of the recent 7 and 8 figure donations gone to non-athletic pursuits? Has anyone donated that kind of money to the athletic department since the Al has been built?
No, but I wouldn't place all the blame for that on the willingness of donors.
-
If Marquette builds on onsite arena, they would never see another penny of donation money from me. I am not saying that alone would cause the BOD to start shaking in their boots, but I am sure many more generous donors would feel the same way.
The school has a laundry list of far more important financial needs. The kind of money it would take to build a new arena and maintain would pay for several sorely needed academic buildings, or endow enough scholarships to put a couple of hundred poor kids through Marquette every year for free.
Spending that kind of money because of the completely unproven theory that it might allow us to win an additional game or two per season? Idiotic.
See Wintrust which is being watched. Public, private, university, multiple use facility. This wouldn't all be on MU but MU already owns the land. Just saying.
Admirals, Wave, conventions, concerts, MU Lax and soccer, hockey? Joyce Center North.
-
Chick
What has been proposed in 7-8 figure plans for athletic department that were turned down? In all due respect, I believe they could fund in on campus facility VERY, VERY quickly if they chose to build one.
As I noted in last post, you likely are much more connected with the blue blood donors than I am, so maybe I am all wet.
-
I just don't get it. We have one of the greatest basketball facilities in the world about to open blocks from campus, and people are dreaming of playing in some bare-bones facility that would cost 1/10th of the new arena. We're on the verge of finally getting seats with cup holders, and people want to go back to bleachers.
-
Dr. Blackheart
Hockey? The Admirals playing there? I like the sound of that. Would be nice to see MU have a hockey program. all of my kids played ice hockey and it would be nice addition to the athletic department. I think it might just happen.
-
Hockey??? We just got done playing in an arena where the biggest complaint was that the end zones were so far away from the court because it was built for hockey. State taxpayers are chipping in $250 Million so we can have an arena built for basketball, not hockey. Building a new arena for hockey is the worst possible thing we could do.
-
Hockey??? We just got done playing in an arena where the biggest complaint was that the end zones were so far away from the court because it was built for hockey. State taxpayers are chipping in $250 Million so we can have an arena built for basketball, not hockey. Building a new arena for hockey is the worst possible thing we could do.
Kohl Center has hockey and it is 100 times better than the BC for basketball. Remember the new arena can have a full sized sheet of ice.
-
Dr. Blackheart
Hockey? The Admirals playing there? I like the sound of that. Would be nice to see MU have a hockey program. all of my kids played ice hockey and it would be nice addition to the athletic department. I think it might just happen.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=55059.0
-
Kohl Center has hockey and it is 100 times better than the BC for basketball. Remember the new arena can have a full sized sheet of ice.
I'm curious to see the final layout. I'm wondering if they set it up similar to the Barclays Center or Bankers Life with no lower level behind one of the goals.
-
I agree the Al is too small, but I doubt the BE has minimum capacities. Carnesecca Arena and the Villanova Pavilion both hold around 6,000.
IMHO, the ideal for MU would be about 8-10k. The arrangement would have the big-ticket games (Nova, X, Rodents, etc) at the Chaluparena, and play the mid-majors on campus. That way, you'd have more capacity or near-capacity crowds.
That said, it isn't happening unless someone gives a ton of $$$$$ specifically earmarked for an arena. They'd probably also need to throw in a bag of Beef 'n Cheddars.
The big-ticket games are exactly the games where we would need a raucous crowd the most! At the same time, we don't need a raucous crowd to beat Grambling.
-
Dr.
Thanks. I remember that thread!!
-
If Marquette builds on onsite arena, they would never see another penny of donation money from me. I am not saying that alone would cause the BOD to start shaking in their boots, but I am sure many more generous donors would feel the same way.
The school has a laundry list of far more important financial needs. The kind of money it would take to build a new arena and maintain would pay for several sorely needed academic buildings, or endow enough scholarships to put a couple of hundred poor kids through Marquette every year for free.
Spending that kind of money because of the completely unproven theory that it might allow us to win an additional game or two per season? Idiotic.
I would only hope that MU would pursue this path if it was deemed financially beneficial to build on-site based on rising costs from the Bucks.
I feel like that’s the main driver. It would be kind of cool, but I don’t think anyone is suggesting to do it unless it makes financial sense.
-
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=55059.0
If the MECCA goes away I could see it making more sense, but I think that's going to be longer than 7 years. They've put a lot of money into arena and theater lately. I don't think the community is going to be willing to tear those down anytime soon. I also don't see any taxes going to help build this new mini-arena after the fight they just had for the Bucks arena.
-
cheebs
I really am interested in why Warriorchick has such a strong opinion on this topic. To say she would never donate a penny, if the University chose to do something she does not approve of, sounds extremely harsh to me. I hope she shares in details what she feels would be a better investment.
-
$100 million could pay a lot of rent at new Bucks arena.
For example, let's use the numbers mentioned in one of these threads. Old rent $29,000 per game. New rent goes up $25,000 per game so now it would be $54,000 per game.
Assuming 16 games, plus the exhibition makes 17 per year.
$54,000 per game x 17 games per year x 7 years = $6.426 million.
Let's say rent doubles on the next 7 year lease. That's about $13 million.
So over the course of 14 years, MU has spent a shade under $20 million on rent.
Still not even close to approaching the cost of a stadium, much less the total cost including operations.
-
$100 million could pay a lot of rent at new Bucks arena.
For example, let's use the numbers mentioned in one of these threads. Old rent $29,000 per game. New rent goes up $25,000 per game so now it would be $54,000 per game.
Assuming 16 games, plus the exhibition makes 17 per year.
$54,000 per game x 17 games per year x 7 years = $6.426 million.
Let's say rent doubles on the next 7 year lease. That's about $13 million.
So over the course of 14 years, MU has spent a shade under $20 million on rent.
Still not even close to approaching the cost of a stadium, much less the total cost including operations.
Actually, that average of less than $1.5 million per year is probably not even close to the operating costs alone.
-
People seem to be forgetting that the arena would make money for the university. If it didn't, it wouldn't be considered.
If the Mecca were to close, a lot of events would be looking to pay us rent...and we would get to keep concession sales.
If the economics work, it will happen. In not nearly smart enough to know how all the economics work so I'll leave that up to the experts
-
Let's not forget the 120m in deferred maintenance that was claimed needed for the BC when they were planning the new arena. If half of that is true we need to add a bunch to the claimed BC operating expenses.
-
I just don't get it. We have one of the greatest basketball facilities in the world about to open blocks from campus, and people are dreaming of playing in some bare-bones facility that would cost 1/10th of the new arena. We're on the verge of finally getting seats with cup holders, and people want to go back to bleachers.
The real mind-bender here is that Benny has stated on occasions too numerous to be accounted that the Thunderdome gears are already in motion, but evidently patience and anxiety control are not the strong suits of Scoopers. The FoxHole simply bridges the gap from A (BC) to Thunderdome.
-
TAMU
Spot on.
-
An on campus arena would be a tremendous addition for the university. Pair that with a hotel, community involvement, and the idea makes senses on so many levels. Remember that in the business of running a successful school, you must stay ahead of the curve. There are reasons why MU only signed a 7 year lease at the new Bucks facility.
As for Ma's pseudo threat, the university changed an extremely popular and history rich nickname without concern for its effect on donations. Thankfully, Dr. Lovell has a vision that many alums lack.
-
An on campus arena would be a tremendous addition for the university. Pair that with a hotel, community involvement, and the idea makes senses on so many levels. Remember that in the business of running a successful school, you must stay ahead of the curve. There are reasons why MU only signed a 7 year lease at the new Bucks facility.
As for Ma's pseudo threat, the university changed an extremely popular and history rich nickname without concern for its effect on donations. Thankfully, Dr. Lovell has a vision that many alums lack.
