(12-31-2014 06:46 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  Honestly I don't see how you can complain about the football stadium. Akron had to get a new stadium or there was no point in staying FBS. IF you have not been to the Rubber Bowl it is hard to understand how bad it was getting by the end (and it was not very good to begin with) and in addition from what I understand it would be more expensive to update the Rubber bowl than it would be to make a new stadium. Could they have made the new stadium less expensive? Maybe slightly but honestly not by much really. Comparatively speaking the JAR is not so good but is 100% useable and a new arena is less a need than a want. The football stadium was more of a need than a want. They are not comparable.

Thank you Sultan

Even High Schools were starting to complain about the Rubber Bowl. The JAR is one of those situations that even if you just kept it in code, you would be alright. However since the landscape has changed so much that just to keep up , they have to do something.

Over at Zipsnation theres is a very interesting conversation happening about it. I have said this for the last 4 years: there is only one place that could "write the check." However Goodyear has said nothing about it. LeBron James has said nothing(even if he could match dollar for dollar).

Every Zips fan know that something needs to be done(unless we KNOW that we are going back to the Valley). I hate to say this, but it feels like a lose-lose.

(12-30-2014 07:40 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 10:55 PM)pono Wrote:  good idea to renovate an existing building. do it well and it is usually better and cheaper than a new oversized arena. savage arena at toledo is the model, imo. not the convo at emu or dekalb

I understand the point you are making but sometimes some context is helpful.

In the case of EMU, renovating Bowen wasn't an option. It is basically an indoor T&F facility which had rollout bleachers for basketball. Really no way to make it a good basketball arena and keep the functionality for other sports and college phy ed classes.

It hosted phy ed and all EMU athletics as there were no indoor practice facility, etc.

Baseball players put up nets, men and women's hoops competed with phy ed for practice time. There were nets so that basketball could practice in 'privacy' away from all of the other hustle and bustle.

Think of all the other sports like volleyball, wrestling, etc. etc. and of course weight training for all sports.

For EMU, the Convo (besides being a convocation center) is the home for weight training, most of the athletic offices, etc. etc. as well as hoops, volleyball, etc.

As I understand it today, schools are trying to build football building to separate FB weight training from weight training for other sports.

While the EMU Convo is controversial to some, it added much needed office space and facilities. If EMU drew 3K / game the Convo would look impeccable. (the lower bowl seats around 4K). [Actually 2.5K looks pretty good in the Convo].

EDIT: Check out my current avatar for a game with about 2.5K. The Convo looks nice. It was 'Education Day' at EMU and they put a lot of students up in the upper bowl and left lower bowl seats for (EMU) students and paying customers. This was the women's game (1st of the doubleheader) and one can see empty student seating behind the one basket. Hopefully, EMU students came for the men's game.

i've been to the convo and it's a nice facility. also used to go to bowen back in the day. true, it was a makeshift arena, but still had atmosphere and a core of 2-3 k fans there every game , not just the big ones. the switch to the convo came at an a time when an older generation of mac fans were hitting their senior years. folks who became fans in the 1950s, 60s, 70s when college hoops had more emotion and game day energy have been dying off or became less interested in the current way game day is done; video screens, loud recorded dated pop hip hop music, less organized cheers and student contests.

it seemed to me going on road trips to the convo with a memory of bowen, that most of the old folks didn't make the transition and a new bigger arena with a smaller fan base was left over.

my reference to savage is how ut rebuilt the stands to bring fans closer, switched a section of rarely used upper seating to income generating suites, and made the lobbies, bathrooms, etc... more comfortable. by renovating they saved money and were able to use it for new weight rooms, a hall of fame walk, a ball only practice court, fresh offices, etc... the whole thing is connected to a new track stadium and indoor football facility right in the middle of campus.

now, when toledo has 4 or 5 k fans for a game the lower 3/4 of the arena is mostly full. and for big games it is packed. this has worked well for toledo, but, granted, every school's situation and needs differ.

A few people have remarked that the timing for a renovation is odd. Sure, the JAR needs to be updated. But this decision seems rushed. UA had the option to wait for a while longer and gather support for a new arena. Instead, they're moving forward quickly with this, as if they needed to get something done as soon as possible. The JAR isn't the worst athletic facility at UA. That honor belongs to the baseball field, which desperately needs lights and seating at the bare minimum. But renovating the basketball arena turns heads. Maybe it's a part of a push for C-USA.

(01-01-2015 02:57 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  A few people have remarked that the timing for a renovation is odd. Sure, the JAR needs to be updated. But this decision seems rushed. UA had the option to wait for a while longer and gather support for a new arena. Instead, they're moving forward quickly with this, as if they needed to get something done as soon as possible. The JAR isn't the worst athletic facility at UA. That honor belongs to the baseball field, which desperately needs lights and seating at the bare minimum. But renovating the basketball arena turns heads. Maybe it's a part of a push for C-USA.

