House Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 I know this has been talked about before, but the game last night made me that much more excited about an on-campus arena. I don't particularly like the setup in St. Charles (i.e. end seats too far from the court, parking, distance from campus, etc.), but the energy in a smaller arena is obvious. I think it makes a difference to the players and gives them a boost as well. 8,000-10,000 is very respectable for a crowd at a college game, but at Savvis, that amount looks embarrassing and it is harder for the fans to get into the action and for the players to feed off the crowds energy. Add to that fact that an on-campus arena and an improving team will bring out bigger crowds and SLU might be able to create a true home-court advantage. We have to get it done. I think the success of the program depends on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Faulk Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 "but the energy in a smaller arena is obvious." what game were you at? i sat in 110 and for 35 of the 40 minutes you could hear a pin drop in that place. i hate st. charles arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Posted January 15, 2006 Author Share Posted January 15, 2006 Last night was not a great game. A lot of turnovers and tough defense had both offenses struggling. That kept the crowd in check, but I still say there was more energy than 90% of the games at Savvis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I also think it was a better atmosphere ... but as you all know I would like to see the whole place standing the last 5 clock minutes of a close game. The Family Arena is set up for hockey so all of the seats are further from the court than they will be at our arena Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dewey33 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 the pace of the game did keep the energy down.... however, the set-up allowed them to be a factor when the team needed them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 No way I'm popping a grand and a half to sit twenty yards off the endline at a new arena. You smaller arena types are going to pissed off when you are high in the corners. The game atmosphere was not significantly different from a savvis game. It was quiet as hell till the end, much like the St. Bonnie game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philliken Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 This is a tough topic to be opposed to or an advocate of. The positives are that it brings basketball TO campus. We will draw more fans, and it will actually serve as an intimidation point to opposing teams (see Cameron Indoor). However, with it's seating capacity, for games against teams like Duke (who Brad wants to get inagural year), Louisville or Cincy (if they want to play a former C-USA rival) or even the Iowa's, there is more than a probability that the game will sell out. In my mind, there is a difference between packed and loud, and not having enough seats. The worse part is, is that this forces alumni to buy season seats. There is no way in hell that alumni will get last minute seats against the foes. We are now REJECTING fans out of a Billiken game. When is the last time any of you have had a problem getting tickets to see the beloved Buddhas. That is my biggest complaint, and a selfish one at that. The most important thing though is to get a respectable program and make some serious runs at the tournament - which draws better recruits - and in turn makes us stronger to build for the dance. It's the same cycle that keeps Duke, UNC, and all the big programs competetive. I guess, unfortunately, this arena really is the best thing for thie Bills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STLfan Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 The new arena is supposed to seat 13,000. That is plenty big and not to small. This year we are hovering around .500 and we have seen an increase in our attendance. For the Gonzaga game I believe we had 15,000. A 13,000 seat on campus arena will be perfect for us. Our current average attendance will fit in it and not look bad plus it will leave room for the program to continue to grow. True big games against Gonzaga, UNC, Iowa, and others will most likely sell out but that's a good thing. Also that would be about 10,000 less seats than the Savis Center so we probably wouldn't be competeing with them as much for the same events. For fun here is our attendance to this date last year and this year. Last Years Attendance SLU vs. ORU - 7,502 SLU vs. Hawaii - 7,821 SLU vs. UWM - 7,202 SLU vs. Oakland - 7,131 SLU vs. Dayton - 8,108 SLU vs. SEMO - 9,282 SLU vs. Tulane - 7,486 SLU vs. Cincinati - 8,761 This Years Attendance SLU vs. EIU - 7,534 SLU vs. SIUC - 8,875 SLU vs. Jackson St. - 6,817 SLU vs. Kennesaw St. - 7,127 SLU vs. Gonzaga - 15,707 SLU vs. Chicago St. - 7,457 SLU vs. Iowa - 10,489 SLU vs. SBU - 7,344 SLU vs. UMass - 9,633 Last year to 01/16/05 we averaged - 7,912 This year to 01/16/06 we averaged - 8,998 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 At any given game, a material portion of the current season ticket holders' seats are either EMPTY or given to the OPPOSING TEAM'S FANS. The Iowa game is a perfect example of this. If anyone has been to a Billiken game, then A) they are very well aware of this, and they know it is a source of irritation. A smaller arena with more expensive seats would likely filter out at least some, if not a large percentage, of the casual season ticket holders who do not come to a lot of games (yes, most of the corporate ticket buyers will still be there), but give the tickets to opposing fans. More seats close to the court WILL make for better sight lines. Family Arena is a bad example because it is set up for hockey. My seats at Savvis are pretty good. At Family Arena they suck specifically because we are moved back fifty feet due to the hockey configuration. Too many great teams with great traditions and a great, dedicated fan base play in smaller arenas (approx. 10,000 or fewer), hence, based on empircal evidence it is hard to argue that a smaller arena would be worse for fans or for the team. Now, I will grant you that if we consistently (and by "consistently" I mean EVERY YEAR) won 23+ games, then, sure, we could sell out a 15,000 seat arena, but that is not going to happen. Consequently, I think it is really foolish to build a building for those few stretches where the team is phenomenal only to have a sea of empty seats and opposing fans swarming the arena during the other 90% of the seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikendave Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I couldn't go to the game but I watched the game on tv. I have been to see SLU at the family arena. For me, the Savvis is just too big. SLU's crowd just doesn't look good and any noise made is swallowed by the size of the arena. The Family Arena looked full. On TV, it sounded full. The A10 guys who were broadcasting made a note about how good the crowd was. I guess in comparision to many A10 facilties which hold 4000-6000. As far as getting a bad seat, sitting in a building that is designed for basketball is going to offer better and more seats than exist a the Savvis. Both the Family Arena and Savvis have terrible seats around the end lines. I am starting to think a 10,000 seat arena -- with better site lines geared for basketball and not hockey- is the way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Alumnifan Said: A smaller arena with more expensive seats would likely filter out at least some, if not a large percentage, of the casual season ticket holders who do not come to a lot of games (yes, most of the corporate ticket buyers will still be there), but give the tickets to opposing fans. More seats close to the court WILL make for better sight lines. Family Arena is a bad example because it is set up for hockey. My seats at Savvis are pretty good. At Family Arena they suck specifically because we are moved back fifty feet due to the hockey configuration. How many "casual season ticket holders" do you think there are? I'm guessing that the lower bowl no shows are more corporate types than just individuals. I contend that you are 100% wrong. I believe that you will end up with MORE corporate no shows or opponent giveaways as the ticket cost goes up. Not to worry, I'll be back in the upperdeck. You can enjoy being swamped by the SIUC faithful... