|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Apr 8, 2005 10:55:52 GMT -5
tgo, I hate to say you are very likely wrong there. I'm a Yates member, and the amount of non-student Yates members easily outweighs students who go to Yates. Yates would shut down without non-students. Most students look at it as a fee rather than a membership that they use. That's sort of a weak argument, when the number of students who go to Men's basketball games (10-13 times a year, not counting the games during Thanksgiving/Winter Break) make up less than 20% of the crowd at those games.
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Apr 8, 2005 12:06:13 GMT -5
If the student support resembles those games at the end of last year rather than the beginning, then my argument absolutely holds true. If not, tgo's does.
If I'm right, it's 1300ish vs 1000ish.
If he's right, it's 1000ish vs 600ish.
All I'm saying is that it's a tough thing to do to base this on attendance during the leanest of the lean Esh years. Plus, this totally ignores other factors like the fact that we are in the bottom 3 of facilities in the NBE, with few plans for reaosnable upgrades!
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 8, 2005 12:33:44 GMT -5
not true at all, i am the biggest supporter of an on campus arena but if yates needs to be remodled it is a far bigger priority for the university. An arena supports activities that fewer than 300 students activly participate in and fewer than 2000 students (usually far far fewer) passively participate in during a school year. I would assume that easily more than 5000 students use yates in a year. there is no contest there. Let me clarify my comments above with the following two points. a) You can't measure the effect an on-campus arena would have simply by adding up the number of students regularly attending basketball games. Examples: Cameron Indoor Stadium. The RAC. The Pit. The Dean Dome. Allen Fieldhouse. These arenas do more for their schools and basketball programs than allow students to walk to games rather than ride yellow buses. They create an atmosphere that excites the home crowd, intimidates the opposition, causes ESPN announcers to gush, makes the basketball game the place to be on campus, and makes high school kids want to mail in applications. Also, if you do want to add up the number of students a new arena would benefit, I believe students care about Georgetown basketball more than you think. How many kids signed the Fire Esherick petition two years ago? A lot of these fans are dormant: they don't go to games unless the team is in the top 25 or playing for a tourney bid. An on campus arena, if done right, would bring out more of these fans and be a good thing not just for the students but for the University as a whole. b) Likewise, the urgency of remodeling/leveling Yates should not be judged not by the number of students who use it. I think the measuring stick here should probably be the number of students who are genuinely unhappy with the gym. I go to law school at Texas, which has not one, but two on-campus gyms that blow Yates away. And you know what? It really doesn't matter that much to me. As popular as bitching about Yates is, it's still a place to run track in the winter and lift weights for a pretty good price (which most students' parents cover anyway). All students really need is an open space to work out. Yates serves a basic function. An arena does much more. I don't think GU needs a new student gym until all other priorities have been met. You may disagree with me on what the University's priorities are, and that's okay. My main point above was that anyone who donates money solely to athletics AND thinks an on-campus arena is a priority (which I assume would include at least a few people on this board) isn't going to see their money doing what they want it to, and that's frustrating.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,288
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 8, 2005 13:57:00 GMT -5
What I see the problem is that the Administration can always come up with a more pressing priority rather than an on-campus arena. Thus, if Jack says it is a four step process, such a statement is only operative until another more pressing priority is identified by the Administration. He prefaced the Q&A session by talking about the groundbreaking and fundraising for the new business school, the new science building and the performing arts center. An on-campus arena, it seems to me, keeps getting shuffled to the back of the line. If there were some way to persuade the Administration that an on-campus arena could be a spur to greater fundraising, involvement of alums, and therefore more money to the university as a whole, perhaps the issue would not keep getting pushed back.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Apr 8, 2005 15:14:25 GMT -5
I agree with SSHoya's analysis that the Admin keeps moving other priorities ahead of the John Thompson Jr. Convocation Center at McDonough Arena. It's frustrating to see GU do this song and dance for almost 20 years now.