C-USA? Did you dust off a 10 year old post?

(01-01-2015 06:15 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:57 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  A few people have remarked that the timing for a renovation is odd. Sure, the JAR needs to be updated. But this decision seems rushed. UA had the option to wait for a while longer and gather support for a new arena. Instead, they're moving forward quickly with this, as if they needed to get something done as soon as possible. The JAR isn't the worst athletic facility at UA. That honor belongs to the baseball field, which desperately needs lights and seating at the bare minimum. But renovating the basketball arena turns heads. Maybe it's a part of a push for C-USA.

C-USA? Did you dust off a 10 year old post?

It's the only reason I can think of that would cause such urgency.

(01-01-2015 06:43 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 06:15 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:57 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  A few people have remarked that the timing for a renovation is odd. Sure, the JAR needs to be updated. But this decision seems rushed. UA had the option to wait for a while longer and gather support for a new arena. Instead, they're moving forward quickly with this, as if they needed to get something done as soon as possible. The JAR isn't the worst athletic facility at UA. That honor belongs to the baseball field, which desperately needs lights and seating at the bare minimum. But renovating the basketball arena turns heads. Maybe it's a part of a push for C-USA.

C-USA? Did you dust off a 10 year old post?

It's the only reason I can think of that would cause such urgency.

Let me try a different spin.

The MAC East is losing ground in football and now basketball to the MAC West.

I'd think Akron wants to give it hoops programs a boost.

A lot of programs dating back to the 90s (e.g., EMU, BSU, NIU) and 00s (e.g., Toledo, WMU, CMU, BG, etc.) and more recently Miami have upgraded their hoop facilities by renovating or building new. UB did likewise, but I forgot when. (think I have my decades right but there might be a mistake or two or even three. ).

Akron NEEDS to give its facilities a boost.

(01-01-2015 09:26 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 06:43 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 06:15 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:57 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  A few people have remarked that the timing for a renovation is odd. Sure, the JAR needs to be updated. But this decision seems rushed. UA had the option to wait for a while longer and gather support for a new arena. Instead, they're moving forward quickly with this, as if they needed to get something done as soon as possible. The JAR isn't the worst athletic facility at UA. That honor belongs to the baseball field, which desperately needs lights and seating at the bare minimum. But renovating the basketball arena turns heads. Maybe it's a part of a push for C-USA.

C-USA? Did you dust off a 10 year old post?

It's the only reason I can think of that would cause such urgency.

Let me try a different spin.

The MAC East is losing ground in football and now basketball to the MAC West.

I'd think Akron wants to give it hoops programs a boost.

A lot of programs dating back to the 90s (e.g., EMU, BSU, NIU) and 00s (e.g., Toledo, WMU, CMU, BG, etc.) and more recently Miami have upgraded their hoop facilities by renovating or building new. UB did likewise, but I forgot when. (think I have my decades right but there might be a mistake or two or even three. ).

Akron NEEDS to give its facilities a boost.

I agree with this. Something needs to happen to the JAR sooner rather than later. Akron has been the most stable and consistent men's hoops program in the MAC for Dambrot's entire tenure. That's great, but it doesn't answer the looming question of what happens when he moves on. Then you have a new coach selling a program built by someone else. That's an enormous challenge anywhere, but at Akron, you have a dumpy arena and a school facing declining enrollment and the financial issues that accompany it. That's not exactly a stable platform for coaxing players to come. They should solve the arena issue while Dambrot is there. He and the program deserve it and need it.

(01-01-2015 02:57 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  A few people have remarked that the timing for a renovation is odd. Sure, the JAR needs to be updated. But this decision seems rushed. UA had the option to wait for a while longer and gather support for a new arena. Instead, they're moving forward quickly with this, as if they needed to get something done as soon as possible. The JAR isn't the worst athletic facility at UA. That honor belongs to the baseball field, which desperately needs lights and seating at the bare minimum. But renovating the basketball arena turns heads. Maybe it's a part of a push for C-USA.

In a way it seems rushed, and in a way it doesn't. The discussion of bball facility improvements goes back a number of years, probably since Dambrot arrived. The study that was cited in the recent ABJ article was done a couple of years ago, so this has been evolving for a while. Plans for a city or county-owned arena have also been simmering for a number of years. But since that is not happening in the near future and there are not significant funds for the U. to build new, the only option is incremental upgrades as a bridge to a future new facility, be it 20 years off or whatever. I think the urgency comes in that everyone is tired of waiting and it is putting a ceiling on the growth of the program, attendance, and yes, the Zips' attractiveness to other conferences.

(01-01-2015 10:54 AM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:57 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  A few people have remarked that the timing for a renovation is odd. Sure, the JAR needs to be updated. But this decision seems rushed. UA had the option to wait for a while longer and gather support for a new arena. Instead, they're moving forward quickly with this, as if they needed to get something done as soon as possible. The JAR isn't the worst athletic facility at UA. That honor belongs to the baseball field, which desperately needs lights and seating at the bare minimum. But renovating the basketball arena turns heads. Maybe it's a part of a push for C-USA.