You back on the gluten again Doc? Almost don't recognize ya
-
Appropriate to use real English when it's a serious topic, I'm pissed off, or just feel like it, hey?
-
4ever
Great post. IMO, the donor statement is not an issue. There is plenty of money behind the idea.
-
$100 million could pay a lot of rent at new Bucks arena.
For example, let's use the numbers mentioned in one of these threads. Old rent $29,000 per game. New rent goes up $25,000 per game so now it would be $54,000 per game.
Assuming 16 games, plus the exhibition makes 17 per year.
$54,000 per game x 17 games per year x 7 years = $6.426 million.
Let's say rent doubles on the next 7 year lease. That's about $13 million.
So over the course of 14 years, MU has spent a shade under $20 million on rent.
Still not even close to approaching the cost of a stadium, much less the total cost including operations.
This and looking at estimates of 10k seat arenas operating expenses per year including management staff, utilities and maintenance about 3 million a year. To tie up 100 million of capital, even donations, and land for this does not make sense especially when MU already has a detailed expansion plan. If an arena was feasible or made any sense I'm 💯 it would have been included.
-
This and looking at estimates of 10k seat arenas operating expenses per year including management staff, utilities and maintenance about 3 million a year. To tie up 100 million of capital, even donations, and land for this does not make sense especially when MU already has a detailed expansion plan. If an arena was feasible or made any sense I'm 💯 it would have been included.
Its not going to happen unless someone like Senator Kohl brings the big bucks. And even that does not allow for the maintenance costs you allude to. Just what it is.
-
4ever
Great post. IMO, the donor statement is not an issue. There is plenty of money behind the idea.
I will believe it when I see it.
-
On one hand people want the program to be successful and draw bigger crowds to games, stating "the crowds are weak" the "student section is weak" and the other hand there are so many threads clamoring for more games at a space that seats 3700...classic.
-
On one hand people want the program to be successful and draw bigger crowds to games, stating "the crowds are weak" the "student section is weak" and the other hand there are so many threads clamoring for more games at a space that seats 3700...classic.
To address this thread and others like this, I am just saying to do some games in a smaller venue on games that have no chance of getting the stadium full. Am empty stadium doesn't generate that much revenue or give much home court advantage. That's all
-
On one hand people want the program to be successful and draw bigger crowds to games, stating "the crowds are weak" the "student section is weak" and the other hand there are so many threads clamoring for more games at a space that seats 3700...classic.
If we are going small why stop at 3700. One person per team per game I say.
-
To address this thread and others like this, I am just saying to do some games in a smaller venue on games that have no chance of getting the stadium full. Am empty stadium doesn't generate that much revenue or give much home court advantage. That's all
Those games that don't fill the house are the games where a home court advantage is rarely required, though.
-
To address this thread and others like this, I am just saying to do some games in a smaller venue on games that have no chance of getting the stadium full. Am empty stadium doesn't generate that much revenue or give much home court advantage. That's all
STHs are 10k you need to have seats available for them. Or you take those games out of the package and then lose revenue
-
Those games that don't fill the house are the games where a home court advantage is rarely required, though.
Could have helped against Butler. Just saying that getting 3 week night games in schedule shouldn't lose a earth shattering amount of money, help the odds of a win, and be a cool experience for the students.
Honestly, the stadium can be too quiet to be a real impact to the game. I wouldn't mind giving the students both ends of the court to help the cause.
-
MU82 Arena ... I like the sound of that.
I am having my peeps working on fund-raising right now. I think we can ...
Wait ... what's that?
We have it! It's gonna happen!!!
-
If they build an on-campus arena I am going to need to start sneaking alcohol into games again. I’m out of practice!
-
If they build an on-campus arena I am going to need to start sneaking alcohol into games again. I’m out of practice!
This isn't an issue.
-
4ever
Great post. IMO, the donor statement is not an issue. There is plenty of money behind the idea.
I hope so. Understand Warriorchick's sentiment and she has a point, but putting an on campus arena that can be used for graduation, games, concerts, other events with top billing, incredible home court advantage, pays huge dividends. There is no greater commercial we have nationally then Marquette basketball. Notre Dame would be a little tiny school in hicksville Indiana if it wasn't for football. Durham, NC kind of sucks, but there is this amazing school with off the charts basketball played there.
There are always going to be greater priorities, but sometimes money spent on something that delivers a national brand identification can lead to great revenues in the forms of donations, endowment, student applications and such as a result, even if in the short term it may not be as high a priority vs a specific academic building. In other words, building a life sciences building may be a short term need. Building an arena that leads to huge name recognition (think Gonzaga, Villanova, Xavier) and that Life Sciences building comes a few years later along with 5 other buildings bought and paid for with the capital generated from alumni giving. Time to think big!!!
-
Thankfully, Dr. Lovell has a vision that many alums lack.
And no ability to raise enough funds for his vision.
-
And no ability to raise enough funds for his vision.
I think we measure up fairly well with schools in our mission and our size
Marquette endowment $550.1M
Creighton $448.5M
Depaul $492.3M
Xavier $169.4M
Georgetown $1.484B
Villanova $645M
St. John's $647.9M
Seton Hall $242.7M
Providence $213M
Butler $174M
Gonzaga $181.4M
Temple $513.6M
Loyola Marymount $454M
Loyola Chicago $750M
-
Where would it realistically go? In case you all are forgetting we're an urban campus and it's not easy to just buy the houses that upper class men live in when we're surrounded by rough neighborhoods not friendly to college students.
-
Warriorchick
Again, why are you so against the idea? While I think an on campus facility is a solid idea and worth discussion, I do not have strong feelings one way or another at this point. In addition, I did not say that this is definitely going to happen, just that money would not be an issue if it does. Am I incorrect in that?
-
If Marquette builds on onsite arena, they would never see another penny of donation money from me. I am not saying that alone would cause the BOD to start shaking in their boots, but I am sure many more generous donors would feel the same way.
The school has a laundry list of far more important financial needs. The kind of money it would take to build a new arena and maintain would pay for several sorely needed academic buildings, or endow enough scholarships to put a couple of hundred poor kids through Marquette every year for free.
Spending that kind of money because of the completely unproven theory that it might allow us to win an additional game or two per season? Idiotic.
Obviously a very sensible woman. Must have gone to a co-ed Catholic High School in Nashville!
I'm in Chick's corner. As much as I love Warrior basketball, there is no way I would give a cent to a new arena. It would be a deal-breaker for me in giving to the university, period. We have a wonderful option six blocks off campus that will be the standard by which other arenas are measured. Spending money on an on-campus arena at a time when we need to build support for scholarships, endowed professorships and other educational needs is absolute lunacy.
I'll never forget when they were building the AMU, I had a nice young student call me and ask me to redirect my contribution to the union. I asked the student how she was going to college and she responded on "scholarship." I asked her where that money was coming from and what she might be doing to someone if I and other alumni redirected our contributions to building the AMU. To say the least, she was shocked.
I feel the same way about any arena idea. It is money needed to be spent elsewhere!
We will be number one again in basketball. We have to be number one in being the best Marquette we can be. The latter does not include a new arena!
-
dgies
My only issue with chick and your comments is, people can donate money anywhere they want and really no ones business. You truthfully would not give money to MU if a group funded an arena? You and chick have far stronger opinions on the topic than I do.
-
Warriorchick
Again, why are you so against the idea? While I think an on campus facility is a solid idea and worth discussion, I do not have strong feelings one way or another at this point. In addition, I did not say that this is definitely going to happen, just that money would not be an issue if it does. Am I incorrect in that?
You keep saying that, but haven't presented any evidence to back it up.
Why am I against the idea? Let me make it simple.
Complete. Waste. Of. Money.