On the other hand, I do acknowledge that GU BADLY needs better science facilities and a business school. We are a school that outperforms, in academics, athletics, etc., our facilities and continually competes with the very best year in and year out (well, except in b-ball in 2003/4). It is tough to recruit the best students and athletes with sub-par facilities. I think it is most important to focus on the academic parts. However, I think after building the performing arts center the Arena should be the next groundbreaking. Yates can wait. I thought Yates was pretty neat but as a student, and especially now as an alumnus, it's far more important to have something to unite campus in athletics like a new Arena.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,743
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 8, 2005 15:17:19 GMT -5
Agree.
The MSF and B-school have raised most of their cash and/or broken ground.
The science building is ridiculously needed. The Fine Arts center has also broken ground.
But that's it. Next should be the Convocation Center.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 8, 2005 15:28:28 GMT -5
Agree. The MSF and B-school have raised most of their cash and/or broken ground. The science building is ridiculously needed. The Fine Arts center has also broken ground. But that's it. Next should be the Convocation Center. Amen. Yates is fine for right now. Obviously, it's an average gym at best, but it serves its purpose and thus any reconstruction can wait. An on campus arena is needed and it's needed asap--which would be after the MSB building, science builiding and Fine Arts center and nothing else.
|
|
tgo
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 799
|
Post by tgo on Apr 8, 2005 17:26:28 GMT -5
i have not been to yates in almost a decade (wow am I old) so i dont know what condition it is in. If it isnt falling apart then I agree that the arena should come first, my point is that in the grand scheme of things yates is more important to GU and its students than an arena because it is an important part of the day to day or at least week to week life of the majority of students while an arena would not be, there is no comparison. If yates is in the same shape it was when I was there, usable but not beautiful, no reason it needs to jump in front of the arena.
|
|
david
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 157
|
Post by david on Apr 8, 2005 18:24:16 GMT -5
Let me clarify my comments above with the following two points. a) You can't measure the effect an on-campus arena would have simply by adding up the number of students regularly attending basketball games. Examples: Cameron Indoor Stadium. The RAC. The Pit. The Dean Dome. Allen Fieldhouse. These arenas do more for their schools and basketball programs than allow students to walk to games rather than ride yellow buses. They create an atmosphere that excites the home crowd, intimidates the opposition, causes ESPN announcers to gush, makes the basketball game the place to be on campus, and makes high school kids want to mail in applications. Also, if you do want to add up the number of students a new arena would benefit, I believe students care about Georgetown basketball more than you think. How many kids signed the Fire Esherick petition two years ago? A lot of these fans are dormant: they don't go to games unless the team is in the top 25 or playing for a tourney bid. An on campus arena, if done right, would bring out more of these fans and be a good thing not just for the students but for the University as a whole. b) Likewise, the urgency of remodeling/leveling Yates should not be judged not by the number of students who use it. I think the measuring stick here should probably be the number of students who are genuinely unhappy with the gym. I go to law school at Texas, which has not one, but two on-campus gyms that blow Yates away. And you know what? It really doesn't matter that much to me. As popular as bitching about Yates is, it's still a place to run track in the winter and lift weights for a pretty good price (which most students' parents cover anyway). All students really need is an open space to work out. I live in Austin, too.
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,438
|
Post by lichoya68 on Apr 8, 2005 18:34:40 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,288
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 9, 2005 5:50:59 GMT -5
Perhaps those of us at the basketball banquet can corner Jack and lobby for a convocation center. The more it is on his radar screen, the better.
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Apr 9, 2005 9:57:31 GMT -5
I'd be happy to join in this effort!
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,288
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 9, 2005 10:17:24 GMT -5
Perhaps JTIII will entertain questions at the banquet, like he did when the HHC hosted the reception for him at the beginning of the year. Then we can raise the issue of a convocation center/arena with him and Jack together in a public forum. Jack usually attends the banquet. Put Jack more on the spot in front of the supporters of the basketball program who actually dd give money.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,746
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 9, 2005 13:17:50 GMT -5
Neither Thompson nor DeGioia will let themselves be put on the spot.
Remember that Craig Esherick pushed this issue publicly and then suddenly stopped talking. Remember that the Hoop Club leadership publicly promised movement on this issue at past banquets, too.
