I've enjoyed my seat from the 400 section in the BC as a season-ticket holder for more than 20 years, and have gotten to know many of the other long-time ticket holders around me. But it's also been fun to be surrounded by different fans in the bleacher seats during the first two NIT games at the Al.
Today I sat behind a mom, her daughter and 2 friends. The girls were maybe 15 or 16, all decked out in Marquette gear and into the game. The daughter even kept score the entire time on her program. Awesome to see.
Behind me was a family with a daughter about 4. She protested "I can't see!" a couple times when everyone in front of her stood up after a great play. (I tried my best not to stand right in front of her and take away from the experience of a young fan.) She was super excited when the mascot made it to our section ("Golden Eagle!") in the 3rd quarter. Although she got sleepy near the end, she made it through the whole game.
To me left was another family with a 14-year-old daughter. They talked about meeting Andrew Rowsey in Hawaii for the Maui Invitational. Both mom and dad are big fans who know basketball. They've been bringing their daughter to games since she was a baby. Another highlight for them was going to the Final Four in 2003.
To my right was a couple maybe in their 30s. The wife got free tickets through work. More casual fans (they didn't know the names of any MU players), but clearly into the game, cheering for the home team, stomping on the bleachers and having a great time.
The Harvard game was a similar experience. Reinforced how great it is to be part of Marquette nation. Looking forward to the next one against Penn State.
If MU was smart, they would tie these NIT tickets to a pre-purchase at the new arena. Instead, they are scaling back on the STHs for the student inventory and have very wide bans for points.
See ya...
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 18, 2018, 09:44:17 PM
If MU was smart, they would tie these NIT tickets to a pre-purchase at the new arena. Instead, they are scaling back on the STHs for the student inventory and have very wide bans for points.
See ya...
So if I'm reading this correctly, they're giving the students more seats on Tuesday?
Can you clarify/elaborate, Blackheart? Do you mean buying tickets for the NIT should give some kind of priority for future season ticket holders? Not sure if you're talking about the Al or the new arena when you reference "scaling back on STHs." Also not sure what "very wide bans for points" means.
And I'm not sure what see ya means?
STHs are leaving because they went from 6 tickets to 4 at the Al?
Ok guys. Calm down. I am posing a business theoretical. I said if they are smart, they would tie the post-season package to future ticket plans. No different than the Brewers in a playoff year or as soon as the season ends.
They didn't and in fact are now limiting those STHs to one third less tickets in favor of freeing inventory for non/low-donating fans like returning students.
So be it. I have choices too. This ain't Cameron.
From a business standpoint Dr. B is absolutely correct. From a standpoint of making the Al a great environment I think the university got it right.
Students make a lot more noise than sweatervests.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 18, 2018, 10:19:47 PM
Ok guys. Calm down. I am posing a business theoretical. I said if they are smart, they would tie the post-season package to future ticket plans. No different than the Brewers in a playoff year or as soon as the season ends.
They didn't and in fact are now limiting those STHs to one third less tickets in favor of freeing inventory for non/low-donating fans like returning students.
So be it. I have choices too. This ain't Cameron.
So, you are angry because you can't purchase 6 tickets to the game on Tues night, and are limited to just 4?
Does it seem right that a Season Ticket Holder who purchases 2 seats for the entire season, should be allowed to buy 6 for each of 3 NIT games (18 tickets in total), while a STH who purchases 4 seats for the entire season does not get an opportunity to buy ANY seats for ANY of the NIT games?
If you do, that's fine, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. A limit of 4 seems appropriate to me.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 18, 2018, 10:19:47 PM
Ok guys. Calm down. I am posing a business theoretical. I said if they are smart, they would tie the post-season package to future ticket plans. No different than the Brewers in a playoff year or as soon as the season ends.
They didn't and in fact are now limiting those STHs to one third less tickets in favor of freeing inventory for non/low-donating fans like returning students.
So be it. I have choices too. This ain't Cameron.
These types of games don't come very often, and they want the place to be hopping. Against Harvard, it was pretty loud in there. Could not get up there today, but on TV it sounded great. I have zero problem with Marquette putting the rambunctious students in camera view going crazy. I qualify probably as a blue hair with my age, we will survive. Hell, some of the people my age are pissing about being in the NIT. Well screw them, let's get some young blood energized and blow the roof off the building on Tuesday night.
Quote from: 94Warrior on March 18, 2018, 10:46:42 PM
So, you are angry because you can't purchase 6 tickets to the game on Tues night, and are limited to just 4?
Does it seem right that a Season Ticket Holder who purchases 2 seats for the entire season, should be allowed to buy 6 for each of 3 NIT games (18 tickets in total), while a STH who purchases 4 seats for the entire season does not get an opportunity to buy ANY seats for ANY of the NIT games?
If you do, that's fine, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. A limit of 4 seems appropriate to me.
I am not angry as I can get my tickets. Take me out of the equation.
That said, I am advocating for the loyal fans and for MU to be smart with their business and being consistent with the STHs who pay the bills. Changing the rules in the middle of this is alienating. Not linking this post-season to a next year package is not smart business.
I think the primary goal of Wojo and the athletic department is creating the best possible environment for the team. Wojo's repeatedly mentioned the incredible support and energy from the students in his post-game interviews, and said that the players feed off it.
Allocating extra tickets to students may be a smart marketing tool, as well. Next game determines who advances to New York for the championship semifinal. Might not appeal much to casual fans, certainly not on the level of the NCAA tournament. But a college basketball junkie like me watches all the postseason hoops that I can: NCAA, NIT, whatever. Lots of great games to see. And a big, crazy student section makes for good TV. Just what ESPN wants.
That said, the intent of my original post was to share what it felt like to be at the Al for these NIT games compared to the Bradley Center during the regular season. Would love to hear thoughts on this from others.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 18, 2018, 11:11:25 PM
I am not angry as I can get my tickets. Take me out of the equation.
That said, I am advocating for the loyal fans and for MU to be smart with their business and being consistent with the STHs who pay the bills. Changing the rules in the middle of this is alienating. Not linking this post-season to a next year package is not smart business.
One might argue it's better for business to win the game (and move onto NYC). To win, it helps to create a raucous environment. To create that environment means to alienate old stodgy folks. I think it's smart business at this point!