Take a look at the the long term plan for campus. There are at least a half dozen new buildings proposed, none of which are arenas. If there was enough serious interest interest among donors to build an arena, and it was anywhere close to economically feasible, there would at least be rumors floating around in Zilber. To my knowledge, there are none.
Believe me when I tell you that as far as the university is concerned, the on-campus arena idea goes into the same pile as bringing back varsity football.
-
Warriorchick
I am not sure what I keep saying, other than asking why you think it is a complete waste of money. I stated you definitely are far more in the know than I am, but was interested in your opinion, not what you believe the university's position is at the moment. What the university ultimately does on any project is their decision. I simply was curious on why you think it is a stupid idea.
-
Warriorchick
I am not sure what I keep saying, other than asking why you think it is a complete waste of money. I stated you definitely are far more in the know than I am, but was interested in your opinion, not what you believe the university's position is at the moment. What the university ultimately does on any project is their decision. I simply was curious on why you think it is a stupid idea.
Goose, because there's a world class facility walking distance away. It is a unique situation that has blessed Marquette since 1954.
-
Warriorchick
I am not sure what I keep saying, other than asking why you think it is a complete waste of money. I stated you definitely are far more in the know than I am, but was interested in your opinion, not what you believe the university's position is at the moment. What the university ultimately does on any project is their decision. I simply was curious on why you think it is a stupid idea.
Because the university does not need it. I don't know how many ways I can say that.
-
chick and glow,
Respect your opinions and stance. As I said several times, I do not have strong opinion, one way or another. I try to open to ideas and see what pans out.
-
chick and glow,
Respect your opinions and stance. As I said several times, I do not have strong opinion, one way or another. I try to open to ideas and see what pans out.
All good goose.
-
You keep saying that, but haven't presented any evidence to back it up.
Why am I against the idea? Let me make it simple.
Complete. Waste. Of. Money.
Take a look at the the long term plan for campus. There are at least a half dozen new buildings proposed, none of which are arenas. If there was enough serious interest interest among donors to build an arena, and it was anywhere close to economically feasible, there would at least be rumors floating around in Zilber. To my knowledge, there are none.
Ya might wanna check again wit da write peeps in Zilber, hey?
Believe me when I tell you that as far as the university is concerned, the on-campus arena idea goes into the same pile as bringing back varsity football.
-
Well Bill Scholl claims that Marquette basketball as a 7:1 ROI.
I for one and very excited for the $700 Million that Marquette will make after spending $100 million on a new stadium ;D
-
Well Bill Scholl claims that Marquette basketball as a 7:1 ROI.
I for one and very excited for the $700 Million that Marquette will make after spending $100 million on a new stadium ;D
Better yet, let's spend $1 Billion on the stadium! Free tuition for everyone!
-
Complete. Waste. Of. Money.
Let me pose a hypothetical. A well heeled donor offers $100M to build an arena in her name. Enough to cover the complete project. This donor may donate further to the university, but only on the condition that her arena is built.
Should the university say no?
-
Goose, because there's a world class facility walking distance away. It is a unique situation that has blessed Marquette since 1954.
That costs money to use, has MU down the pecking order in terms of usage and is too big. By no means am I saying it's not a great place to play, but in a hypothetical world where the university doesn't have to pay for it because Mrs. Donor covers the complete nut, would you be against something the university owns and could be a centerpiece to other options for the university (hotel, retail, etc)?
It seems no one here is suggesting playing where the Bucks play is a bad thing, but if a better thing was available are some of you still against it IF the money was not coming from the university?
-
Should the university say no?
Of course not. I am with Ma & Pa Scoop though...there are many projects I personally would try to convince the donor to support based on their merits.
If you cant convince them then you do the singular thing they feel is important (as long as the University agrees that it furthers their mission).
-
Let me pose a hypothetical. A well heeled donor offers $100M to build an arena in her name. Enough to cover the complete project. This donor may donate further to the university, but only on the condition that her arena is built.
Should the university say no?
That's an interesting hypothetical. I'm against the arena because I don't think we need it, and whatever we build wouldn't be nearly as nice as the Bucks arena. If someone wants to donate $100M for this, it still doesn't change the fact that it still won't be as nice as the Bucks arena.
-
Where would it realistically go? In case you all are forgetting we're an urban campus and it's not easy to just buy the houses that upper class men live in when we're surrounded by rough neighborhoods not friendly to college students.
I assume they'd put in on their new plot of land next to the interchange with the Ramada, where the indoor fieldhouse was supposed to go.
-
Let me pose a hypothetical. A well heeled donor offers $100M to build an arena in her name. Enough to cover the complete project. This donor may donate further to the university, but only on the condition that her arena is built.
Should the university say no?
MU would say yes, and probably have a press conference the next week.
-
I assume they'd put in on their new plot of land next to the interchange with the Ramada, where the indoor fieldhouse was supposed to go.
Do I recall hearing something about them getting rid of the Rec Center? Is there something already slated for that space? Would that be a large enough footprint? It's certainly bigger than the Al. And perhaps they could encroach across 17th Street.
For the record, I'm generally not in favor or the on-campus arena, but I thought that the "where would it go" question was interesting.
-
Of course not. I am with Ma & Pa Scoop though...there are many projects I personally would try to convince the donor to support based on their merits.
If you cant convince them then you do the singular thing they feel is important (as long as the University agrees that it furthers their mission).
Understand the opinion and don't disagree with Chick and others to a degree. There are higher priorities, but do think it would help the university. That's the reason for my hypothetical, are folks against it no matter what, or are they against it only if it means dollars coming out of university coffers.
Where to put it? I don't think that's a huge issue. Buildings are meant to be torn down. University Arizona has a football stadium with a dorm attached to it. There's a way of doing this to bring in housing and building in a nice footprint. 10,001 capacity sold out for every game.
-
Do I recall hearing something about them getting rid of the Rec Center? Is there something already slated for that space? Would that be a large enough footprint? It's certainly bigger than the Al. And perhaps they could encroach across 17th Street.
For the record, I'm generally not in favor or the on-campus arena, but I thought that the "where would it go" question was interesting.
The factual answers to your questions are yes and yes and who knows because the space is spoken for. :)
-
Just sell stocks and add on to the AL.
-
The factual answers to your questions are yes and yes and who knows because the space is spoken for. :)
Actually, just looked at the Master Plan slide show. I do recall hearing about the "innovation alley" before. Much, much more important than an on-campus arena.
-
You keep saying that, but haven't presented any evidence to back it up.
Why am I against the idea? Let me make it simple.
Complete. Waste. Of. Money.
Take a look at the the long term plan for campus. There are at least a half dozen new buildings proposed, none of which are arenas. If there was enough serious interest interest among donors to build an arena, and it was anywhere close to economically feasible, there would at least be rumors floating around in Zilber. To my knowledge, there are none.
Believe me when I tell you that as far as the university is concerned, the on-campus arena idea goes into the same pile as bringing back varsity football.
If no varsity football, maybe the Marquette University Arena Football team can play in the Benny B Thunderdome on Rickey's On State Field?
-
The factual answers to your questions are yes and yes and who knows because the space is spoken for. :)
Knock down McCormick, the AMU. Build arena and union combination. ;)
Honestly, building footprint and space not really an issue with enough money and creativity. I give all of this a 1% chance of happening in the next 10 years. Beyond that the % goes up depending on what happens in college sports landscape.
-
Do I recall hearing something about them getting rid of the Rec Center? Is there something already slated for that space? Would that be a large enough footprint? It's certainly bigger than the Al. And perhaps they could encroach across 17th Street.
For the record, I'm generally not in favor or the on-campus arena, but I thought that the "where would it go" question was interesting.
