Billiken Roy

[kshoe]

Have you read what the proposed divisions will be for the new Big East.

The Western division could be:

Depaul

Marquette

Cinci

Louisville

Notre Dame

Pittsburgh

Villanova

West Virginia

Notre Dame and Depaul are in Marquette's back-yard and Louisville and Cinci they are already playing.

Explain to me how that division will cost more to travel to then a possible A-10 division of:

SLU

Dayton

Richmond

Xavier

Charlotte

GW

Duquesne

We will do fine in the A-10 people. Especially if we keep 1 non-conference game with Marquette and Depaul this will work out fine.

[slu72]

You know this would be a really good division if we had Butler instead of Duquense. I am not complaining though. This is the best we can get right now. Hopefully, these things come to pass in the next four years: Arena gets built, SLU goes to a sweet 16, and makes the Dance two or three times, our attendance gets back to 12-13,000 pg.

[billiken_roy]

personally, if this thing shakes out as it looks like it will, i hope we never play depaul and marquette again in regular season.

[SluSignGuy]

I sure hope we do. I mean, admitedly they kind of screwed us over, but the average fan won't know that, and view it as a good game to see. Plus the fans that do know the history behind it will want to beat the snot out of them.

Depaul and Marquette (or at least one of them) could replace our Dayton game. I think a game against each would be a nice home away series.

Just my opinion,

Steve

[Billiken Rich]

NM

[davidnark]

We may be jealous, but we shouldn't be bitter. We would do the same thing if were given the opportunity.

I look forward to renewed rivalries with Xavier and Dayton, and I hope for continued rivalries with Marquette and DePaul.

[billiken_roy]

i'm not jealous. as i said before, i truly dont see it as a good deal for marquette other than basketball exposure. overall i think it logistically it is a nightmare waiting to happen and i still do not believe the business side is close to being as economical as either the a-10 two division setup or even staying in cusa. i know when i used to travel quite a bit, an east coast trip was always far more expensive than a midwest or a southern trip. of course i guess if the soccer team now has to stay at flea bags and eat fast food for all meals, they should be grateful for the experience and thrilled that crean still gets to stay at the ritz..

i am bitter simply because i value longtime relationships and loyalty bigtime. imo, marquette turned their backs on longtime partners. a hold the line effort of solidarity could have netted a better deal for everyone. probably could have netted the real papal deal at best and at worst a great a-10 setup that would have rivaled the "east coast exposure" they apparently lust after. i truly wish them nothing but ill will in return for their self centered decision.

[Mobile-iken]

Life is too short to be that bitter Roy!

[Billiken Law]

"imo, marquette turned their backs on longtime partners. a hold the line effort of solidarity could have netted a better deal for everyone."

Kind of like how SLU turned their backs on Xavier, Dayton and Evansville in leaving the MCC to form the GMC? I have been told of a headline the day of the SLU/MU first round MCC tourney game in Dayton referring to the game as "The Traitor Bowl."

I think you'd agree that going to the GMC was a great move for SLU at the time. Should they have been loyal instead of being proactive and bettering their program?

[mcglotherirvin]

b-roy, why is it that you seem to believe there is some kind of ongoing brotherhood between slu, depaul, and marquette? you're thinking is just illogical. all colleges are out for what's best for their programs. i seriously doubt marquette made a deal with slu and backed out. if we were in their position and the administration here decided not to jump to the big east, i'd probably never go to a game again. this is an excellent opportunity for marquette FOR THE TIME BEING. they have a chance to play what will be one of the best schedules in the ncaa for a few years. most likely, the conference will implode in a few years and they'll start all over. at that point, maybe the papal conference would become a reality.

i understand your frustration, and personally i can't stand most of the marquette fans. i think they are extremely short-sited, and have an overwhelming sense of self-grandeur. slu is a better school, in a better city and with time will have a better basketball program. i still think that five years ago, had hughes stayed, the program would have been headed in the same direction marquette is headed at the moment. dominoes would have fallen, as they started to do in that one year he was here (remember vetting a verbal from deion glover - we also got visits from quentin richardson and korleone young). unfortunately, things changed and we are a notch behind. we've been that way for only about two years now, and things are likely to change in the near future as they always do. that's why i'd like to continue the rivalry.

imagine this real briefly though - if hughes stays, here's the starting five the following year:

hughes, love, jeffers, baniak and tatum. with heinrich and perry coming off the bench and probably some better recruits. i'd take that over this past year's lineup at marquette in a heart beat. i'd take hughes over wade in a heartbeat.

my point - college basketball, and building a program is all about getting a few breaks. another example, where would marquette be and where would we be now had diener decided to go to slu, which he almost did. i think you could take down the final four banner at mu, that's for sure. so why don't we just concentrate on getting these breaks, and avoid all the bitterness.

i think the new conference is a move forward. rivalries against xavier and dayton sound great. remember, brian gregory is at the helm at dayton and the team will go nowhere but up. i also can't wait to see john cheney here once a year, and what i think may be the team to beat in CUSA in charlotte. be positive.