Quote from: rocky_warrior on March 18, 2018, 11:15:09 PM
One might argue it's better for business to win the game (and move onto NYC). To win, it helps to create a raucous environment. To create that environment means to alienate old stodgy folks. I think it's smart business at this point!
Do you know how many BE games I have been at where the band were the only students left in the stands at the end? Call me stodgy but MU is about to ask STHs to pay 40% more next season...
Very doubtful the NIT is filling up the coffers...
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 18, 2018, 11:20:51 PM
Do you know how many BE games I have been at where the band was the lonly students left in the stands at the end? Call me stodgy but MU is about to ask STHs to pay 40% more next season...
Very doubtful the NIT is filling up the coffers...
Most definitely not filling up the coffers, but that isn't what this is about. These are bonus games and we are playing with house money. This is perception time, and the department / university is saying perception is most important here. Smart call. Most MU fans want to go to the NIT Final Four in NYG, we have a better chance of getting there without a bunch of Marge Simpson's taking up seats. Need energy at this point.
Quote from: WarriorDad on March 18, 2018, 11:23:54 PM
Most definitely not filling up the coffers, but that isn't what this is about. These are bonus games and we are playing with house money. This is perception time, and the department / university is saying perception is most important here. Smart call. Most MU fans want to go to the NIT Final Four in NYG, we have a better chance of getting there without a bunch of Marge Simpson's taking up seats. Need energy at this point.
Says the OC fan who instituted the point system to start with. Pot meet kettle.
Wow. So the school is allocating more tickets for the students to see their team play in their own gym. How dare they let the kids have a blast and go nuts. I say turn the whole place over to the kids. Now that would be s sight to see.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 18, 2018, 11:20:51 PM
Do you know how many BE games I have been at where the band were the only students left in the stands at the end? Call me stodgy but MU is about to ask STHs to pay 40% more next season...
Very doubtful the NIT is filling up the coffers...
And do you know how many times the sweater vests have not shown up to make the lower bowl half empty? Or walking in at the second TV timeout? It goes both ways. I doubt a big time donor is not going to re-up because they are only able to get 4 tickets instead of six for a NIT game.
MU should let STH or students stand on the walkway behind the baskets Tuesday. Could get a couple hundred behind each basket??
I do think this shows the benefit of putting students in some of the premium seats. I don't think you line the entire lower bowl with students, but specifically behind the hoops in both end zones it really helps amplify the environment.
This is another reason for an on campus arena. At the Silk, you likely couldn't have a small student section behind both hoops that didn't obstruct some STHs. In a specifically designed on campus venue, you could have a section that was lower than the seats around it to allow them to stand and go crazy without obstructing views.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 19, 2018, 08:00:19 AM
I do think this shows the benefit of putting students in some of the premium seats. I don't think you line the entire lower bowl with students, but specifically behind the hoops in both end zones it really helps amplify the environment.
This is another reason for an on campus arena. At the Silk, you likely couldn't have a small student section behind both hoops that didn't obstruct some STHs. In a specifically designed on campus venue, you could have a section that was lower than the seats around it to allow them to stand and go crazy without obstructing views.
So now you want to build a 9 figure arena because a brand new state of the art arena that might be the best in the entire country doesn't contemplate 'special student seating' in its design? C'mon brew. You're a smart guy. Picture that written proposal bf the BOT.
The wife character, nored and I sat in the student section next to the lax bros (who are awesome by the way) for the game yesterday because there weren't enough students at the game to fill the section. The game was pretty loud and intense without them. So now we want to reduce the number of STH tickets so we can get more students to not show up?
Pretty disappointing decision IMO. Especially since the new STH have been the ones getting hosed with the NIT games and those are the ones you want to retain.
With all this complaining about tickets, I'm surprised everyone forgot the NIT was all really a "participation award". ::)
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on March 19, 2018, 12:18:25 AM
And do you know how many times the sweater vests have not shown up to make the lower bowl half empty? Or walking in at the second TV timeout? It goes both ways. I doubt a big time donor is not going to re-up because they are only able to get 4 tickets instead of six for a NIT game.
I didn't say that they won't reup for reducing from 6 to 4 (in fact, two games ago I proposed that very thing), I said MU should of had packages ready for next year as an incentive to reup.
As to the students versus sweater vests, you do realize who filled The Al up for the first two games, right? That the LAX team was in town so MU gave them an entire section to fill along with MU AD family members as not enough students were takers. Since MU reserves 4000 student tickets in the BC, let's just give only students the 3500 tickets for next game instead of the STH who have spent six and seven figures lifetime. That will teach the Vesters!
Consider it a reversal - now that all students are back from break, they're adjusting to what the normal student allotment would be instead of offering an excessive six tickets per STH. Seems fine to me to give them more than 1/8 of the Al and offer many an opportunity they may not ever get again while they're in school.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 19, 2018, 08:00:19 AM
At the Silk, you likely couldn't have a small student section behind both hoops that didn't obstruct some STHs.
It really chaps my hide when the student section is standing in front of the season ticket holders at Silk. https://www.silkexotic.com
With mids over and everyone back from Spring Break, I think the students will jam their allotment. And if we sweater-vests can't get 'extra' tickets beyond our normal STH allotment to bring 'niece Jenny', so be it.
Demand is going to be high. Tickets will be scarce and expensive. Everyone in the building will have earned their right to be there and will be 100% into it. And it'll be absolutely great when New York, New York plays over the soundsystem following the final horn. Can't wait.
I wonder if dgies even knows? ;)
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 19, 2018, 08:45:55 AM
It really chaps my hide when the student section is standing in front of the season ticket holders at Silk. https://www.silkexotic.com
That's why you need to moisturize more then chapping at Silk won't happen.
Is it a known fact that they reduced the ticket limit in order to increase the available student tickets? I know quite a few newer STH's that were disappointed they didn't even get a shot at Oregon game tickets and voiced that disappointment to the program. I selfishly assumed the ticket limit was for those of us with less than 75 pts who missed the opportunity this last game.
Quote from: UWW2MU on March 19, 2018, 08:55:26 AM
Is it a known fact that they reduced the ticket limit in order to increase the available student tickets? I know quite a few newer STH's that were disappointed they didn't even get a shot at Oregon game tickets and voiced that disappointment to the program. I selfishly assumed the ticket limit was for those of us with less than 75 pts who missed the opportunity this last game.
I don't think that's known precisely. What we do know is they dropped the allowed purchase down to 4 to accommodate more requests either by students or deeper into the STH pool.
