New facility questions

[GooooMarquette]

We aren't UAB.

We don't plan for arenas for the 10,000 that show up for the Grambling game. We build for the 15,500+ who show for most Big East games. Or the 17,000 who show up for the Badgers, Georgia, Purdue and most other Big 10 teams that come to Milwaukee.

We plan for the notion that we're going to have a great team and that we're going to be a pit with 16,000 to 17,000 rabid fans. Hopefully, we're building for a time when we again win 40, 50 and even 60+ games in a row at home (it's possible). We'll need the seats then. Period.

No kidding.  Did you bother to read the last sentence of my post?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I would love a 10,000 seat on campus arena. Work out a deal with the bucks to put 5 to 6 of the biggest games at the Silk Center and play the rest on campus. Make the on campus arena a snake pit to get the true home court advantage and keep the Silk Center so you can sell recruits on playing in an NBA arena. Best of both worlds. That of course is a pipe dream at this point. But would be cool.

[real chili 83]

Think big, play big, win big. 

[We R Final Four]

We aren't UAB.

We don't plan for arenas for the 10,000 that show up for the Grambling game. We build for the 15,500+ who show for most Big East games. Or the 17,000 who show up for the Badgers, Georgia, Purdue and most other Big 10 teams that come to Milwaukee.

We plan for the notion that we're going to have a great team and that we're going to be a pit with 16,000 to 17,000 rabid fans. Hopefully, we're building for a time when we again win 40, 50 and even 60+ games in a row at home (it's possible). We'll need the seats then. Period.

60+ games in a row at home!

4-5 years without a home loss? Yeah, it's possible.

[dgies9156]

60+ games in a row at home!

4-5 years without a home loss? Yeah, it's possible.

We did it a long, long time ago!

[We R Final Four]

Have you seen our schedule in the last 20 years?
Yeah, Drake and Loyola have been replaced by Nova and X.

[GGGG]

We aren't UAB.

We don't plan for arenas for the 10,000 that show up for the Grambling game. We build for the 15,500+ who show for most Big East games. Or the 17,000 who show up for the Badgers, Georgia, Purdue and most other Big 10 teams that come to Milwaukee.

We plan for the notion that we're going to have a great team and that we're going to be a pit with 16,000 to 17,000 rabid fans. Hopefully, we're building for a time when we again win 40, 50 and even 60+ games in a row at home (it's possible). We'll need the seats then. Period.

You never build for what you need at your max. 

[jsglow]

Here's hoping that the intimacy of the new arena adds to the experience.  Because we're never building some folks 'dream' 8,000 seat arena on campus. 

[muwarrior69]

They said it would cost 125 Million to increase capacity. They had a hard time raising the 60 for the renovations.

So how much does MU pay for the BC every year and how much will the new arena cost MU each year. If MU pays 5 million a year to rent (about 300k per game) then it would be more economical to rent but if they pay 10 then a separate arena on campus might make sense.

Its not about a dream arena on campus it is what makes sense economically.

[warriorchick]

So how much does MU pay for the BC every year and how much will the new arena cost MU each year. If MU pays 5 million a year to rent (about 300k per game) then it would be more economical to rent but if they pay 10 then a separate arena on campus might make sense.

Its not about a dream arena on campus it is what makes sense economically.

You are crazy to think that MU could build, staff and maintain an arena at a net cost of $5 million/year.  And that is assuming that there is a place to actually put it on campus.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

You never build for what you need at your max.

Nor do you build it for your 8-10 worst games. 

In general, I understand why people would like more intimacy but it sure seems like an expensive solution to something that really isn't a problem.

[esotericmindguy]

You are crazy to think that MU could build, staff and maintain an arena at a net cost of $5 million/year.

Why is that? Revenue from parking, concessions and other events outside of MU basketball would easily cover $5M a year. DePaul is building a 175M stadium, although they somehow got the city to pay 100M of it. This after they turned down the United Center to play for free.

I still think it's a better idea to play in a pro arena though. Also, I don't think the new owners have as much leverage as some suggest. Why would they turn away 20 events a year? It makes sense for both sides.

[muwarrior69]

You are crazy to think that MU could build, staff and maintain an arena at a net cost of $5 million/year.  And that is assuming that there is a place to actually put it on campus.

I said it makes more sense to rent at 5 M a year, at 10 M a year it may still be better to rent, but you are getting closer to the break even cost of an on campus facility vs. renting. I am basing this off the 125 M Nova estimate to build a 12K seating facility. At 5M a year rent, it would take 25 years to spend 125M, so better to rent, at 10 M a year it would take 12.5 years to spent 125M. The BC is only 30 years old and is on the chopping block but if the rent gets to high for the new arena, an on campus facility may be a reasonable alternative.

[Litehouse]

I don't understand why people want this mythical on-campus arena.  We have the good fortune to be blocks away from a world-class facility.  When the new place is built, we get to attend games in what will be the greatest basketball arena in the world (for a year or two until the next NBA arena is built).  Why would anyone want to build an on-campus arena, which would end up being a bare-bones facility compared to what the Bucks are building.

[mu_hilltopper]

Reasons:

* General dislike of the NBA, Bucks, and their ownership
* Large arena = lots of empty seats for many games
* NBA arena comes at a high cost

But whatever.  Pissing into the wind at this point.

[DCHoopster]

I don't understand why people want this mythical on-campus arena.  We have the good fortune to be blocks away from a world-class facility.  When the new place is built, we get to attend games in what will be the greatest basketball arena in the world (for a year or two until the next NBA arena is built).  Why would anyone want to build an on-campus arena, which would end up being a bare-bones facility compared to what the Bucks are building.

I agree, college recruits love to play in NBA arenas, who would not.  The amenities will be huge compared to a no frill arena like the Kohl Center.  It is nice, do not
get me wrong, but the Bucks arena will be out of sight.  It will be a great recruiting tool for MU.