Based off information I was told from an University Employee, albeit this info is about 18 months so could very well be out of date, the long term plan was to put a research facility in that location. They were still in fundraising phase and were really pushing how successful Engineering Hall has been since it opened. There was also a plan to have a skywalk connecting to the old gym, which would be converted to have more of a convention center feel, although that was also probably just thrown in in an attempt to try to get more money. Take it for what its worth, plans could have very well changed since then.
-
Marquette has an endowment just over $500 million. Marquette already has several capital intensive building projects in the hopper. A brand new arena is being built a 10 minute walk away. With all of the other needs on campus, the need for a new arena is way down the list. If/when MU has an endowment of $1.5 billion and the administrators of the new arena start treating MU even more poorly, revisit it. Right now, a 10k seat on-campus arena is not a practical option.
-
Understand the opinion and don't disagree with Chick and others to a degree. There are higher priorities, but do think it would help the university. That's the reason for my hypothetical, are folks against it no matter what, or are they against it only if it means dollars coming out of university coffers.
I am 'against it' because of priorities and MU can fill the Chalup-arena if they start winning some home games again. It was the same with the BC. We don't need to cut attendance to have a good atmosphere - that was proven in the late Crean and Buzz era. Sell-out's no matta if you build your season tix base above 10K.
Now if we believe we won't be back at that level or our new conference isn't the draw of the Big East of that vintage. Downsize away.
-
That costs money to use, has MU down the pecking order in terms of usage and is too big. By no means am I saying it's not a great place to play, but in a hypothetical world where the university doesn't have to pay for it because Mrs. Donor covers the complete nut, would you be against something the university owns and could be a centerpiece to other options for the university (hotel, retail, etc)?
It seems no one here is suggesting playing where the Bucks play is a bad thing, but if a better thing was available are some of you still against it IF the money was not coming from the university?
Is it really? My senior year was '09, and we were routinely filling the BC to the gills in conference play.
-
Do I recall hearing something about them getting rid of the Rec Center? Is there something already slated for that space? Would that be a large enough footprint? It's certainly bigger than the Al. And perhaps they could encroach across 17th Street.
Sticking it right by the interchange would give MU the best visibility/advertising spot in the entire state. Plus, as Dr. B pointed out, you could potentially have the entertainment corridor from the MU arena to the convention center to the Bucks arena. I don't think they should do it, but if they do, that spot makes the most sense.
-
Where would it realistically go? In case you all are forgetting we're an urban campus and it's not easy to just buy the houses that upper class men live in when we're surrounded by rough neighborhoods not friendly to college students.
Gentrification!
-
There are other ways to fund and build an arena than via MU's endowment...
-
Based off information I was told from an University Employee, albeit this info is about 18 months so could very well be out of date, the long term plan was to put a research facility in that location. They were still in fundraising phase and were really pushing how successful Engineering Hall has been since it opened. There was also a plan to have a skywalk connecting to the old gym, which would be converted to have more of a convention center feel, although that was also probably just thrown in in an attempt to try to get more money. Take it for what its worth, plans could have very well changed since then.
:)
Here's the fun one that I really like. The long plan is to finally tear down the ROTC wings on the Old Gym and to repurpose that historic space into a historic 'ballroom' type facility. The origins of this idea come from the remodeled Law reading room in Sensenbrenner which is now a truly lovely space that accommodates maybe 75 tops. MU reportedly has need for additional large common space for functions and the goal is to go historic and ornate. The AMU ballroom is nothing better than 'fine'. It would alleviate the need to use the Wisconsin Club as much as they currently do. So one could expect everything from Alumni Awards weekend to the basketball postseason luncheon to be held there. Way down the road (like 10+ years) however.
-
Those who are so strongly against an on campus facility don't fully understand the positive financials with both the on campus facility and entertainment center and also the negative implications, both financial and otherwise, of the new Bucks arena, as it relates to MU. Slick and the gang brought cases of K-Y with them from NY.
-
Let me pose a hypothetical. A well heeled donor offers $100M to build an arena in her name. Enough to cover the complete project. This donor may donate further to the university, but only on the condition that her arena is built.
Should the university say no?
That's all well and good, but how much is maintenance?
Here is the key question: would the revenue from operations be greater than maintenance costs AND the opportunity cost of whatever real estate that this new arena replaces?
-
Those who are so strongly against an on campus facility don't fully understand the positive financials with both the on campus facility and entertainment center and also the negative implications, both financial and otherwise, of the new Bucks arena, as it relates to MU. Slick and the gang brought cases of K-Y with them from NY.
This is the one thing that could swing me in favor of an arena. If the Bucks ownership make it so financially unfavorable that playing in the Bucks arena just doesn't make sense anymore, then the MU arena would be the next best alternative. But it would still be my second choice.
-
7 year lease says it all, aina?
-
Given my current knowledge, I'm opposed to an on-campus arena. I doubt that it gets the use that people claim it will.
Other than graduation and basketball games, who is going to use Wild Arena when they could use the state-of-the-art Silk Exotic Center eight blocks away?
It sounds to me like MU had a golden goose with Kohl at the helm of the Bucks. And now people are stomping their feet because Slick and the Hedge Fund Crew aren't as generous.
I find this topic interesting. And whatever the current discussions going on in Zilber Hall, I will continue to donate my $50 per year.
-
MU would say yes, and probably have a press conference the next week.
I'm not so sure about that. Though I am guessing we have smarter people in charge now than we did 5 or so years ago.
-
Litehouse
IMO, the new owners of the Buck's is the reason why this is on the table. I'm not so sure MU got a great deal with the gang running the BC or not, but they have their hands full with the Buck's owners. It always makes sense to evaluate all options and put yourself in the drivers seat, when possible.
I cannot envision any bargaining chip that MU can bring to the new arena. 18 nights of ball will not sway the Buck's to play nice with MU. In addition, on campus arena gives MU first call on all dates and starting times, which would be nice.
-
Other than graduation and basketball games, who is going to use Wild Arena when they could use the state-of-the-art Silk Exotic Center eight blocks away?
The same people that use the MECCA (besides UWM) and High Life Theater right now. If those get torn down for Convention Center expansion to the north, then it starts to make a little more sense.
-
The same people that use the MECCA (besides UWM) and High Life Theater right now. If those get torn down for Convention Center expansion to the north, then it starts to make a little more sense.
Of course, and the same would be true for a 3rd party investor who might possibly look to MU for land. Interestingly, the old auditorium (whatever they call it these days) struggled for years following its modernization. I really think the arena is here for the long haul. It's actually pretty well positioned relative to the Chaluparena.
-
Exactly. The only way MU has any bargaining power with the NYC Bucks is if, or when, MU has an alternative location. When does UWM's deal with the Arena expire?
Litehouse
IMO, the new owners of the Buck's is the reason why this is on the table. I'm not so sure MU got a great deal with the gang running the BC or not, but they have their hands full with the Buck's owners. It always makes sense to evaluate all options and put yourself in the drivers seat, when possible.
I cannot envision any bargaining chip that MU can bring to the new arena. 18 nights of ball will not sway the Buck's to play nice with MU. In addition, on campus arena gives MU first call on all dates and starting times, which would be nice.
-
Given my current knowledge, I'm opposed to an on-campus arena. I doubt that it gets the use that people claim it will.
Other than graduation and basketball games, who is going to use Wild Arena when they could use the state-of-the-art Silk Exotic Center eight blocks away?
It sounds to me like MU had a golden goose with Kohl at the helm of the Bucks. And now people are stomping their feet because Slick and the Hedge Fund Crew aren't as generous.
I find this topic interesting. And whatever the current discussions going on in Zilber Hall, I will continue to donate my $50 per year.
MU had a great deal because the Petit's gave the BC to Milwaukee. The BC Board was set up to be community minded. Kohl and the State are giving substantial money to the new arena, but I don't know where the control of the stadium resides, although I gather that the guiding principal is not as favorable to MU as the BC Board was.