Quote from: UWW2MU on March 19, 2018, 08:55:26 AM
Is it a known fact that they reduced the ticket limit in order to increase the available student tickets? I know quite a few newer STH's that were disappointed they didn't even get a shot at Oregon game tickets and voiced that disappointment to the program. I selfishly assumed the ticket limit was for those of us with less than 75 pts who missed the opportunity this last game.
It probably is both...
It should be first come first serve...Line up outside the Al at whatever time you see it fit with a $20 in your hand. General Admission everywhere.
Quote from: chapman on March 19, 2018, 08:35:32 AM
Consider it a reversal - now that all students are back from break, they're adjusting to what the normal student allotment would be instead of offering an excessive six tickets per STH. Seems fine to me to give them more than 1/8 of the Al and offer many an opportunity they may not ever get again while they're in school.
The ratio of season tickets (~11,200) which includes students to AL tickets is about 30%. 1/8th is the 500 students were allotted over Spring Break. Everyone okay with 1000 for the students, leaving the remaining 2400 for the first 600 STH Vesters to gobble up?
The six allotment was unfortunate but MUAD didn't have a lot of history to go one. But, when loyal STHs like 12, Benny, Brew were on the bubble and now off, it isn't a pretty dilemma. Of course, it is a better problem than not playing at all.
There's no chance the administration couldve tied these NIT tix to next year in such a short time frame. What did we have, two days to sell tickets after the pairings?
I understand STHs pay the bills, but MU is doing the right thing here. Students should be given priority in this small, on campus arena.
Classic Scoop.
A member of the Nation creates a nice post describing what a joy the environment has been at the Al for these NIT games and it devolves into a pissing contest about the economics of tickets and why certain fans get upset because their entitlements aren't given the precedence they feel they deserve.
Fucking snowflake city.
Quote from: jsglow on March 19, 2018, 08:18:51 AM
So now you want to build a 9 figure arena because a brand new state of the art arena that might be the best in the entire country doesn't contemplate 'special student seating' in its design? C'mon brew. You're a smart guy. Picture that written proposal bf the BOT.
Come on, glow. I specifically said "another reason", not the reason. The main reason would be allowing Marquette to keep all revenue & not worry about negotiations going forward.
From the pricing models we saw, tax law changes, and rent increases, it's safe to say it will be difficult for Marquette to keep revenues at the same level, especially after the newness of the Silk wears off. A smaller, more full venue where you keep all profits would change that dynamic.
It's easy to say "winning will change everything" but what if it doesn't? What if MU remains a bubble team for the next 5 years? What if Wojo breaks through next year, leaves for a bigger job, and we go back in the rebuild cycle? In a few years, STH numbers continue to decline and the rent becomes untenable.
If MU has their own venue they can negotiate from a position of strength instead of necessity. If they aren't subject to the whims of Bucks ownership, they can control their own prices and adjust based on their own needs and not the rent they are charged. And what happens if the Bucks move in 20 years?
I don't expect it, but there are more benefits over the long haul than just the on campus arena experience.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 19, 2018, 09:15:09 AM
The ratio of season tickets (~11,200) which includes students to AL tickets is about 30%. 1/8th is the 500 students were allotted over Spring Break. Everyone okay with 1000 for the students, leaving the remaining 2400 for the first 600 STH Vesters to gobble up?
The six allotment was unfortunate but MUAD didn't have a lot of history to go one. But, when loyal STHs like 12, Benny, Brew were on the bubble and now off, it isn't a pretty dilemma. Of course, it is a better problem than not playing at all.
It's a tough call. If the students are gonna show and be engaged, then why not. But their history in that regard is spotty at best, where as you have STHs that are there every damn night, regardless of who MU is playing.
They initially erred with the 6 ticket limit, and I think having such huge groupings with 2 hour windows is silly. But as you said, they didn't know what to expect.
Here's hoping this season is the last time I have to worry about NIT tickets for a while.
I have not attended either of the games, but think The Al is perfect venue for the NIT. The crowd is jacked up and everyone I know who has attended has had positive feedback. I would expect that crowd on Tuesday night will be as jacked up and I hope that as many students that want to go to the game get in.
I would love to see the student body use Tuesday night as their build up for "next season". I have always been a believer that having an involved student body is part of making overall success of a program. Winning at home is very important.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 19, 2018, 09:20:00 AM
I understand STHs pay the bills, but MU is doing the right thing here. Students should be given priority in this small, on campus arena.
Agree. MU has the right mix. Some students get in .. and STHs with 10-15+ years -- minimum (avg) investment being close to $20k over those years .. are rewarded with the opportunity to witness some post-season.
Total bummer for those who haven't been with the program and invested that much.
Couldn't agree more, Goose. In just about every post-game interview of Wojo's that I've heard, he makes a point to mention the energy of the students and the crowd in general. It's kind of a synergistic thing. A raucous environment helps us win. And winning attracts more students/fans to create a more raucous environment.
We've been down this path before brew. You simply can't spend 9 figures for max 19 dates a year. No way, no how. Not when an NBA show-palace designed specifically for hoops is walking distance away. It was true in 1954, and 1974, and 1988 and now. I will admit that the Herb Kohl gravy train has ended and we should be forever grateful for the fact that it lasted as long as it did.
As chick has said previously, if some donor shows up with $150-200 large and Mike doesn't convince him to spend it another more productive way.......
We're running a university here people, not a AAA sports franchise.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 19, 2018, 09:30:08 AM
Agree. MU has the right mix. Some students get in .. and STHs with 10-15+ years -- minimum (avg) investment being close to $20k over those years .. are rewarded with the opportunity to witness some post-season.
Total bummer for those who haven't been with the program and invested that much.
Spot on topper.
jsglow
I understand your opinion on an on campus facility and not sure on my thoughts. I have heard over the past year or so that there has been a fair amount of discussion on this topic. IMO, possibly having their own facility and playing 3-4 games at the new arena might be a solid idea. I see the Buck's ownership becoming even worse over the next several years. They are smart guys and I believe are going to bringing in big ticket shows/events far more than the BC ever dreamed of. I would not trust them as far as I could throw them.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 19, 2018, 08:48:03 AM
That's why you need to moisturize more then chapping at Silk won't happen.
Is the new Silk Arena going to have that vanilla scent pumped through the climate control systems?