In a way it seems rushed, and in a way it doesn't. The discussion of bball facility improvements goes back a number of years, probably since Dambrot arrived. The study that was cited in the recent ABJ article was done a couple of years ago, so this has been evolving for a while. Plans for a city or county-owned arena have also been simmering for a number of years. But since that is not happening in the near future and there are not significant funds for the U. to build new, the only option is incremental upgrades as a bridge to a future new facility, be it 20 years off or whatever. I think the urgency comes in that everyone is tired of waiting and it is putting a ceiling on the growth of the program, attendance, and yes, the Zips' attractiveness to other conferences.

I don't believe the attractiveness to other conferences.

IF that happens it will be when the Zips win the MACC and average 25k / game, preferably several times and then which conference????

Not because of a renovated JAR.

I have to think that Akron is being considered by CUSA.

They fit everything CUSA has proven to be looking for.

They bring in a big market in a new state, they are within our current footprint, they have good basketball and they have a very nice football stadium.

I would love to see CUSA land Akron.

(01-01-2015 01:00 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  I have to think that Akron is being considered by CUSA.

They fit everything CUSA has proven to be looking for.

They bring in a big market in a new state, they are within our current footprint, they have good basketball and they have a very nice football stadium.

I would love to see CUSA land Akron.

I think too many students these days are studying Putin instead of Tolstoy.

I don't know why C-USA would want to annex Akron.

Would that bring C-USA up to 13 FB teams?

(01-01-2015 01:00 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  I have to think that Akron is being considered by CUSA.

They fit everything CUSA has proven to be looking for.

They bring in a big market in a new state, they are within our current footprint, they have good basketball and they have a very nice football stadium.

I would love to see CUSA land Akron.

Big market? Lol. Keep dreaming.

(01-01-2015 01:15 PM)emu steve Wrote:  I think too many students these days are studying Putin instead of Tolstoy.

I don't know why C-USA would want to annex Akron.

Would that bring C-USA up to 13 FB teams?

No, UAB leaving is bringing C-USA down to 13, when they were going to have 14 once Charlotte started playing CUSA FB.

But CUSA needs a Western Division school, and its awfully hard to Akron being an attractive add for the CUSA Western Division ~ that is, UTEP, UTSA, North Texas, Rice, LA Tech and Southern Miss ... and Akron???

I think not.

Or add 3 MAC schools and go to North/South divisions. Intra-divisional travel costs would then be pretty reasonable.

CUSA is just not an improvement for a Midwest school. Its changes have robbed it of most of its best programs. UTEP will head to MWC at first opportunity and with UAB leaving, who is left that makes it an upgrade? Seems very lateral.

BTW, current RPI as we finish up non-conference play: MAC #12, CUSA #19.

Thought experiment: now that CUSA and MAC are equal, who would the AAC take if they needed to replace members or wanted to expand (say 3 schools)?

(01-01-2015 08:28 PM)axeme Wrote:  CUSA is just not an improvement for a Midwest school. Its changes have robbed it of most of its best programs. UTEP will head to MWC at first opportunity and with UAB leaving, who is left that makes it an upgrade? Seems very lateral.

BTW, current RPI as we finish up non-conference play: MAC #12, CUSA #19.

A lateral move that differentiates you from homogeneous group (at least in the minds of people you want to catch the attention of) doesn't seem like a bad idea.

(01-01-2015 09:18 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 08:28 PM)axeme Wrote:  CUSA is just not an improvement for a Midwest school. Its changes have robbed it of most of its best programs. UTEP will head to MWC at first opportunity and with UAB leaving, who is left that makes it an upgrade? Seems very lateral.

BTW, current RPI as we finish up non-conference play: MAC #12, CUSA #19.

A lateral move that differentiates you from homogeneous group (at least in the minds of people you want to catch the attention of) doesn't seem like a bad idea.

To everyday fans, I guess.

(01-01-2015 09:22 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 09:18 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 08:28 PM)axeme Wrote:  CUSA is just not an improvement for a Midwest school. Its changes have robbed it of most of its best programs. UTEP will head to MWC at first opportunity and with UAB leaving, who is left that makes it an upgrade? Seems very lateral.

BTW, current RPI as we finish up non-conference play: MAC #12, CUSA #19.

A lateral move that differentiates you from homogeneous group (at least in the minds of people you want to catch the attention of) doesn't seem like a bad idea.

To everyday fans, I guess.

It's everyday fans that fill up seats.

Who are the CUSA teams that everyday Akron fans want to see? Evidently it's not Marshall. I just don't see opponents that the avg fan would care about more than MAC teams.

I'm kind of indifferent about Akron leaving or not. Seems like a bad idea the way CUSA has panned out, but it could be a good thing for the MAC if they replaced judiciously.