I think this is all an interesting discussion, but right now it is all pure fantasy. In 7-10 years the landscape may change dramatically, but I think we are far more likely to have a public replacement of the Panther Arena as part of an overhaul of the convention center than we are to think that MU would invest so heavily in such a limited use facility that, as of right now, has a crowded field of competitive venues.
-
Going back to the Arena would be a terrible mistake. Stay at the new place or build your own.
-
Exactly. The only way MU has any bargaining power with the NYC Bucks is if, or when, MU has an alternative location. When does UWM's deal with the Arena expire?
2024 with an option for 5 more.
-
And no ability to raise enough funds for his vision.
Colleges and universities always plan beyond their immediate ability to secure funding. It's how you prioritize for your future. That being said, money and circumstances make those priorities change if they have to.
And they are in the process of hiring a new VP for Advancement. I wouldn't doubt that this person's primary responsibility is to assess the feasibility of a major fundraising campaign in the near future.
-
Colleges and universities always plan beyond their immediate ability to secure funding. It's how you prioritize for your future. That being said, money and circumstances make those priorities change if they have to.
And they are in the process of hiring a new VP for Advancement. I wouldn't doubt that this person's primary responsibility is to assess the feasibility of a major fundraising campaign in the near future.
Done. I had a nice chat a few weeks back.
-
Done. I had a nice chat a few weeks back.
OK good. I didn't know where that stood. Turns out they named her to the position months ago!
https://urbanmilwaukee.com/pressrelease/marquette-names-new-vice-president-for-university-advancement/
-
Pro-Thunderdome Counterarguments:
"Waste of Money/Should be Spent Elsewhere" Sentiment (i.e. Ma's Opposition)
This one is simple... the capital is either there, or it's not.
In fundraising there are typically three pools of money you can go after: 1) "earmarked," i.e. the amount that people set aside for a given period that they will donate regardless, 2) "stretch," i.e. the amount in excess of earmarked that people are willing to give for special projects (capital campaigns) or needs (natural disasters), and 3) "shadow," i.e. an indefinite amount that people are willing to donate to a specific project (or very narrow band of potential projects).
Shadow money is typically not even ascertainable. For example, consider a hypothetical where an MU benefactor named Larcus Memonis is willing to donate $20M to an on-campus arena effort... the second he announces that, if MU has no plans or intent to build an arena, MU Advancement is going to be all over him trying to convince him to spend it on something else. So Larcus keeps his mouth shut, but as soon as MU announces the plans and shows the Thunderdome renderings, Larcus - and all of his other high$ benefactor brethren - won't be able to write their checks fast enough.
It's a bit of a cat and mouse game, because MU can't plan for an arena without knowing if there's enough backing, and the backers are going to play close to the vest until plans are announced.
"There's No Room"
There's always room. Have you seen Marquette's campus lately? It isn't exactly Lincoln Park now, is it? If MU can come up with the coin to build the Thunderdome's physical structure, MU is going to find the coin for the land. Google Earth is your friend... be creative.
"The FoxHole/Chaluparena is Right Down the Street"
Yes, but for how long? No seriously, how long?
Part of being a world class organization means being in control of your own destiny. The landscape has changed... the confluence of factors that has made MU comfortable simply being a tenant at the BC is gone. History. Sayonara. No longer is MU dealing with a three-way partnership between a philanthropic, locally-focused NBA owner, stadium district and City... you want rights at the FoxHole, meet the gatekeepers: Lasry and Edens. If anyone needs an example of how that new relationship between the Bucks and MU is going to work out, look no further than their joint-sponsored sports medicine/athletics research center partnership. Didn't work out as well as we thought, did it.
Point being, MU has no right, no entitlement to the new arena. Unlike before, the Bucks are now in complete control of any sub-tenancy at the FoxHole... even in the best case scenario where the Bucks prosper and become deeply entrenched into Milwaukee such that Edens and Lasry decide to keep them here, they could find themselves in a situation where they just tell MU to go pound sand. And the worst case is the Bucks skip town (much more likely), in which case....
"MU Can Negotiate a Better Deal (if the Bucks skip town)"
Does MU really want to be the primary tenant at an NBA facility 20 years from now? Should they be? Can they afford to be?
How many suppliers has Wal-Mart put out of business because they drove their prices so low that their suppliers' models became unsustainable? Likewise, if a tenant takes advantage of a landlord such that the landlord is losing money, the landlord isn't going to be the landlord very long, let alone put money into basic repairs and maintenance. This is what happened between the Bucks and BC for many years... the Bucks negotiated their rent so low that the WCD couldn't afford to keep up with basic maintenance until the point where walls literally started cracking and critical equipment was failing. So as a sub-tenant MU could leverage a Bucks departure with the stadium district into better lease terms at the FoxHole, which will turn the building a financial (and perhaps structural) time-bomb, or MU could pay more money to keep the FoxHole sustainable.
If the Bucks leave town in 20 years, MU would be no better off than if Edens and Lasry moved the team to Seattle a couple years back and MU was today stuck with the BC as it falls apart.
"Where's the Money Going to Come From"
Capital comes from donations and bonds. Maybe some TIF money. Who knows? Multiple ways to skin the cat
Operating costs come from elsewhere. As others surmised... turn this into something more than an arena, and the arena part might just pay for itself. Simply figure out how to pay for everything else, and you're there.
Let me say that again.... the arena can pay for itself. Not saying it will pay for itself, but if it can, you build it.
"Will I Get Tickets? What About STH's?"
I'll be honest... this is the keystone to the whole project. Not the fundraising, not the Bucks' destiny, not the hotel.... how do you balance supply with demand without alienating any portion of your (relatively) small alumni base. If you have 10k+ STH's today, you're going to have even more with a brand new on-campus arena. And it's right around that 10k capacity mark that marginal costs start rising exponentially. The sweet spot seems to be right around 9k-10k or so... anything more than that and you're going to have to build a second deck, and that's how a $60M arena can rise to $100M very quickly.
So either you build small and deal with the angst, or you wait for demand to wane to the point where nobody will feel bad. Neither seems like a real good idea.
-
When looking to the future, think of Xavier's on campus facility and all of its uses as a model to emulate.
-
When looking to the future, think of Xavier's on campus facility and all of its uses as a model to emulate.
Yeah I mean that's what it would look like. And they are only 5 miles from the old Riverfront Coliseum.
Again, not saying this is even likely, but I don't think the idea should be written off entirely.
-
When looking to the future, think of Xavier's on campus facility and all of its uses as a model to emulate.
See, this just doesn't get me excited. It would be a disappointment going from the new Bucks Arena to something like the Cintas Center.
-
To summarize this thread for this who don't want to read the whole thing:
1) An anonymous female benefactor is donating $100 million to fund our new on campus arena.
2) The Arena will be named "Innovation Alley" and will be located where the rec center currently sits.
3) The new arena will also be home to our resurrected varsity football team.
-
I seem to remember that during the planning stages of the new Bucks arena there was some discussion of involvement with MU and possible pitching in for some of the price. Now, from my outsider perspective I don't think it was particularly serious or close to happening, but in the contrived "Mystery donor shows up with $100 million and will only spend it on men's college basketball" scenario, wouldn't it be smarter for MU to redirect it to getting a better deal out of an existing state of the art arena rather than building a new smaller one a few blocks away? If it was in the realm of possibility wouldn't it have occurred during the planning phase?
-
See, this just doesn't get me excited. It would be a disappointment going from the new Bucks Arena to something like the Cintas Center.
Same here, very excited about moving to the new arena both for the amenities and the effect it could have on recruiting, unless at some point the economics make on campus necessary I’m for staying put.
-
Lazar
I hope that the anonymous female benefactor uses that $100 million to give everyone free tuition. That would be a better long term use of the money.