I think the big creation MU is going to have after these games is some student buzz.
The LAX bros are killing it, that's going to generate excitement amongst the student population which hopefully carries over to the Silk Exotic Entertainment Center (the SEEC, "SEX").
Quote from: Goose on March 19, 2018, 09:44:40 AM
jsglow
I understand your opinion on an on campus facility and not sure on my thoughts. I have heard over the past year or so that there has been a fair amount of discussion on this topic. IMO, possibly having their own facility and playing 3-4 games at the new arena might be a solid idea. I see the Buck's ownership becoming even worse over the next several years. They are smart guys and I believe are going to bringing in big ticket shows/events far more than the BC ever dreamed of. I would not trust them as far as I could throw them.
Agreed. I just don't think it's such a far fetched idea now that we're dealing with the new Bucks ownership and this isn't a 7, 10, or 20 year answer, it's long term.
Quote from: Warrior1969 on March 19, 2018, 07:44:38 AM
MU should let STH or students stand on the walkway behind the baskets Tuesday. Could get a couple hundred behind each basket??
Good idea. The Dallas Cowboys do this via a "Party Pass" ticket. Gets you into the stadium, but no seat. View from various observation decks. Some people just enjoy being where the action is, even if the view is less than ideal.
Quote from: jsglow on March 19, 2018, 08:18:51 AM
So now you want to build a 9 figure arena because a brand new state of the art arena that might be the best in the entire country doesn't contemplate 'special student seating' in its design? C'mon brew. You're a smart guy. Picture that written proposal bf the BOT.
It would only happen if the economics make sense. I think there is a situation where they do
TAMU
I am quite certain that the discussions have been more than just throwing out the idea. It would not surprise one bit if MU had their own arena in next 5-7 years.
I am quite certain MU made nithing on parking and concessions at tge Bradley. They paid rent n got ticket revenue. Thats it. Understand in no way does this mean i am in favor if pkaying games at tge Al sans maybe 1 a year.
I think people will be drastically surprised with the new arena.
The problem i have had with the bradley center since 1988 is tgat it is a hirrible arena. Architects got it wrong. Sans 1-2 games a year it provided little to no home court advantage. I firmly belive the new arena will provide mu with that tru college atmosphere that we have lacked since leaving tge mecca. Hopefully its worth 1-2 games a year. MUs home record has not been as good as it shoukd have been and i blame some of that on the crap arena we pkayed in. Total stab but im guessing the New arena is wirth 4 more points a game than the fin bradley dump. Really looking forward to walking into an electric arena versus that mausoleum
Quote from: jsglow on March 19, 2018, 09:37:32 AM
We've been down this path before brew. You simply can't spend 9 figures for max 19 dates a year. No way, no how. Not when an NBA show-palace designed specifically for hoops is walking distance away. It was true in 1954, and 1974, and 1988 and now. I will admit that the Herb Kohl gravy train has ended and we should be forever grateful for the fact that it lasted as long as it did.
As chick has said previously, if some donor shows up with $150-200 large and Mike doesn't convince him to spend it another more productive way.......
We're running a university here people, not a AAA sports franchise.
Why would it only be 19 dates a year? I'm pretty sure most basketball stadiums cater to multiple teams, sports, and events.
Close the Mecca and there will be plenty of events looking for a home.
Quote from: Goose on March 19, 2018, 10:43:17 AM
TAMU
I am quite certain that the discussions have been more than just throwing out the idea. It would not surprise one bit if MU had their own arena in next 5-7 years.
I am quite certain that you are correct. I would also not be surprised
Quote from: Goose on March 19, 2018, 09:44:40 AM
jsglow
I understand your opinion on an on campus facility and not sure on my thoughts. I have heard over the past year or so that there has been a fair amount of discussion on this topic. IMO, possibly having their own facility and playing 3-4 games at the new arena might be a solid idea. I see the Buck's ownership becoming even worse over the next several years. They are smart guys and I believe are going to bringing in big ticket shows/events far more than the BC ever dreamed of. I would not trust them as far as I could throw them.
I don't trust them either. But I think the likelihood that they find a way to flip the franchise and buy-out the lease is many times the likelihood that they literally price MU out of the market and force construction. And THEN wouldn't we look stupid with an empty nearly brand spakin' new Chaluparena sitting there and MU dumpin' in $200 large for an inferior building 6 blocks closer.
There may come a day when the next mayor sets our rent at $10 a game.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 19, 2018, 10:44:31 AM
Why would it only be 19 dates a year? I'm pretty sure most basketball stadiums cater to multiple teams, sports, and events.
Close the Mecca and there will be plenty of events looking for a home.
Yep. And I laid out that scenario here 3-4 months ago. The land bridge is all there, and tearing down the Mecca to expand and connect the new arena on the north and the MU Benny Dome on the South has a clear path for mega conventions.
How easy would it be to close the MECCA? Between UWM and the Admirals, I don't think it would be all that easy. There was big pushback when the new Bucks arena was going to wipe that out. I doubt there would be ice at the MU stadium. Or that they'd let the Wave and UWM use it.
The Bucks need Marquette as much as we need their arena. Who else is going to fill 18 dates a year and sell 14,000 tickets a game? It's in their best interest for MU to be a happy tenant.
Quote from: Marcus92 on March 19, 2018, 10:53:14 AM
The Bucks need Marquette as much as we need their arena. Who else is going to fill 18 dates a year and sell 14,000 tickets a game? It's in their best interest for MU to be a happy tenant.
Yep. It's just unfortunate that the university leadership didn't fully appreciate that the transaction between the Bucks and MU would be 'arms length'. That had never happened before.
Aren't the MECCA and the new arena under control of the same quasi-governmental entity? If so, that gives them a lot of control over both entities and a better understanding of what events can be held where.
Yeah the Bucks need Marquette, but they know they have MU over a barrel right now. Things may change if MU announces their own arena but as for now MU doesn't have much leverage.
Quote from: cheebs09 on March 19, 2018, 10:52:18 AM
How easy would it be to close the MECCA? Between UWM and the Admirals, I don't think it would be all that easy. There was big pushback when the new Bucks arena was going to wipe that out. I doubt there would be ice at the MU stadium. Or that they'd let the Wave and UWM use it.
I think there would definitely be ice and they would love the Admirals and Wave to play there. Maybe even UWM too!
And I've always been a college hockey fan...