Maybe a better question is this: "If, in the future, the University is unable or unwilling to support rent payments to MCI Center, can the program continue to compete in the Big East conference"?
|
|
TigerHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,808
|
Post by TigerHoya on Apr 9, 2005 20:37:38 GMT -5
I think playing where you practice is overrated. I'd like to see some proof it helps. A loud and packed arena is nice. But as an interim step, you'll get 90% of the recruiting benefits with MCI/new practice facility. I agree. Clemson still hasn't finished their gameday facilities for football, just started building them recently but they remodeled the current practice lockerrooms and other facilities that the players use everyday and coupled that with the blueprints for the stadium facilities in their recruiting pitches. The impact was noticeable immediately.
|
|
HoyaSpirit
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Gotta love Smitty - 1989 Big East Player of the Year
Posts: 305
|
Post by HoyaSpirit on Apr 10, 2005 1:03:36 GMT -5
I agree with DFW, MCI and others who are emphasizing the importance of on-campus games:
For starters, if we won one more game this year (for example, we would have been far more likely to beat Providence if we had played in front of 7,000 screaming fans at McDonough), we most likely would have been in the tournament and that would have resulted in:
a. more revenue - as I understand you get paid per game in the tourney you play - if we had played two games - it would have been money for us.
b. better recruiting from having made the tournament - translates to success, and more money in the future.
c. greater fan attendance for next season - having built the reputation of being a tournament level team.
In addition, playing a bunch of games in an exciting facility would:
1. generate excitement for the program 2. quite possibly make mci a more exciting place - if people get excited and into the habit of cheering a lot at a McDonough - they're most likely to continue that habit at MCI. 3. make recruits want to play for us - do you want to play for a team with little excitement or noise at home games - or a lot
Also toss in that:
* We probably make more money if we sell 7,000 tickets for the crap games (norfolk st. etc.) at McDonough versus if we sell 6,000 tickets for the crap games at MCI.
* We can play NIT games at McDonough whenever we want. We might have been playing longer this season in NIT if we had played South Carolina at McDonough in front of 7,000. Again, that's better recruiting, more exposure, etc. from playing at MSG and being on tv.
* We have more flexibility on other fronts - example: when a snowstorm hit Connecticutt this winter, the program told fans (email, announcement etc.) that if they couldn't make the game and wanted a student to use the ticket - to let them know. Thousands of fans took advantage of this offer - students were psyched about it, and all the extra students in the high priced seats created a crazy loud atmosphere at Gumpel.
* We can hire arena staff that treats students decently. We could go on forever about mci staff.
* Campus spirit
* Alumni giving - a lot of alums have connection to the school through the sports team still. It’s the main reason my Dad and I talk about Georgetown at all with each other (both went there).
* How much time annually would be saved annually. If you multiply 2,500 students times 14 home games (6 ooc, and 8 conf) times an hour per game - that's 35,000 hours a year. If you multiply that times $7 an hour - average of what a student could make per hour working I'm guessing conservatively (I made more than that on average 15 years ago - so it could be higher actually) - that's $245,000 a year.
On average, we'll probably play more like 7 ooc games at home. So take even 2,300 students times 15 games and you’ve got basically the same number -34,500 hours and a quarter million dollars a year in students time.
Or time that students - who are paying I’m estimating $27,000 a year, $3,000 a month, and $715 a week (which if you break into 40 hours a week is $17.80 an hour) for education - could be spending studying and learning. At $17 an hour in students education time - it’s $600,000 a year.
Throw in the cost of renting buses, gas and wear and tear on students cars, and taxi fares.
* Increased national TV coverage (ESPN, etc.) - which increases recruiting, prominence and fan excitement - if the Hoyas play at McDonough versus MCI. Clearly ESPN was excited about McDonough and on average this could bring a couple more televised games per year to us.
It seems to me that this has been pushed back even further than before. And that DeGoia has added things to the list of to do’s before McDonough. Last time it was a couple things including the lax field and Southwest quad buildings. I pretty clearly remember the list was not this long the last time they said what had to be done before McDonough could be renovated - I can’t say for sure what’s been added - but I think the Yates fieldhouse might be one of them.
Per usual (at least from my experience at the campus in 4 years), the administration seems like it’s driving with blinders on - up in their ivory tower in la la land. Their own scheme and fairly disconnected.
|
|