-
Lazar
I hope that the anonymous female benefactor uses that $100 million to give everyone free tuition. That would be a better long term use of the money.
Rhetorical question: In a world where college football dictates much of the landscape, what is the cost of basketball-only relevance?
Another way to look at it... can MU survive on an academic identity by boosting its reputation in that regard?
-
Nearly peed myself readin' dis, hey?
-
See, this just doesn't get me excited. It would be a disappointment going from the new Bucks Arena to something like the Cintas Center.
Same.
-
I would prefer to play in the new arena as well, but the Cintas Center is damn nice. I wouldn't mind playing in that.
(https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10281685/mfcintascenter*1200xx1200-675-0-63.jpg)
(http://goxavier.com/images/2015/4/7/8660448.jpeg)
(http://www.poondesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/cintas06.jpg)
(https://alsd.com/Joseph's%20Club%20Cintas%20Center.jpg)
(https://www.xavier.edu/TogetherForOthers/images/XU-Cintas-Bridge-Seating.png)
-
New Marquette Arena photos
http://www.nba.com/bucks/gallery/milwaukee-tool-construction-site-update-31418
-
“As Marquette University enters its second century of basketball, today marks another historic milestone for our community and passionate alumni. They’ll now experience elite-level basketball in one of the most innovative arenas in the world,”
-Michael Lovell
The Bucks have been such great partners throughout this process, and we’re so proud to continue that relationship with today’s agreement. It’s such an exciting time for basketball fans in Milwaukee right now...When the doors open and the lights go on in this building, we believe it will be the best basketball arena in the world. Playing here will be a privilege for our student-athletes, and the experience will be such a thrill for our fans.”
-Bill Scholl
“The construction of the new arena has generated a tremendous amount of excitement within our program and we are thrilled by today’s announcement,”
-Steve Wheresyourhousekey
_____
Thrilled with the announcement of a 7-year deal. Bucks have been great partners.
-
To be sure, I don't think anyone is balking at the idea of playing in a brand new arena, much less MU suckling on that cow as long as we can.
Those of us who are pro-Thunderdome simply want to be prepared for when that teat runs dry.
-
I think we measure up fairly well with schools in our mission and our size
Marquette endowment $550.1M
Creighton $448.5M
Depaul $492.3M
Xavier $169.4M
Georgetown $1.484B
Villanova $645M
St. John's $647.9M
Seton Hall $242.7M
Providence $213M
Butler $174M
Gonzaga $181.4M
Temple $513.6M
Loyola Marymount $454M
Loyola Chicago $750M
Really makes you respect what Fr. Garanzini did at LUC. The place was on the brink of closing down when he showed up. It is a different campus now, and their coffers are (relatively) full.
-
To be sure, I don't think anyone is balking at the idea of playing in a brand new arena, much less MU suckling on that cow as long as we can.
Those of us who are pro-Thunderdome simply want to be prepared for when that teat runs dry.
Thanks Benny. Well said. The board better be doing their due diligence and starting early negotiations with the Bucks on a longer term extension or options to extend. If it is true that the Bucks wanted to offer us a 3 year lease and ended up at 7, that tells me a lot. We are not key to them. I wouldn't start a sub shop with a 7 year lease unless there were additional lease options.
We need to be in a situation where it isn't "please treat us well Bucks" or "we will play at the Al..." That could be a big looser scenario: (1) The bucks may just say bye, unless you pay X because you have no other option or (2) the Bucks may just say bye or (3) sure at X amount, but don't expect any Saturday games or Sunday afternoon games because we are keeping the dates open for other things and to allow concerts to set up early and take down late... etc...
I hope the Bucks are our long term solution and they probably are... but we better have a real plan B ready to roll, in case they are not...
-
I would prefer to play in the new arena as well, but the Cintas Center is damn nice. I wouldn't mind playing in that.
(https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10281685/mfcintascenter*1200xx1200-675-0-63.jpg)
(http://goxavier.com/images/2015/4/7/8660448.jpeg)
(http://www.poondesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/cintas06.jpg)
(https://alsd.com/Joseph's%20Club%20Cintas%20Center.jpg)
(https://www.xavier.edu/TogetherForOthers/images/XU-Cintas-Bridge-Seating.png)
It's owned by the Cintas Corporation outright and is just located on the Xavier Campus. I was not aware of the arrangement until my kid toured XU this past fall.
-
As long as the old MECCA Arena is still standing, we wouldn't be left high and dry if the Bucks told us to "pound sand."
If we're good, we'd pack the Arena while we build our on-campus masterpiece!
I'll be excited to see the new place next season, will definitely do what I can to get to a game or two.
-
So, I haven't read the whole thread, but I read Benny's post, which was excellent, but seems to be leaving out a key point/question ... would yet another arena in downtown (ish) Milwaukee, aka the 39th largest metro market in the U.S., be able to draw enough events to make it financially sustainable?
I'm very skeptical of that. It's notoriously difficult to run an arena at a profit, and unlike a lot of public venues, MU wouldn't have the luxury of government subsidies to fall back on when the arena loses money.
Also, why would the Bucks tell MU to pound sand? It's 20+ guaranteed dates every year. Again, making money off an arena can be hard, and they'd be foolish to turn away that kind of guarantee.
-
Those who are so strongly against an on campus facility don't fully understand the positive financials with both the on campus facility and entertainment center and also the negative implications, both financial and otherwise, of the new Bucks arena, as it relates to MU. Slick and the gang brought cases of K-Y with them from NY.
Not, what I heard. I heard that MU had to bring their own K-Y and there wasn't enough to go around. I hope the lesson has been learned for our next round of negotiations and we have a plan B, besides bringing extra K-Y.
-
Pro-Thunderdome Counterarguments:
"Waste of Money/Should be Spent Elsewhere" Sentiment (i.e. Ma's Opposition)
This one is simple... the capital is either there, or it's not.
In fundraising there are typically three pools of money you can go after: 1) "earmarked," i.e. the amount that people set aside for a given period that they will donate regardless, 2) "stretch," i.e. the amount in excess of earmarked that people are willing to give for special projects (capital campaigns) or needs (natural disasters), and 3) "shadow," i.e. an indefinite amount that people are willing to donate to a specific project (or very narrow band of potential projects).
Shadow money is typically not even ascertainable. For example, consider a hypothetical where an MU benefactor named Larcus Memonis is willing to donate $20M to an on-campus arena effort... the second he announces that, if MU has no plans or intent to build an arena, MU Advancement is going to be all over him trying to convince him to spend it on something else. So Larcus keeps his mouth shut, but as soon as MU announces the plans and shows the Thunderdome renderings, Larcus - and all of his other high$ benefactor brethren - won't be able to write their checks fast enough.
It's a bit of a cat and mouse game, because MU can't plan for an arena without knowing if there's enough backing, and the backers are going to play close to the vest until plans are announced.
"There's No Room"
There's always room. Have you seen Marquette's campus lately? It isn't exactly Lincoln Park now, is it? If MU can come up with the coin to build the Thunderdome's physical structure, MU is going to find the coin for the land. Google Earth is your friend... be creative.
"The FoxHole/Chaluparena is Right Down the Street"
Yes, but for how long? No seriously, how long?
Part of being a world class organization means being in control of your own destiny. The landscape has changed... the confluence of factors that has made MU comfortable simply being a tenant at the BC is gone. History. Sayonara. No longer is MU dealing with a three-way partnership between a philanthropic, locally-focused NBA owner, stadium district and City... you want rights at the FoxHole, meet the gatekeepers: Lasry and Edens. If anyone needs an example of how that new relationship between the Bucks and MU is going to work out, look no further than their joint-sponsored sports medicine/athletics research center partnership. Didn't work out as well as we thought, did it.
