The Tad has few amenities and is certainly not fan friendly. But it is pretty cool. It's one of the early classic 1960's round domed buildings. The glass block and steel windows have an art-deco kind of funk. The entrance / box office is classic 1960's.

Fant-Ewing was built in the 1970's, and while it's also round and domed, it's missing the style and details that the Tad has.

(04-17-2010 08:06 PM)Scotto Wrote:  The Tad has few amenities and is certainly not fan friendly. But it is pretty cool. It's one of the early classic 1960's round domed buildings. The glass block and steel windows have an art-deco kind of funk. The entrance / box office is classic 1960's.

Fant-Ewing was built in the 1970's, and while it's also round and domed, it's missing the style and details that the Tad has.

I remember it looking a lot like Louisiana Tech's arena. Oval shaped. I was down there just a year or so ago, and I thought I remembered it looking a little aged, but much better than Barton. Like I said, I saw none of the rooms underneath the stands. Don't know what that looked like, but the arena didn't look bad at all.

(04-17-2010 08:06 PM)Scotto Wrote:  The Tad has few amenities and is certainly not fan friendly. But it is pretty cool. It's one of the early classic 1960's round domed buildings. The glass block and steel windows have an art-deco kind of funk. The entrance / box office is classic 1960's.

Fant-Ewing was built in the 1970's, and while it's also round and domed, it's missing the style and details that the Tad has.

Great observations from an architect on styles and history. But both places, despite their architectual significance, are still dumps.

(04-17-2010 09:59 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:06 PM)Scotto Wrote:  The Tad has few amenities and is certainly not fan friendly. But it is pretty cool. It's one of the early classic 1960's round domed buildings. The glass block and steel windows have an art-deco kind of funk. The entrance / box office is classic 1960's.

Fant-Ewing was built in the 1970's, and while it's also round and domed, it's missing the style and details that the Tad has.

Great observations from an architect on styles and history. But both places, despite their architectual significance, are still dumps.

When I went down to Monroe, I believe about three years ago, they appeared to be doing renovations (redoing the seating) in the arena. With a little updating I don't think there's anything wrong with the arena. Unlike Barton it is built for basketball.

(04-17-2010 10:12 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 09:59 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:06 PM)Scotto Wrote:  The Tad has few amenities and is certainly not fan friendly. But it is pretty cool. It's one of the early classic 1960's round domed buildings. The glass block and steel windows have an art-deco kind of funk. The entrance / box office is classic 1960's.

Fant-Ewing was built in the 1970's, and while it's also round and domed, it's missing the style and details that the Tad has.

Great observations from an architect on styles and history. But both places, despite their architectual significance, are still dumps.

When I went down to Monroe, I believe about three years ago, they appeared to be doing renovations (redoing the seating) in the arena. With a little updating I don't think there's anything wrong with the arena. Unlike Barton it is built for basketball.

Really? Built for basketball? Is that why the sidelines are curved to be really far away from the sidelines of the basketball court? At least at Barton we were able to get our fans right up on the court. Not so in Monroe.

Those curved rows are great for dog shows and bull fighting. Not so much for basketball.

Both buildings really are dumps. Just one is a bit cooler dump.

(04-17-2010 11:47 PM)Scotto Wrote:  Those curved rows are great for dog shows and bull fighting. Not so much for basketball.

Both buildings really are dumps. Just one is a bit cooler dump.

I used to think having a new arena would really help our recruiting. We had Alltel for about 7 years and Stephens for 4 years. We certainly haven't out recruited Ole Miss. I'm not even sure we've consistently out recruited ULM. We have had 3 coaches during that time. Maybe those who want a change are right that another coach could do better. I'm not so sure. Well, I'm sure there are coaches who would do better- just not so sure we'd get them to come here.

Show them the money.

(04-18-2010 01:20 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 11:47 PM)Scotto Wrote:  Those curved rows are great for dog shows and bull fighting. Not so much for basketball.

Both buildings really are dumps. Just one is a bit cooler dump.

I used to think having a new arena would really help our recruiting. We had Alltel for about 7 years and Stephens for 4 years. We certainly haven't out recruited Ole Miss. I'm not even sure we've consistently out recruited ULM. We have had 3 coaches during that time. Maybe those who want a change are right that another coach could do better. I'm not so sure. Well, I'm sure there are coaches who would do better- just not so sure we'd get them to come here.

I thought we recruited pretty good players under Porter Moser. The Sidney Moncrief year was such a disaster that I'm not sure it's fair to throw that in the mix. The fact of the matter is that we got better basketball players in the past than we are now. Hopefully the bunch coming in this year will head us back in the right direction.

