Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unconfigured Ad Widget 7

Collapse

Dave Reynolds 5/25/10

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dave Reynolds 5/25/10

    Thought I'd post this in a separate thread, even though it's being discussed in the thread about PSOs

    Dave has some updated information about the new Bradley arena-

  • #2
    This quote from Cross seems odd to me.

    "We don??™t want to limit people??™s ability to see games."

    Really? Then why are you doing that very thing?

    Or this one.....

    ???We??™ve invested significantly to construct what is a magnificent arena, and we have an obligation to try to figure out ways to maximize use of that facility.???

    So Bradley builds on-campus, but not for the men. Then immediately uses the excuse that they have to use it since they built it.

    What about the fans who INVESTED in season tickets? Any OBLIGATION there???

    This whole thing has bothered me from day 1 and it's not getting any better.
    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

    Comment


    • #3
      I do think it is nice having an option that if BU wants to host a CIT or CBI game, they could do so at the new arena. I feel there was a lot of pressure last year to not play in one of those tournaments due to the potential financial risk if people wouldn't show up in force to be able to turn a profit after renting the Civic Center.

      I do think an NIT home game should be at the Civic Center though.

      Comment


      • #4
        It really sounds like it comes down to me that by using the Mens basketball program as I guess a carrot, the licensing for the seats will be much easier to move and thus increase the attendance for womens basketball and volleyball. Hopefully the increased exposure for those two programs will generate increased interest and larger crowds ie filling the remaining seats.

        I think it is fine to play a game in the new arena, BU did it back in the fieldhouse v Illinois Weselyan.

        But if they move a game to the arena the season ticket package at Carver should money wise reflect the less game.

        Maybe they play the bracket buster game in the new arena every other year.

        Comment


        • #5
          You can always pick through any interview and flame parts but overall I find Michael Cross' logic quite sound.
          "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people...they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
          ??” Thomas Jefferson
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by houstontxbrave View Post
            It really sounds like it comes down to me that by using the Mens basketball program as I guess a carrot, the licensing for the seats will be much easier to move and thus increase the attendance for womens basketball and volleyball. Hopefully the increased exposure for those two programs will generate increased interest and larger crowds ie filling the remaining seats.

            I think it is fine to play a game in the new arena, BU did it back in the fieldhouse v Illinois Weselyan.

            But if they move a game to the arena the season ticket package at Carver should money wise reflect the less game.

            Maybe they play the bracket buster game in the new arena every other year.
            Did IWU or BU win that one?
            I went to IWU, so it was a good time following the Titans win the D-III title in '97 and the Braves MVC title in '96.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by LittleBrave View Post
              Did IWU or BU win that one?
              I went to IWU, so it was a good time following the Titans win the D-III title in '97 and the Braves MVC title in '96.
              Bradley won. 81-63 in the 93-94 season.

              Comment


              • #8
                Im mixed on this....Im all for the BU men playing a game at the new arena...but I HATE the fact that over 5000+ regulars will miss it....more "regulars" will miss the game than will get to see it. We average like 5000 more people than the new arena can hold....Use it as an emergency backup...but I certainly wouldn't want to start scheduling multiple games/year there. Its never a great idea to start alienating a fan base who WANTS to be at the game.
                DUBL R 1

                Comment


                • #9
                  I understand his point, but I then have to ask the question as to why it wasn't built to hold at least 6,000 or 7,000 people if flexibility was truly something they wanted out of this. They had the Fieldhouse that could hold nearly 8,000, and we never heard this kind of rhetoric.
                  Onward and Upward!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Take it easy

                    Let's not make a big deal out of playing an exhibition game on campus! I don't think we ever have more than 4000 at the first one anyway! It might even make for quite an atmosphere to start the year..

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Toyota12 View Post
                      Let's not make a big deal out of playing an exhibition game on campus! I don't think we ever have more than 4000 at the first one anyway! It might even make for quite an atmosphere to start the year..
                      No one has a problem with the exhibitions being there. It's the regular season and postseason considerations that have people irritated.
                      Onward and Upward!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BradleyBrave View Post
                        I understand his point, but I then have to ask the question as to why it wasn't built to hold at least 6,000 or 7,000 people if flexibility was truly something they wanted out of this. They had the Fieldhouse that could hold nearly 8,000, and we never heard this kind of rhetoric.
                        Ya I don't understand why they didn't put at least the number you suggested if they wanted flexibility. Was there a reason we did not want to play men's games on campus? I think an on campus arena would have been a good thing, but it would have needed to have a lot bigger capacity. Why didn't we go that route?

                        I like the idea of playing a game on campus, but I wish they would have just built the arena to suit the men's team to do so.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BUfan14 View Post
                          Ya I don't understand why they didn't put at least the number you suggested if they wanted flexibility. Was there a reason we did not want to play men's games on campus? I think an on campus arena would have been a good thing, but it would have needed to have a lot bigger capacity. Why didn't we go that route?

                          I like the idea of playing a game on campus, but I wish they would have just built the arena to suit the men's team to do so.
                          I am guessing that BU would have had a more difficult time getting City Council approval to build a building that might take revenue out of their (the city's) pockets.
                          Onward and Upward!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I just thought Michael Cross was saying it as a bargaining chip the next time BU has to negotiate with the Civic Center. The Rivermen threated to leave at the end of their lease and new scoreboard pops up.

                            I understand 5,000 getting shutout would suck, but think of the demand for the 4,200. Could you imagine people calling around to find out who has an extra ticket to the Bradley/Idaho State game?
                            1996 & 2019

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SFP View Post
                              You can always pick through any interview and flame parts but overall I find Michael Cross' logic quite sound.
                              So it's a "flame" because I do not agree with Cross? That's a new one to me.
                              When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

                              Comment

                              Unconfigured Ad Widget 6

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X