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 19, 2018, 11:00:21 AM
I think there would definitely be ice and they would love the Admirals and Wave to play there. Maybe even UWM too!
And I've always been a college hockey fan...
Great, then we're back to crappy sight lines and are playing in our version of the Allstate arena. Super. Count me in. NOT.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 19, 2018, 10:38:55 AM
It would only happen if the economics make sense. I think there is a situation where they do
Yep, 100% misses if your not Shooting.
Quote from: #bansultan on March 19, 2018, 10:58:19 AM
Aren't the MECCA and the new arena under control of the same quasi-governmental entity? If so, that gives them a lot of control over both entities and a better understanding of what events can be held where.
Yeah the Bucks need Marquette, but they know they have MU over a barrel right now. Things may change if MU announces their own arena but as for now MU doesn't have much leverage.
I didn't follow the arena discussions all that closely, but what prevented MU from getting off the barrel and saying "hey, you know what? I'm taking my business across the street (to the MECCA)"
If the answer to your first question is "yes," then I suppose that answers my question.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 19, 2018, 10:44:31 AM
The Bucks need Marquette as much as we need their arena. Who else is going to fill 18 dates a year and sell 14,000 tickets a game? It's in their best interest for MU to be a happy tenant.
My guess is that if Marquette ever serious about building a new arena, the Bucks owners would suddenly be willing to renegotiate to a deal we could live with.
That means an on-campus arena would probably never get built one way or the other; Marquette would just waste a crap-ton of money to get far enough into the project that the Bucks would take them seriously.
Quote from: Eldon on March 19, 2018, 11:06:46 AM
I didn't follow the arena discussions all that closely, but what prevented MU from getting off the barrel and saying "hey, you know what? I'm taking my business across the street (to the MECCA)"
If the answer to your first question is "yes," then I suppose that answers my question.
That and it's not considered big enough, it has the name of another D1 university on the door, and it would be perceived as a gigantic step-down.
Marcus
I disagree on the Bucks and MU needing each other. First off, you do not hold a "partner" hostage. IMO, the Buck's will take advantage of MU for as long as they can. I am VERY excited about the new arena and have said countless times playing in NBA arena is a positive for recruiting. That said, I actually would love to see an on site MU facility and believe it would be a great investment for the University.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know if MU had to negotiate with the Bucks before this year. I thought they worked with the BC directly.
Gonna be about a $25k per game increase in rent in the new place. It's a big spike, but rent at the BC was flat for a long time.
Marquette wants as strong of a relationship with the Bucks as possible. It goes beyond just the financial particulars of the lease. Playing in a state-of-the-art NBA arena is a draw for both recruits and fans. That has real value to the MU program. There are also connections between the players; someone I talked to yesterday mentioned that Markus goes to the same barber as Giannis.
MU basketball left the MECCA for good reason. I don't see a good reason why we'd ever go back.
Quote from: jsglow on March 19, 2018, 10:47:00 AM
I don't trust them either. But I think the likelihood that they find a way to flip the franchise and buy-out the lease is many times the likelihood that they literally price MU out of the market and force construction. And THEN wouldn't we look stupid with an empty nearly brand spakin' new Chaluparena sitting there and MU dumpin' in $200 large for an inferior building 6 blocks closer.
There may come a day when the next mayor sets our rent at $10 a game.
If wishes were fishes then beggars would feast. If we have control over our own building, we don't have to worry about those possibilities. Could it get exponentially better? Sure. It could also get exponentially worse. If MU has the control, they don't have to worry about the winds of political or NBA franchise fortune.
I will never understand the this desire to forgo the current situation to have an on-campus arena. Can we name one program that has built an on-campus arena where there was no tradition of one before? Especially a program that has access to an NBA arena as it's primary arena?
Don't say Villanova, they've had the Pavilion for years.
Quote from: Goose on March 19, 2018, 11:09:58 AMI disagree on the Bucks and MU needing each other. First off, you do not hold a "partner" hostage. IMO, the Buck's will take advantage of MU for as long as they can. I am VERY excited about the new arena and have said countless times playing in NBA arena is a positive for recruiting. That said, I actually would love to see an on site MU facility and believe it would be a great investment for the University.
How are the Bucks taking advantage of Marquette and holding the basketball program hostage? Not trying to be combative; I honestly don't know the details on how the lease negotiations were substantially different than in the past. If both parties to any business agreement aren't happy, market economics suggest that will ultimately turn out to be a poor long-term decision by the Bucks. Would appreciate any insight you can share.
Marcus
Wait until you see your tickets price is next year and then you will understand. IMO, the Buck's do not need MU at this point. These are smart guys that are going to market the arena and entertainment district to max capacity. It is going to be a great venue for major artists and shows.
MUfan
What is current lease per game?
Quote from: mu03eng on March 19, 2018, 11:26:15 AM
I will never understand the this desire to forgo the current situation to have an on-campus arena. Can we name one program that has built an on-campus arena where there was no tradition of one before? Especially a program that has access to an NBA arena as it's primary arena?
Don't say Villanova, they've had the Pavilion for years.
I completely agree with you. SLU is the only example I can think of with the Scottrade Center, but that wasn't technically an NBA arena. Maybe Xavier, although they played at the Cincinnati Gardens before the Cintas, and the US Bank Arena is there, but not a great option.
Quote from: MUfan12 on March 19, 2018, 11:39:01 AM
$29,000
And the Bucks keep all the concession revenue. MU only gets ticket sales.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 19, 2018, 11:26:15 AM
I will never understand the this desire to forgo the current situation to have an on-campus arena. Can we name one program that has built an on-campus arena where there was no tradition of one before? Especially a program that has access to an NBA arena as it's primary arena?
Don't say Villanova, they've had the Pavilion for years.
SLU opened Chaifetz in 2008. Before that they were playing in the arena that the St. Louis Blues play in.
USC opened the Galen Center in 2006. Prior to that they played in the LA Arena, which was the original home of the LA Lakers prior to the Forum and the home of the Clippers prior to Staples.
UNCC opened Halton Arena in the mid 1990s. They played at the Charlotte Colisium prior to that.
Miami (FL) opened the Watsco Center in 2003. They played in the Miami Arena prior to that.
Cincinnati opened the Fifth Third Arena in 1989. Prior to that they played in the old Riverfront Coliseum.