And let me tell you something. There are only 300 something head coaching jobs in Division I. There are a hell of a lot of very good young coaches out there that are anxious to get one of those 300 something head coaching positions. At whatever level. Be it Southland, Sun Belt, Ohio Valley or what. Having qualified candidates for the position at Little Rock would not be a problem if the job came available. When and whether that job should be available is within the job description for our AD.

Didn't Coach Moncrief recruit some pretty good players..?

(04-18-2010 12:03 PM)Scotto Wrote:  Didn't Coach Moncrief recruit some pretty good players..?

He did, with Moser's help. Shields helped Porter as well. The proof in the pudding however can be found in Jim Platt. He had far, far, far less to work with than Moncrief, Moser, and Shields, and he got the best players in the program's history to play for Little Rock.

(04-18-2010 12:10 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 12:03 PM)Scotto Wrote:  Didn't Coach Moncrief recruit some pretty good players..?

He did, with Moser's help. Shields helped Porter as well. The proof in the pudding however can be found in Jim Platt. He had far, far, far less to work with than Moncrief, Moser, and Shields, and he got the best players in the program's history to play for Little Rock.

I guess that just proves that facilities are just a small part of the equation in recruiting. Allen Field house has 14,000 bleacher seats and a few wooden chairbacks for the big donors. Doesn't seem to hurt Kansas' recruiting a whole lot.

Good point. I'm sure every one of those 14,000 bleacher seats are occupied every home game. My personal belief is that is important to have a decent arena and decent fan support. In our case we continue to allow the "commuter School" thing to be an excuse or crutch. I have never believed that traditional campus life is that important to present day athletes. What is traditional anyway? Don't believe basketball players care much about sitting in the student center sipping a coke through a straw.

(04-18-2010 12:10 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 12:03 PM)Scotto Wrote:  Didn't Coach Moncrief recruit some pretty good players..?

He did, with Moser's help. Shields helped Porter as well. The proof in the pudding however can be found in Jim Platt. He had far, far, far less to work with than Moncrief, Moser, and Shields, and he got the best players in the program's history to play for Little Rock.

Hey. Didn't Ron Kestenbaum recruit some pretty darn good players?

(04-18-2010 01:52 PM)DollarBill Wrote:  Good point. I'm sure every one of those 14,000 bleacher seats are occupied every home game. My personal belief is that is important to have a decent arena and decent fan support. In our case we continue to allow the "commuter School" thing to be an excuse or crutch. I have never believed that traditional campus life is that important to present day athletes. What is traditional anyway? Don't believe basketball players care much about sitting in the student center sipping a coke through a straw.

I don't think "campus life" means much to the "one and done" players or Juco players who are older. My thought has been (and I may be wrong) that the average 17 year old, who happens to be a basketball player, is not that much different than the average 17 year old who is not an athlete. While basketball related things (coach, facilities, conference, etc.) will greatly effect their decision they are also looking at things the average student does- campus, social life, girls, educational quality, etc.
Who knows what makes any one kid make his decision. Trey Finn was quoted that he switched to ASU because they had a football team. I took that to mean they had a more "traditional" campus life and were away from home.

(04-18-2010 03:27 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 01:52 PM)DollarBill Wrote:  Good point. I'm sure every one of those 14,000 bleacher seats are occupied every home game. My personal belief is that is important to have a decent arena and decent fan support. In our case we continue to allow the "commuter School" thing to be an excuse or crutch. I have never believed that traditional campus life is that important to present day athletes. What is traditional anyway? Don't believe basketball players care much about sitting in the student center sipping a coke through a straw.

I don't think "campus life" means much to the "one and done" players or Juco players who are older. My thought has been (and I may be wrong) that the average 17 year old, who happens to be a basketball player, is not that much different than the average 17 year old who is not an athlete. While basketball related things (coach, facilities, conference, etc.) will greatly effect their decision they are also looking at things the average student does- campus, social life, girls, educational quality, etc.
Who knows what makes any one kid make his decision. Trey Finn was quoted that he switched to ASU because they had a football team. I took that to mean they had a more "traditional" campus life and were away from home.

I agree that a lot of things go into a kid selecting a college to attend, and basketball players aren't immune to those same considerations. But to say that facilities don't make a difference, I think that is incorrect as far as the statement goes. Dollarbill hit the nail on the head. If you have 14,000 plus jamming the arena like Kansas does for every game, and you have the storied tradition that they do, then the fact that those people sit on bleachers makes zero difference to the players.

But if you are an outfit like us, having a nice facitily should make a lot of difference since we don't have either the tradition or the fans in the stands that other places have. Having really upscale locker rooms, etc. should be a big recruiting benefit. Diddle Arena isn't nearly as plush as the Stephens Center, but it is a much more exciting place to attend a basketball game due to the attendance, atmosphere, and tradition.

The bottom line is that we have done better in the past with lessor facitilies, so there is no reason to believe that we can't do better in the future with nice facilities.