Point being, MU has no right, no entitlement to the new arena. Unlike before, the Bucks are now in complete control of any sub-tenancy at the FoxHole... even in the best case scenario where the Bucks prosper and become deeply entrenched into Milwaukee such that Edens and Lasry decide to keep them here, they could find themselves in a situation where they just tell MU to go pound sand. And the worst case is the Bucks skip town (much more likely), in which case....
"MU Can Negotiate a Better Deal (if the Bucks skip town)"
Does MU really want to be the primary tenant at an NBA facility 20 years from now? Should they be? Can they afford to be?
How many suppliers has Wal-Mart put out of business because they drove their prices so low that their suppliers' models became unsustainable? Likewise, if a tenant takes advantage of a landlord such that the landlord is losing money, the landlord isn't going to be the landlord very long, let alone put money into basic repairs and maintenance. This is what happened between the Bucks and BC for many years... the Bucks negotiated their rent so low that the WCD couldn't afford to keep up with basic maintenance until the point where walls literally started cracking and critical equipment was failing. So as a sub-tenant MU could leverage a Bucks departure with the stadium district into better lease terms at the FoxHole, which will turn the building a financial (and perhaps structural) time-bomb, or MU could pay more money to keep the FoxHole sustainable.
If the Bucks leave town in 20 years, MU would be no better off than if Edens and Lasry moved the team to Seattle a couple years back and MU was today stuck with the BC as it falls apart.
"Where's the Money Going to Come From"
Capital comes from donations and bonds. Maybe some TIF money. Who knows? Multiple ways to skin the cat
Operating costs come from elsewhere. As others surmised... turn this into something more than an arena, and the arena part might just pay for itself. Simply figure out how to pay for everything else, and you're there.
Let me say that again.... the arena can pay for itself. Not saying it will pay for itself, but if it can, you build it.
"Will I Get Tickets? What About STH's?"
I'll be honest... this is the keystone to the whole project. Not the fundraising, not the Bucks' destiny, not the hotel.... how do you balance supply with demand without alienating any portion of your (relatively) small alumni base. If you have 10k+ STH's today, you're going to have even more with a brand new on-campus arena. And it's right around that 10k capacity mark that marginal costs start rising exponentially. The sweet spot seems to be right around 9k-10k or so... anything more than that and you're going to have to build a second deck, and that's how a $60M arena can rise to $100M very quickly.
So either you build small and deal with the angst, or you wait for demand to wane to the point where nobody will feel bad. Neither seems like a real good idea.
Well done. Good analysis.
Building an on-campus arena is, by no means necessary. However, being prepared and capable to potentially do so - three to four years from now - when lease renegotiations with Bucks would likely be starting in earnest, would be advisable.
MU has NO leverage at this point with the Bucks. Lasry and Edens are NOT Herb Kohl. They will extract every single possible dollar out of MU on a renewal. MU only has leverage if it is prepared, capable, and able to move forward on its own with building an on-campus arena.
Men’s basketball is hugely important to the university. You protect it, and secure it at nearly all costs. I’d advise raising the funds/seeking pledges for an on campus arena over the next three years. Should the Bucks not give MU a good/fair long-term deal, they then walk and build their own on campus arena.
-
You guys are all ignoring another alternative because it's not what any of us want. There is a scenario where MU says hoops is important but not THAT important. Look, I don't see that happening but there are always options. Carry on.
-
glow
I have pointed that alternative out for six years.
-
Just curious, for those who would like an on campus arena, what current arenas would you like the on campus arena to be modeled after? It seems like there is a fine balance between creating a great atmosphere and home court advantage while also trying to build a stadium with modern & High-Tech amenities. A place like Pinnacle Bank Arena where Nebraska plays is probably bigger than anything MU would build on campus, but is designed more like an NBA arena. Personally, if we build on campus I would love something similar to Smith Spectrum where Utah State plays, add suites to the top and that place would be rocking. Michigan has an arena that would be perfect in size for MU, the Crisler Center holds 13,700.
Curious for everyone's thoughts on what the ideal on campus arena would look like.
-
You guys are all ignoring another alternative because it's not what any of us want. There is a scenario where MU says hoops is important but not THAT important. Look, I don't see that happening but there are always options. Carry on.
I believe that's called a SLU.
-
Just curious, for those who would like an on campus arena, what current arenas would you like the on campus arena to be modeled after? It seems like there is a fine balance between creating a great atmosphere and home court advantage while also trying to build a stadium with modern & High-Tech amenities. A place like Pinnacle Bank Arena where Nebraska plays is probably bigger than anything MU would build on campus, but is designed more like an NBA arena. Personally, if we build on campus I would love something similar to Smith Spectrum where Utah State plays, add suites to the top and that place would be rocking. Michigan has an arena that would be perfect in size for MU, the Crisler Center holds 13,700.
Curious for everyone's thoughts on what the ideal on campus arena would look like.
12,000 seats, give or take. DePaul's Wintrust, Chaifetz Arena at SLU or Cintas Center at Xavier would be decent comparables.
Small upper deck and 15-20 luxury boxes. Able to convert to ice for the Admirals/MU hockey.
-
Any stadiums with a single bowl top to bottom behind the baskets and two tier seating split by boxes/suites on the sidelines? Not an architect so not sure if it is even possible with sight lines, but that would seem to allow for atmosphere as well as luxury features.
-
Any stadiums with a single bowl top to bottom behind the baskets and two tier seating split by boxes/suites on the sidelines? Not an architect so not sure if it is even possible with sight lines, but that would seem to allow for atmosphere as well as luxury features.
Wintrust is actually sort of like that, on one side
Instead of an upper deck on one side they have two rows of luxury suites. It actually works pretty nicely.
(https://wintrustarena.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/seating-layout.jpg)
(http://grfx.cstv.com/schools/depa/graphics/depa-wta17-gallery10.jpg)
-
Benny's on this.
The only team in Milwaukee the Bucks needed is Marquette. Right off the bat they told the Admirals to stick it. Not for just our dates but for NCAA events as MU has to sponsor and run them under rules (UWM could yet they not realistically as the NCAA would likely reject the bid).
MU also has major roots with potential sponsors. NML, Manpower, Camping World, MillerCoors, Harley, AutoZone, Cree, Palermo's, etc. And others that the Bucks have also already alienated like Foxconn and Aurora. Many of these have/will have a growing need for convention/meeting space (NML who just significantly expanded their headquarters has major global conferences already in MKE).
The space is there on the South. MU's property on Michigan. Milwaukee's vacant lot across from the Hilton and the Convention Center.
On the north, after the Mecca is knocked down, the whole convention center can be expanded to the Bucks new conference center hotel and Arena/outdoor plaza. The north and south are now connected.
MU, Admirals, Wave and UWM on the South. Bucks, concerts, events on the north. MU can play major games in the Bucks arena. UWM can play smaller games on campus. Theater district on the east. Mixed use on the West.
-
Wait, we have to share this hypothetical new place with UWM?
-
Wait, we have to share this hypothetical new place with UWM?
If by share, you mean they have to pay us a lot of money to play some of their bigger games in our building, then yes.
-
I need a little of the weed you are all smokin
-
Any idea what happens to the Bradley Center scoreboard?
In its current configuration it’s probably too big for the AL, but if you took off the top two ribbons and bottom ribbon it might be a pretty nice fit. Although it may be too low for volleyball.
I just wish there was something there to see replays on. At Madness, they often put projector screens in the corners which is nice.
-
Any idea what happens to the Bradley Center scoreboard?
Gonna be hung in the tree outside my house.
-
Any idea what happens to the Bradley Center scoreboard?
There was an article in the Journal sentinel about how everything is being sold off at the BC. The scoreboard is being broken down and sold in smaller pieces.