I'm sure there are others.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 19, 2018, 11:26:15 AM
I will never understand the this desire to forgo the current situation to have an on-campus arena. Can we name one program that has built an on-campus arena where there was no tradition of one before? Especially a program that has access to an NBA arena as it's primary arena?
Don't say Villanova, they've had the Pavilion for years.
The Bucks ownership was able to hold our feet to the fire because there was no other option. In 7 years, their leverage will only increase. When Kohl was in charge, we got a sweetheart deal but have since lost that level of control. I don't view it as forgoing the current situation but rather creating a new situation that will be to our advantage.
I believe only three other programs play in NBA arenas. The aforementioned Villanova, us, Georgetown, and Memphis. We are unquestionably in the best situation of the three because of the proximity to campus and the loyalty of the fanbase. I don't know what Georgetown's complete situation is, but we have talked ad nauseum about their distance from campus, low attendance figures, and Casual Hoya has spent plenty of time discussing the downward trends. (https://www.casualhoya.com/2017/2/25/14740644/attendance-issues)
Memphis may not be able to afford to pay their rent (https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/sports/college/memphis-tigers/basketball/2018/03/03/memphis-tigers-basketball-attendance-grizzlies-fedexforum-tubby-smith-ecu-east-carolina-aac/380634002/) because their situation is so bad. Yes, the decline of the program doesn't help and being 7 miles from campus probably hurts, but that situation isn't good.
When I look at it, the question is if we want to be at the whim of the new Bucks ownership or if we want a situation we can control going forward.
Quote from: #bansultan on March 19, 2018, 11:40:54 AM
SLU opened Chaifetz in 2008. Before that they were playing in the arena that the St. Louis Blues play in.
USC opened the Galen Center in 2006. Prior to that they played in the LA Arena, which was the original home of the LA Lakers prior to the Forum and the home of the Clippers prior to Staples.
UNCC opened Halton Arena in the mid 1990s. They played at the Charlotte Colisium prior to that.
Miami (FL) opened the Watsco Center in 2003. They played in the Miami Arena prior to that.
Cincinnati opened the Fifth Third Arena in 1989. Prior to that they played in the old Riverfront Coliseum.
I'm sure there are others.
San Diego State built an on campus arena in 1997. Prior to that they played in the San Diego Sports arena, where the Clippers played.
The recent MU survey already gave me an idea of the increase in ticket prices. I'm not crazy about the idea of paying more. I like keeping as much of my money as possible. But I'm not totally opposed, either, for a few reasons:
1) Marquette has done an incredible job holding the line on ticket prices in recent years. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw an increase. You'd expect them to go up somewhat based simply on the rate of inflation.
2) I wasn't a season ticket holder when the Bradley Center opened. But I'd wager that MU season ticket prices went up then, too. Why? A better fan experience. Larger arena, comfortable padded seats, wider concourses, better amenities (concessions, parking, luxury boxes, etc.), everything that comes with a state-of-the-art facility.
3) Market economics are balanced by supply and demand. If ticket prices to Bucks and MU games are simply outrageous, both organizations are going to lose fans and revenue. I'm a big fan and proud to be a long-time season ticket holder. But everybody's got their limits.
I'm not sure higher ticket prices alone are proof that the Bucks are holding MU hostage. Again, would welcome any other specifics about the lease negotiations that would indicate we're being taken advantage of.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 19, 2018, 11:43:29 AM
I believe only three other programs play in NBA arenas. The aforementioned Villanova, us, Georgetown, and Memphis. We are unquestionably in the best situation of the three because of the proximity to campus and the loyalty of the fanbase.
St. Johns is in the same situation as Villanova, splitting games between the on-campus and the NBA arena. Only us, Georgetown and Memphis play every game in an NBA arena.
Let's make up some conservative numbers:
Current rent 29K (I assume this is the BC and not the new arena). We get no additional revenue from parking or concessions. Bucks get that money. They also, I presume, get the signage/advertising money. Maybe MU get some from the scoreboard ads.. But cost to MU out of pocket 29K. I assume MU does not contribute to utilities or employees day of the event or fund depreciation, so 29K is pretty cheap.
We miss out on parking money: Let's say if MU had it's own, that would be 1,000 cars at $20 or 20K per game. Again, being conservative.
Let's say the average person spends $15 on food/beer; 15 x 13,500 is about 200K per game with a cost of say 30% would be about 140K a game. If MU priced things right, and sold beer, and people knew they were making a donation to MU, these numbers go up.
29K + 20K + 140K = 189K per game. 189K x 19 games is about 3.5 million year. So, let's say the lost revenue, ignoring costs of ownership is 3.5M. What does that fund, when including depreciation costs/ownership costs/utilities, employees, etc... Maybe 2.5M/3M a year. That would fund a nice new arena. This leaves a lot of money on the table and doesn't include advertising income, other events, donations by donors who want MU to have their own arena and name on it, etc.
Bonus: The right to schedule home dates on the best dates/times available either.
But, it won't be as nice as the new Bucks arena either.
Bottom line is that MU should have options if the Bucks make it financially very difficult to renew with the new arena.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 19, 2018, 11:26:15 AM
Don't say Villanova, they've had the Pavilion for years.
Villanova is getting re-done this year. Will re-open in 2018-19 with all the new bling.
One more thing I forgot to mention. I'm not sure losing Marquette as a tenant and finding alternative revenue is as easy as you think.
Haven't checked this in a while, but I don't believe the Bradley Center held anywhere close to 18 non-basketball events in the past year. If so, the new arena would have to basically double its bookings of non-Bucks games just to break even.
Plus, the arena doesn't bear any of the cost of promoting Marquette games. In fact, the arena currently gets to market upcoming concerts, monster truck pulls, ice shows, etc. to an average of more than 13,000 MU fans at every game.
I'd love to see the Bucks arena become more of a draw for downtown. But if they really don't value the relationship with Marquette, that strikes me as a foolish and short-sighted business decision.
Quote from: Mr. Nielsen on March 19, 2018, 11:59:30 AM
Villanova is getting re-done this year. Will re-open in 2018-19 with all the new bling.
Redone and building fresh are two very different things
Quote from: #bansultan on March 19, 2018, 11:44:24 AM
San Diego State built an on campus arena in 1997. Prior to that they played in the San Diego Sports arena, where the Clippers played.