(04-18-2010 04:48 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 03:27 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 01:52 PM)DollarBill Wrote:  Good point. I'm sure every one of those 14,000 bleacher seats are occupied every home game. My personal belief is that is important to have a decent arena and decent fan support. In our case we continue to allow the "commuter School" thing to be an excuse or crutch. I have never believed that traditional campus life is that important to present day athletes. What is traditional anyway? Don't believe basketball players care much about sitting in the student center sipping a coke through a straw.

I don't think "campus life" means much to the "one and done" players or Juco players who are older. My thought has been (and I may be wrong) that the average 17 year old, who happens to be a basketball player, is not that much different than the average 17 year old who is not an athlete. While basketball related things (coach, facilities, conference, etc.) will greatly effect their decision they are also looking at things the average student does- campus, social life, girls, educational quality, etc.
Who knows what makes any one kid make his decision. Trey Finn was quoted that he switched to ASU because they had a football team. I took that to mean they had a more "traditional" campus life and were away from home.

I agree that a lot of things go into a kid selecting a college to attend, and basketball players aren't immune to those same considerations. But to say that facilities don't make a difference, I think that is incorrect as far as the statement goes. Dollarbill hit the nail on the head. If you have 14,000 plus jamming the arena like Kansas does for every game, and you have the storied tradition that they do, then the fact that those people sit on bleachers makes zero difference to the players.

But if you are an outfit like us, having a nice facitily should make a lot of difference since we don't have either the tradition or the fans in the stands that other places have. Having really upscale locker rooms, etc. should be a big recruiting benefit. Diddle Arena isn't nearly as plush as the Stephens Center, but it is a much more exciting place to attend a basketball game due to the attendance, atmosphere, and tradition.

The bottom line is that we have done better in the past with lessor facitilies, so there is no reason to believe that we can't do better in the future with nice facilities.

Just win baby. WIn and they will come.


Coach Newell to Monroe. You know it makes sense to me.
Couple of notes re: ULM arena, etc. Calvan Natt was the MAN, Brother Kenny wasn't too bad either. They grew up in Bastrop so NELA was a natural for them. The arena was built for basketball. Having grown up in Monroe, I remember it opening with great fanfare for our small town. Gov Edwards probably was the one who got the money for it. He doles out lots of money prior to going to prison! It may have been Gov Treen. Getting old can't remember. Gonna have to disagree with my friend PTJR....it was built for basketball and for years was the thing to do in Monroe!!

(04-18-2010 05:29 PM)mdtntrojanceo Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 04:48 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 03:27 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 01:52 PM)DollarBill Wrote:  Good point. I'm sure every one of those 14,000 bleacher seats are occupied every home game. My personal belief is that is important to have a decent arena and decent fan support. In our case we continue to allow the "commuter School" thing to be an excuse or crutch. I have never believed that traditional campus life is that important to present day athletes. What is traditional anyway? Don't believe basketball players care much about sitting in the student center sipping a coke through a straw.

I don't think "campus life" means much to the "one and done" players or Juco players who are older. My thought has been (and I may be wrong) that the average 17 year old, who happens to be a basketball player, is not that much different than the average 17 year old who is not an athlete. While basketball related things (coach, facilities, conference, etc.) will greatly effect their decision they are also looking at things the average student does- campus, social life, girls, educational quality, etc.
Who knows what makes any one kid make his decision. Trey Finn was quoted that he switched to ASU because they had a football team. I took that to mean they had a more "traditional" campus life and were away from home.

I agree that a lot of things go into a kid selecting a college to attend, and basketball players aren't immune to those same considerations. But to say that facilities don't make a difference, I think that is incorrect as far as the statement goes. Dollarbill hit the nail on the head. If you have 14,000 plus jamming the arena like Kansas does for every game, and you have the storied tradition that they do, then the fact that those people sit on bleachers makes zero difference to the players.

But if you are an outfit like us, having a nice facitily should make a lot of difference since we don't have either the tradition or the fans in the stands that other places have. Having really upscale locker rooms, etc. should be a big recruiting benefit. Diddle Arena isn't nearly as plush as the Stephens Center, but it is a much more exciting place to attend a basketball game due to the attendance, atmosphere, and tradition.

The bottom line is that we have done better in the past with lessor facitilies, so there is no reason to believe that we can't do better in the future with nice facilities.

Just win baby. WIn and they will come.


Coach Newell to Monroe. You know it makes sense to me.
Couple of notes re: ULM arena, etc. Calvan Natt was the MAN, Brother Kenny wasn't too bad either. They grew up in Bastrop so NELA was a natural for them. The arena was built for basketball. Having grown up in Monroe, I remember it opening with great fanfare for our small town. Gov Edwards probably was the one who got the money for it. He doles out lots of money prior to going to prison! It may have been Gov Treen. Getting old can't remember. Gonna have to disagree with my friend PTJR....it was built for basketball and for years was the thing to do in Monroe!!