-
The scoreboard is being broken down and sold in smaller pieces.
Perfect for the AL!
-
Perfect for the AL!
They could easily replace the big scoreboard on the South end with a monitor.
It's too bad you guys insulted the Foxconn dudes - we probably could have score a free one from them.
-
Gonna be hung in the tree outside my house.
Knew Xmas ornament, aina?
-
Marquette should leverage the naming rights that are still available for the new stadium. I read in the MKE Biz Journal there's a scenario where it opens without naming rights attached. That means the Bucks are losing the $7-10 million per year they expected for that. Go back in, name it the Marquette University Arena, and get an extension on the lease at a more profitable cost as part of the naming rights negotiations.
-
Any idea what happens to the Bradley Center scoreboard?
In its current configuration it’s probably too big for the AL, but if you took off the top two ribbons and bottom ribbon it might be a pretty nice fit. Although it may be too low for volleyball.
I just wish there was something there to see replays on. At Madness, they often put projector screens in the corners which is nice.
It will probably get sold to whoever is willing to pay the most for it, and I doubt that will be Marquette.
-
Marquette should leverage the naming rights that are still available for the new stadium. I read in the MKE Biz Journal there's a scenario where it opens without naming rights attached. That means the Bucks are losing the $7-10 million per year they expected for that. Go back in, name it the Marquette University Arena, and get an extension on the lease at a more profitable cost as part of the naming rights negotiations.
I like it.
-
So, I haven't read the whole thread, but I read Benny's post, which was excellent, but seems to be leaving out a key point/question ... would yet another arena in downtown (ish) Milwaukee, aka the 39th largest metro market in the U.S., be able to draw enough events to make it financially sustainable?
I'm very skeptical of that. It's notoriously difficult to run an arena at a profit, and unlike a lot of public venues, MU wouldn't have the luxury of government subsidies to fall back on when the arena loses money.
Also, why would the Bucks tell MU to pound sand? It's 20+ guaranteed dates every year. Again, making money off an arena can be hard, and they'd be foolish to turn away that kind of guarantee.
This has been brought up, but never answered. Figure you lose all <5000 attendee events to the numerous other smaller venues in the city or the Al. You won't get anything where the draw is expected to be over your max capacity to the new arena, which now will also fight you for the high end of the lesser events. You are still competing with the current Panther Arena for the @ 7-10k events. Since the Admirals, Wave (if they survive) and UWM are bound there and probably want to stay where they are with the current and hoped for amenities nearby the arena, and I don't know if MU wants to host the circus or truck pulls, I doubt there are enough revenue generating events to come close to using the venue over 50 times a year, and that number may be very generous. Again it is fun to dream, and I have no problem looking at the idea just in case some rich person drops a wad of cash for the purpose, but as it stands nothing about this seems realistic.
-
Heard that naming rights are done and will be announced soon. Possibly as early as next week.
-
Heard that naming rights are done and will be announced soon. Possibly as early as next week.
Probably someone who was scalping NIT tickets.
-
It's owned by the Cintas Corporation outright and is just located on the Xavier Campus. I was not aware of the arrangement until my kid toured XU this past fall.
So Cintas is not owned by Xavier. I'm assuming that they pay rent to Cintas, yes?
-
Knew Xmas ornament, aina?
Put the "X" back in Xmas, I always say!
-
So Cintas is not owned by Xavier. I'm assuming that they pay rent to Cintas, yes?
I don't know? The Open House was held inside the Cintas Center. Someone from Admissions made an additional comment along the lines of "about having to arrange with Cintas to use today."
-
Marquette should leverage the naming rights that are still available for the new stadium. I read in the MKE Biz Journal there's a scenario where it opens without naming rights attached. That means the Bucks are losing the $7-10 million per year they expected for that. Go back in, name it the Marquette University Arena, and get an extension on the lease at a more profitable cost as part of the naming rights negotiations.
I really like that idea. It would make it look like MU owns the arena even though they don't. Plus MU would get their name on every event (Bucks game, concert, etc.) held at the building.
It's way too pricey for them to do, but I like it!
-
I went to the game yesterday, which was the first official event I've ever been to there. Afterwards, I'm even more surprised people want to play more games in there, or in a larger on-campus version. I'll take a half-full BC over the Al any day.
-
Probably someone who was scalping NIT tickets.
Coming soon: The Anybody Have Extra Tickets? Arena.
-
I went to the game yesterday, which was the first official event I've ever been to there. Afterwards, I'm even more surprised people want to play more games in there, or in a larger on-campus version. I'll take a half-full BC over the Al any day.
What was it about the AL that you didn't like? I would be shocked if anyone thought the atmosphere in a half full BC is better than a packed AL... Certainly there are comforts and amenities that the BC offers that the AL doesn't, but the AL was never built to be a full-time host of MBB games
-
I went to the game yesterday, which was the first official event I've ever been to there. Afterwards, I'm even more surprised people want to play more games in there, or in a larger on-campus version. I'll take a half-full BC over the Al any day.
I really enjoyed the games at the AL. That being said I'll take the Bradley Center/new arena any day.
It's fine for an occasional novelty but I wouldn't want to do it regularly.
-
Wave (if they survive)
They seemed to turn things around with Mike Zimmerman as the owner. Led the league in attendance.
-
What was it about the AL that you didn't like? I would be shocked if anyone thought the atmosphere in a half full BC is better than a packed AL... Certainly there are comforts and amenities that the BC offers that the AL doesn't
I've been too NIT games with Mike Deane as coach with a fired up crowd of 4,000 in the building at the BC. Atmosphere is the same as the three at the AL. Fans didn't cheer louder or harder at the AL. It's just the set-up of the building that makes it louder. I thought it sounded like a high school game, than an roar of the crowd being in an arena.
-
The discussion about the AL scoreboard is a good one. MU could certainly dramatically upgrade it which would also then allow for simulcasting next year's Final 4 run for the students.
-
jsglow
I can see far better use for the money than upgrading the scoreboard at The Al.
-
What was it about the AL that you didn't like? I would be shocked if anyone thought the atmosphere in a half full BC is better than a packed AL... Certainly there are comforts and amenities that the BC offers that the AL doesn't, but the AL was never built to be a full-time host of MBB games
Concourses are cramped, metal bleachers instead of padded seats, packed in tighter without much space, no video board, no player names on the scoreboard, no out-of-town scores, PA system was difficult to hear, no lounge areas in the concourses with TVs on other games, limited concession options, no beer, no Flohs lounge, didn't have 20 bar/restaurants within 1 block, parking less convenient. I guess I like the comforts/amenities.
I understand why we played there, and I'm glad people had an opportunity for a unique experience. It was still fun (despite the loss) because it's still MU basketball, but I hope we never have to play there again.
-
Dey allocate funds ta upgrade the Al scoreboard, count me outta any donations goin' forward. Should put dat $63.41 cents ta student scholarships, hey?
-
4ever
Show off. Throwing money around like it grows on trees.
-
jsglow
I can see far better use for the money than upgrading the scoreboard at The Al.
A new scoreboard would get used way more than a second arena. And be at least $99,900,000 cheaper. ;)
-
chick
There is no dollar amount that I would oppose the university spending on the basketball team. It is the identity of the university and every asset should be at the program's disposal to bring attention to Marquette. Like it or not, Marquette Basketball is the greatest marketing tool the school has and by a VERY wide margin. I highly encourage them to up the budget and up the expectations!!! GO MU!!
-
Marquette should leverage the naming rights that are still available for the new stadium. I read in the MKE Biz Journal there's a scenario where it opens without naming rights attached. That means the Bucks are losing the $7-10 million per year they expected for that. Go back in, name it the Marquette University Arena, and get an extension on the lease at a more profitable cost as part of the naming rights negotiations.
This is a great idea, wish it would/could happen