Got it, so no examples within the past decade and for cities less than a million people other than SLU
Marcus
Replacing MU at BC would have been difficult to do. First off, the committee that runs it is nowhere near as sharp at the Buck's ownership, and attracting top level to BC never really materialized to the level it should have, IMO. Replacing MU for first 3-5 years would be quite easy. The new joint will be a statewide tourist attraction for several years.
Again, the new guys running the arena are savvy biz folks and not the group running the BC. They will find ways to get any genre of entertainment to please the masses. I predict they will have major events going on there at a record clip.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 19, 2018, 12:15:48 PM
Got it, so no examples within the past decade and for cities less than a million people other than SLU
Well if you keep shifting the goalposts, you're bound to eventually be correct.
Let me see if I understand the argument for an on-campus arena. We're going to make at least a $100 mil capex investment for an arena (4th in a city of 600,000) so that 7 years from now we can "force" the Bucks to give us a better deal on the 6 games we play there. At this same time MU is trying to build the endowment AND build a new B school/student facilities. Meanwhile thr STH base will shrink because of ticket costs, which wont improve in a campus arena. And externally there will be some sort of bubble popping(probably) around the cost of higher education and or student debt?
If you have a time machine by all means go back 15 years and make this pitch but it makes no sense in the reality of 2018
Quote from: mu03eng on March 19, 2018, 12:23:44 PM
Let me see if I understand the argument for an on-campus arena. We're going to make at least a $100 mil capex investment for an arena (4th in a city of 600,000) so that 7 years from now we can "force" the Bucks to give us a better deal on the 6 games we play there. At this same time MU is trying to build the endowment AND build a new B school/student facilities. Meanwhile thr STH base will shrink because of ticket costs, which wont improve in a campus arena. And externally there will be some sort of bubble popping(probably) around the cost of higher education and or student debt?
Don't forget the 1000 car parking garage! Seriously, this just makes no sense.
Quote from: #bansultan on March 19, 2018, 12:18:52 PM
Well if you keep shifting the goalposts, you're bound to eventually be correct.
Think of it less of a shift than a clarification based on MU's reality
Quote from: GOO on March 19, 2018, 11:58:44 AM
29K + 20K + 140K = 189K per game. 189K x 19 games is about 3.5 million year. So, let's say the lost revenue, ignoring costs of ownership is 3.5M. What does that fund, when including depreciation costs/ownership costs/utilities, employees, etc... Maybe 2.5M/3M a year. That would fund a nice new arena. This leaves a lot of money on the table and doesn't include advertising income, other events, donations by donors who want MU to have their own arena and name on it, etc.
Bonus: The right to schedule home dates on the best dates/times available either.
But, it won't be as nice as the new Bucks arena either.
Bottom line is that MU should have options if the Bucks make it financially very difficult to renew with the new arena.
You honestly think you can build, maintain, and staff a 14K seat arena (and a parking facility) for $2.5 million per year?
The salaried staff alone is probably going to cost you at least $1 million.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 19, 2018, 12:23:44 PM
Let me see if I understand the argument for an on-campus arena. We're going to make at least a $100 mil capex investment for an arena (4th in a city of 600,000) so that 7 years from now we can "force" the Bucks to give us a better deal on the 6 games we play there. At this same time MU is trying to build the endowment AND build a new B school/student facilities. Meanwhile thr STH base will shrink because of ticket costs, which wont improve in a campus arena. And externally there will be some sort of bubble popping(probably) around the cost of higher education and or student debt?
If you have a time machine by all means go back 15 years and make this pitch but it makes no sense in the reality of 2018
I think ultimately your conclusion is a correct one. Unless you have donors that underwrite a significant portion of this project, and who aren't interested in any other gifting to MU, then I do not think the numbers work.
But I don't think its a bad idea to explore the possibility.
Quote from: #bansultan on March 19, 2018, 12:27:38 PM
I think ultimately your conclusion is a correct one. Unless you have donors that underwrite a significant portion of this project, and who aren't interested in any other gifting to MU, then I do not think the numbers work.
But I don't think its a bad idea to explore the possibility.
Maybe Senator Kohl would be open to funding the Al McGuire Arena in honor of his great friend. :D
Found a copy of the 2014 Bradley Center Financial statement, which is the most recent one I could quickly find.
http://bradleycenter.s3.amazonaws.com/doc/Bradley-Center-Sports-and-Entertainment-Corp-Financial-Statements-6-30-14.pdf
Total annual Expenses - $20 million - a lot of them fixed costs.
Even if you say Marquette is only going to have half of that - it's still a hell of a lot more than what we would ever pay in rent for the Chaluparena.
I agree that the Bucks are savvy business owners. But they've had plenty of help. The NBA basically blackmailed Milwaukee and the state of Wisconsin, threatening to move the franchise if we didn't approve and fund a new stadium. The team owners were simply the lucky beneficiaries.
They haven't shied away from hype, either. On the drawn-out naming rights negotiations, reportedly involving two unnamed finalists, the Bucks have said they seek $10 million a year. MillerCoors (a natural given the popularity of their product with an audience of sports fans) is out of the running. The same company that pays just $2 million a year for rights to Miller Park. Can the Bucks get $8 million more? Perhaps. Sounds more like a brash negotiating tactic or pipe dream to me.
Again, I would love for the new arena to help revitalize downtown. I've heard various big plans to accomplish that over the past 30 years: Grand Avenue Mall, convention center, baseball stadium, casino, House of Blues, streetcar, you name it. I'll believe it when I see it.
Quote from: warriorchick on March 19, 2018, 12:43:17 PM
Found a copy of the 2014 Bradley Center Financial statement, which is the most recent one I could quickly find.
http://bradleycenter.s3.amazonaws.com/doc/Bradley-Center-Sports-and-Entertainment-Corp-Financial-Statements-6-30-14.pdf
Total annual Expenses - $20 million - a lot of them fixed costs.
Even if you say Marquette is only going to have half of that - it's still a hell of a lot more than what we would ever pay in rent for the Chaluparena.
I assume none of that 20mil was debt service on the initial construction, so MU also needs a sugar daddy 4-5 times larger than the 25m Herb gave to the Kohl Center to even reach that point.
Quote from: jsglow on March 19, 2018, 08:18:51 AM
So now you want to build a 9 figure arena because a brand new state of the art arena that might be the best in the entire country doesn't contemplate 'special student seating' in its design? C'mon brew. You're a smart guy. Picture that written proposal bf the BOT.