If there is any guy that frequents this board who should know about ULM it is you! How the hell have you been? Missed you!

Why did they build the seats on the sideline so far back from the court? I accept that basketball was the driving force behind getting the building built, but apparently it wasn't done with a basketball court in the center as the main priority.

Wouldn't it be something if Newell ended up there. You talk about something that would stir things up when ULM came to town!

And has Zach made a decision on college yet?

(04-18-2010 04:48 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 03:27 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 01:52 PM)DollarBill Wrote:  Good point. I'm sure every one of those 14,000 bleacher seats are occupied every home game. My personal belief is that is important to have a decent arena and decent fan support. In our case we continue to allow the "commuter School" thing to be an excuse or crutch. I have never believed that traditional campus life is that important to present day athletes. What is traditional anyway? Don't believe basketball players care much about sitting in the student center sipping a coke through a straw.

I don't think "campus life" means much to the "one and done" players or Juco players who are older. My thought has been (and I may be wrong) that the average 17 year old, who happens to be a basketball player, is not that much different than the average 17 year old who is not an athlete. While basketball related things (coach, facilities, conference, etc.) will greatly effect their decision they are also looking at things the average student does- campus, social life, girls, educational quality, etc.
Who knows what makes any one kid make his decision. Trey Finn was quoted that he switched to ASU because they had a football team. I took that to mean they had a more "traditional" campus life and were away from home.

I agree that a lot of things go into a kid selecting a college to attend, and basketball players aren't immune to those same considerations. But to say that facilities don't make a difference, I think that is incorrect as far as the statement goes. Dollarbill hit the nail on the head. If you have 14,000 plus jamming the arena like Kansas does for every game, and you have the storied tradition that they do, then the fact that those people sit on bleachers makes zero difference to the players.

But if you are an outfit like us, having a nice facitily should make a lot of difference since we don't have either the tradition or the fans in the stands that other places have. Having really upscale locker rooms, etc. should be a big recruiting benefit. Diddle Arena isn't nearly as plush as the Stephens Center, but it is a much more exciting place to attend a basketball game due to the attendance, atmosphere, and tradition.

The bottom line is that we have done better in the past with lessor facitilies, so there is no reason to believe that we can't do better in the future with nice facilities.

Have you been to Diddle since they did the multimillion dollar renovation? I haven't. I'm sure it still isn't as plush as the Stephens Center but I bet they spruced it up quite a bit.

(04-18-2010 07:30 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 04:48 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 03:27 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 01:52 PM)DollarBill Wrote:  Good point. I'm sure every one of those 14,000 bleacher seats are occupied every home game. My personal belief is that is important to have a decent arena and decent fan support. In our case we continue to allow the "commuter School" thing to be an excuse or crutch. I have never believed that traditional campus life is that important to present day athletes. What is traditional anyway? Don't believe basketball players care much about sitting in the student center sipping a coke through a straw.

I don't think "campus life" means much to the "one and done" players or Juco players who are older. My thought has been (and I may be wrong) that the average 17 year old, who happens to be a basketball player, is not that much different than the average 17 year old who is not an athlete. While basketball related things (coach, facilities, conference, etc.) will greatly effect their decision they are also looking at things the average student does- campus, social life, girls, educational quality, etc.
Who knows what makes any one kid make his decision. Trey Finn was quoted that he switched to ASU because they had a football team. I took that to mean they had a more "traditional" campus life and were away from home.

I agree that a lot of things go into a kid selecting a college to attend, and basketball players aren't immune to those same considerations. But to say that facilities don't make a difference, I think that is incorrect as far as the statement goes. Dollarbill hit the nail on the head. If you have 14,000 plus jamming the arena like Kansas does for every game, and you have the storied tradition that they do, then the fact that those people sit on bleachers makes zero difference to the players.

But if you are an outfit like us, having a nice facitily should make a lot of difference since we don't have either the tradition or the fans in the stands that other places have. Having really upscale locker rooms, etc. should be a big recruiting benefit. Diddle Arena isn't nearly as plush as the Stephens Center, but it is a much more exciting place to attend a basketball game due to the attendance, atmosphere, and tradition.

The bottom line is that we have done better in the past with lessor facitilies, so there is no reason to believe that we can't do better in the future with nice facilities.

Have you been to Diddle since they did the multimillion dollar renovation? I haven't. I'm sure it still isn't as plush as the Stephens Center but I bet they spruced it up quite a bit.

It's very nice, but it's no Stephens Center by any means. Of course I haven't seen the other parts like the dressing rooms, and etc. It seems like I read on the WKU board that they also built an auxiallry gym. They've got the suites and etc. They didn't do anything to the outside of the building as I remember.