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I do not follow your logic. I know of a large number of season ticket holders, friends, clients, etc. who rarely come to games. I am constantly giving them trouble for not showing up. More than a few of them tell me they keep the tickets because they are so cheap. Corporations are not going to buy MORE tickets because they are more expensive. If anything, the corporations, especially the smaller ones that cannot afford boxes at Savvis, are going to be hit hard, very hard, to invest in luxury boxes at the new arena which will move them AWAY from the court, but give them the amenities they want to entertain clients. I would LOVE to see a 10,000 seat arena. Just my preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I am sorry but some of you advocating a 10,000 seat arena are missing the one major point: The AD program needs to raise a money from the men's BB program to support the other teams which we have to offer to stay D1. Now if the women's BB team draws better then some pressure will be taken off but my guess is that realistically the men's team will still be the work horse revenue provider. The more seats in the new arena the less season tickets have to cost and the less need there is for PSLs. The smaller the arena the higher the ticket price and the more likely more seats will be tagged with a PSL. Now I realize that this is all predicated on us being good enough to fill 13,000 but in the long run most of you will be whining about the cost and how you are being pushed way up to the top and what a bad idea the new arena was and so on and so on. You need to stop trying to make things "perfect" and understand that this is all about "money". SLU will get the money either by selling more tickets or raising prices - period! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I don't understand. You said: "The more seats in the new arena the less season tickets have to cost and the less need there is for PSLs." Isn't the cost of a 10,000 seat arena less than the cost of a 13,000 seat arena? Therefore, why would it be chepaer to add more seats if the debt load carried by the arena is greater? When you consider that we don't even average 9,000 people per game, those extra 3,000 seats begin to look very, very expensive. In short, I don't believe that it is a good investment to spend extra millions to add 3,000 seats that may not even be filled for the majority of the games. Empty seats are not going to pay for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 draw better than we do now. We have past evidence that we can draw better and most of us believe that our program is on the rise. Winning=more attendance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I don't sit around many empty seats I guess. Maybe if I did, I'd agree with you. I'd always assumed that the emptys were corporate owned giveaway types. I would further assume that companies have a greater tolerance for ticket price increases than I do. Assuming I am correct, the lower bowl will be more likely to be filled with the opposing teams fans. Does anyone have actual data on who/what entity owns season tix? I'm obviously not talking about luxury boxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 what is the basis for our attendence figure, is it tickets sold, tickets distributed, people through the gate, does anyone know what the answer is????'I think knowing the answer would frame this a bit better for me. it is hard work being a Billiken fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Keep in mind that the debt/bond repayment/payment schedule will probably run for over 20 years. To ecomically justify 13,000 seats, there should be some reasonable assurances that all 13,000 seats will not only be filled during the next year or two, but also during the balance of the 20+ year payment schedule. If I were in charge of the project, I would be much more comfortable in the 9,000-10,000 seat range. If I were the coaching staff and athletic administration, I would favor a smaller venue that would create a more collegiate atmosphere and a bigger home court advantage, all of which translate into success and $$$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 The attendance figures are based upon tickets sold, not persons in actual attendance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 We established several years ago (probably during the streak of games when we only had 2000-3000 in the house, and announced attendance was much higher than that) that attendance is either paid attendance or tickets distributed. I'd guess the former. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrlandoStewart Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Wasn't the Arena suppose to be built by fall of 2005. It will probably be another 2-3 years before we will have the thing built. Why doesn't Kim Tucci just donate some of his money to help build the damn thing, and I don't mean $100 eithr Kim. Missouri Baptist will have their new rec plex built before SLU does, they already raised 8 million dollars in one year for there new Rec on campus Rec Plex/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Your assumptions may be great and they may be crud. We don't know the additional cost or the additional benefits of having a bigger arena. It's fine to say that a smaller arena is cheaper but we don't know by how much. I'm thinking along two lines. If we go smaller, I get screwed on location. If we go bigger we have room to grow back our fan base. Gonzaga proves that 13000 will not always be enough seats to accomodate demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Orlando why don't you give half of your net worth to the Salvation Army RIGHT NOW. Then again they probably have enough BS without you ponying up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Kim Tucci doesn't have the kind of dollars required for this project. In fact, the Pasta House Company has really struggled during the last several years. To my knowledge, the only local individuals with ties to the Unversity and the money to make it happen are the Busch family (i.e., Anheuser-Busch) and the Novelly family (Apex Oil and related companies). The Shahanans (Eng. Sup. Systems) are also very wealthy boosters, but they have already pledged in excess of $1MM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Between the Arena and the Research Center we have raised over $80 million if I am correct. That is 10x $8 million. And, that $80 million is only a fraction of the total campaign dollars that have been raised which totals nearly $300 million. Please put things in perspective. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.