[brewcity77]

I don't understand why people want this mythical on-campus arena.  We have the good fortune to be blocks away from a world-class facility.  When the new place is built, we get to attend games in what will be the greatest basketball arena in the world (for a year or two until the next NBA arena is built).  Why would anyone want to build an on-campus arena, which would end up being a bare-bones facility compared to what the Bucks are building.

Here are benefits I see to an on-campus arena:
.

• Control: What happens if the Bucks move? If rent doubles? An on-campus facility with updates every few decades could be an answer to any of those types of problems. Cameron Indoor was built 77 years ago and is still doing the job.
  
• Environment: We've only exceeded an 14,000 fans 11 of 30 years the BC was open, and only exceeded 16,000 twice. We will never routinely sell out a venue like the Silk. However, a 12,000 seat on-campus arena would've averaged sell-outs 24/30 years.
  
• NCAA Success: The Badgers have benefited from us hosting, yet they never return the favor. An on-campus arena would allow us to play here when Milwaukee hosts.
  
• Silk is Still There: We could still rent out the Silk for big games. Villanova on a Saturday? Wisconsin coming to town? Finally have a home-and-home with Notre Dame? Book us into the Silk. We could still play big games there, have that environment, and sell a NBA arena, but do so in a way that is more beneficial to us than playing in front of empty seats 5-6 times per year.
  
• What if We're Bad: I understand the "we can draw 15,000 if we're good" argument, but what about when we're not? In a smaller, on-campus venue, MU would pocket all the revenue and would be selling out whether we were good, bad, or in-between.

.
I don't expect it to happen, but there's plenty of benefit to having an on-campus arena. However, it's a plan that looks more at how we would benefit over the next 40-50 years and not the next 10. Not a lot of people like to look that far ahead these days.

[Bocephys]

Shouldn't we just lump the on-campus arena in with the "why doesn't Marquette start football?" threads?

[Litehouse]

Uhhh...you don't think Duke could sell twice as many season tickets as Cameron holds?

Just wanted to comment on this...  no, I don't think they could sell that many season tickets.  Duke's local following is not that big.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Shouldn't we just lump the on-campus arena in with the "why doesn't Marquette start football?" threads?

Maybe. But its less of a pipe dream than football is.

[bilsu]

I do not think there is anyway MU would build their own arena.

I could see MU dropping buy games to do more home and homes with teams like Notre Dame, Louisville, etc.
This is of course is assuming the arena rent is per game and not per season.
Getting rid of four bunny games and replacing them with two high level home games would save two nights arena rental and four $100,000 payments for buy games, which would partially offset the loss of ticket revenue from two less home games. Adding attractive games would result in higher attendance for those games, which also would offset some of the lost revenue for less home games. A more attractive ticket package could lead to more season tickets sold and would presumably allow for a higher per game price. Nobody complains about paying $50 to see a game against Notre Dame and nobody likes paying $50 to see Chicago St.

There would be the additional cost of traveling for two more road games.

Moving four buy games to the Al would result in a significant loss of ticket revenue as you would have to separate them from the regular season ticket package. A certain amount of tickets in the Al would be set aside for students, which means there are even less tickets available for season ticket holders.

[brewcity77]

I do not think there is anyway MU would build their own arena.

I could see MU dropping buy games to do more home and homes with teams like Notre Dame, Louisville, etc.
This is of course is assuming the arena rent is per game and not per season.
Getting rid of four bunny games and replacing them with two high level home games would save two nights arena rental and four $100,000 payments for buy games, which would partially offset the loss of ticket revenue from two less home games. Adding attractive games would result in higher attendance for those games, which also would offset some of the lost revenue for less home games. A more attractive ticket package could lead to more season tickets sold and would presumably allow for a higher per game price. Nobody complains about paying $50 to see a game against Notre Dame and nobody likes paying $50 to see Chicago St.

Oh boy. Umm...no way. First of all, neither ND nor Louisville are answering our calls. They don't want the series, no matter how much we may.

I could see them adding one, but they need to fill dates. Marquette had 16 home games in 2013-14, but are routinely playing 18-19 games at home. That's even with the fewer games (30 total) the past two years. 18 last year (including the exhibition) and 18 this year. Marquette is counting on those games as revenue.

I don't think we'll see anything with less than 18 games (including exhibition) going forward. That means at least 8 home games in the non-con. Expecting 3 at neutral sites, one true road game (UW/Gavitt), that really doesn't leave much room for flexibility. You could have two additional alternating home-and-homes (so Georgia, LSU, Vandy, those types of series) but no more than that because you'd expect one to be on the road. Or a neutral site game on the road. And even then, everything else has to be at home.

There would be the additional cost of traveling for two more road games.

Moving four buy games to the Al would result in a significant loss of ticket revenue as you would have to separate them from the regular season ticket package. A certain amount of tickets in the Al would be set aside for students, which means there are even less tickets available for season ticket holders.

Not a chance in hell they'll move any more games to the Al. People who got to see MU/Alabama A&M got to see what will be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. That game dropped us out of the top-20 in attendance that year. We averaged 13,657 (22nd in the country) because of it, but averaged 14,318 in the other 16 games, which would have been 19th.

I also think an on-campus arena is unlikely,

[Dr. Blackheart]

That Alabama A&M drew 3080 at The Al.  And that was with the novelty of it all.  Woof, woof.

[warriorchick]

I also think an on-campus arena is unlikely,

Understatement of the year.

[jsglow]

That Alabama A&M drew 3080 at The Al.  And that was with the novelty of it all.  Woof, woof.

Chick and i had a fantastic time.  Started with Chili, ended at Caf's.  But it's definitely novelty.