Benny's already priced it out... not including the cost of the land, you can build a decent on-campus arena that seats around 9k-10k without any luxury boxes, meeting/conference spaces, ancillary amenities, etc. for under $60M; it's those last items where the cost gets to be in the 9-figures... MU doesn't need any of that, although if you could make it self-funding, different story. Operating costs are hard to estimate, but in skimming through the BC's statement that Chick posted, only $5.5M of the BC's $20M is base building R&M, and you could probably chop off at least 20-30% based on more efficient technology alone, and then another 20-30% off of that based on the building's size (on-campus would not be the size of the BC), and then remove the property taxes... in all your base cost to keep the lights on and HVAC running is under $3.0M. The other $14.5M... well, depreciation and interest isn't applicable and the HR and direct costs are tied to the number of events held... a miniscule part of the HR might overlap the AD, but those are mostly costs to staff the arena on gameday, and if those costs are currently covered under the $29k rent at the BC, I would bet the game-day costs are no more than half of the rent.
So very conservative guess: $3.0M to keep the building running, $15k/game to staff, and $500k for year-round personnel. At most, $3.8M/year.
On-campus doesn't make sense with the new arena opening up where rent is not going to be more than $1M/year, but as soon as the Bucks skip town whenever their lease runs out (and mark my words, they will), that's when we break ground on the Thunderdome.
Quote from: Benny B on March 19, 2018, 01:22:44 PM
Benny's already priced it out... not including the cost of the land, you can build a decent on-campus arena that seats around 9k-10k without any luxury boxes, meeting/conference spaces, ancillary amenities, etc. for under $60M; it's those last items where the cost gets to be in the 9-figures... MU doesn't need any of that, although if you could make it self-funding, different story. Operating costs are hard to estimate, but in skimming through the BC's statement that Chick posted, only $5.5M of the BC's $20M is base building R&M, and you could probably chop off at least 20-30% based on more efficient technology alone, and then another 20-30% off of that based on the building's size (on-campus would not be the size of the BC), and then remove the property taxes... in all your base cost to keep the lights on and HVAC running is under $3.0M. The other $14.5M... well, depreciation and interest isn't applicable and the HR and direct costs are tied to the number of events held... a miniscule part of the HR might overlap the AD, but those are mostly costs to staff the arena on gameday, and if those costs are currently covered under the $29k rent at the BC, I would bet the game-day costs are no more than half of the rent.
So very conservative guess: $3.0M to keep the building running, $15k/game to staff, and $500k for year-round personnel. At most, $3.8M/year.
On-campus doesn't make sense with the new arena opening up where rent is not going to be more than $1M/year, but as soon as the Bucks skip town whenever their lease runs out (and mark my words, they will), that's when we break ground on the Thunderdome.
This is wrong, simply because if the Bucks do leave town there will be ENORMOUS politican pressure to keep Marquette in that venue because otherwise it becomes a museum to the idiocy of tax payer funded sports arenas. No way the city/state let's the top 2 tenants flee that stadium.
And that's exactly when MU will have a ton of leverage to reduce the rent to retain them in that facility.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 19, 2018, 01:32:30 PM
This is wrong, simply because if the Bucks do leave town there will be ENORMOUS politican pressure to keep Marquette in that venue because otherwise it becomes a museum to the idiocy of tax payer funded sports arenas. No way the city/state let's the top 2 tenants flee that stadium.
And that's exactly when MU will have a ton of leverage to reduce the rent to retain them in that facility.
But by then, the FoxHole will be obsolete. Where are the self-driving car drop-off areas? Where are the jet-pack landing pads? Where are the charging ports for your beacon that keeps the AI beer vendroids from killing you?
Quote from: Benny B on March 19, 2018, 01:40:27 PM
But by then, the FoxHole will be obsolete. Where are the self-driving car drop-off areas? Where are the jet-pack landing pads? Where are the charging ports for your beacon that keeps the AI beer vendroids from killing you?
(https://media.tenor.com/images/d8478ebe48abe56961c6face7bdfa712/tenor.gif)
Marcus
I would never bet anything of importance based off of other people's failures. The city of MKE has done more to hurt themselves over the years, than to help themselves. That said, over the past 3-4 years I strongly believe that downtown is on an uptick and the new arena is the next big ingredient for "real" downtown success. Just my two cents.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 19, 2018, 01:43:15 PM
(https://media.tenor.com/images/d8478ebe48abe56961c6face7bdfa712/tenor.gif)
Sure...
everyone wants to blame the engineers. So let's do that.
Quote from: Benny B on March 19, 2018, 01:46:26 PM
Sure... everyone wants to blame the engineers. So let's do that.
Well $hit, they didn't put in the user requirements doc that the beer vendroids can't kill people.
Quote from: Goose on March 19, 2018, 01:44:25 PMThat said, over the past 3-4 years I strongly believe that downtown is on an uptick and the new arena is the next big ingredient for "real" downtown success. Just my two cents.
Agree here. Despite my occasional cynicism about sports ownership and local politics, I'm optimistic about Milwaukee's future.
I live on the lower East side, where residential and commercial development appears to be strong. North Avenue and Brady Street are two important hubs. My company just moved from Brookfield to a new building on Water St. within blocks of the Bucks arena. That whole area is exploding, from MSOE to hotels and apartment buildings. Hope the Westown area can take the next step.
Quote from: Marcus92 on March 19, 2018, 02:56:58 PM
Agree here. Despite my occasional cynicism about sports ownership and local politics, I'm optimistic about Milwaukee's future.
I live on the lower East side, where residential and commercial development appears to be strong. North Avenue and Brady Street are two important hubs. My company just moved from Brookfield to a new building on Water St. within blocks of the Bucks arena. That whole area is exploding, from MSOE to hotels and apartment buildings. Hope the Westown area can take the next step.
We stayed at the Pasbt Brewhouse Inn for the Creighton game. Nice to see the Pabst area finally developing after all of these years.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 19, 2018, 11:00:21 AM
I think there would definitely be ice and they would love the Admirals and Wave to play there. Maybe even UWM too!
And I've always been a college hockey fan...
Would it be outside the realm of possibility to have turf available for soccer or Lax too? Keep it all in one building!
Quote from: SaveOD238 on March 19, 2018, 10:15:40 PM
Would it be outside the realm of possibility to have turf available for soccer or Lax too? Keep it all in one building!
I could engineer a design that would allow that.