[Billiken Law]

i think they are extremely short-sited, and have an overwhelming sense of self-grandeur.

-Why is that? MU has an incredible tradition and now 3 final four trips and a national title. What's wrong with pride?

slu is a better school, in a better city and with time will have a better basketball program.

-I'd say they are even. City wise, I like living in STL but there are certain things Milwaukee has that blows STL away (the lakefront, summer festivals, downtown is definitely superior to STL). Better basektball program? Well, we'll see.

i still think that five years ago, had hughes stayed, the program would have been headed in the same direction marquette is headed at the moment.

-And what if MU hadn't run off Rick Majerus or if Al McGuire hadn't retired or they took their time and didn't rush to hire Mike Deane? Don't play that game. ALso, remember 4 years ago, SLU and MU had coaching vacancies at the same time and SLU was actually coming off a better season. Compare the programs from that point to now - there is no comparison. Can SLU get to Marquette's level? Sure, and I hope to God they do. But for now Marquette is SLU's measuring stick and MU is showing no signs of slowing down.

[slufanskip]

I dont think his what if scenario was a knock on Marquette... it could have been anyone. I get the impression that he is just stating that a few good breaks in either direction can change a schools fortunes dramatically. I agree with him.

As far as which city is better ... strictly a matter of opinion and who really cares ..again I think a point was being made.

If I was in Marquette's shoes I don't know what I would do. I think I would have to seriously explore a new A-10 or a new conference surrounding the CUSA 4 and a few A-10 schools plus a couple of others for an 8-10 team basketball conference.

With that said none of us know exactly what is being laid out for Marquette or Depaul. I think the Big East is a little desperate and a lot of the schools know that their stature and probably their revenues would go down drastically with the demise of the conference. Maybe they are dishing out a really sweet deal.

Either way I think we will end up ok in a revamped A-10. Actually we may end up better. I have never liked our association with Cinci ...just the difference in the values of the two schools. In a revamped A-10 ...we can get to be a consistent top 20-40 school. If we can acheive that then maybe if things shift again we can be the one being recruited.

[mcglotherirvin]

i think you've proven my point in several respects. first of all, i referenced the larry hughes situation only to make the point that college basketball is all about a few breaks and to encourage people that this program has the capacity to become a final four team like marquette did this year. i was not trying to play the what if's game with you. but by replying with your deane and majerus references, you merely strengthened my point that luck and big breaks play a major role. right now marquette just happens to be on a roll.

that the two programs aren't even comparable right now is an exaggeration to say the least. every time they've played each other, even in the last two years, has been a great game. and that's not because slu gets hyped up for the mu games. what encourages me is that mu has obviously had more talent over the past few years, yet the games have been great. as the talent leaves mu (jackson and wade), it can only get better at slu (and in my opinion, mu probably won't get back to that level for a while). what that tells me is that soderberg is just that good of a bench coach - not saying crean isn't either, just saying i have a lot of faith in soderberg on the sidelines. we also have the promise of a very impressive facility being built on campus. i know many of you mu fans don't think it will make a difference, but trust me - it will. i've been following this program since before you were born. slu is a unique school in that people don't stray far from campus. if you put the place on campus, the student environment will be much more college-like (see e.g. the soccer stadium - which has the highest attendance in the nation).

that you came back with arguments that marquette is as good of a school in a better city just illustrates your inability to grasp my point. i was not trying to attack mu, merely trying to point out the prospects at slu for potential recruits and for building a program. whether you believe it or not, many people do, and the points can be validly made to potential recruits and alums that, hey, it can be done here. the schools are relatively similar, however slu's campus is much nicer, the endowment is much higher, has been consistently rated better (though i put little faith in the rankings), and has a medical school (which is an important factor in determining the worth of a school). i will not argue about which is a better city - i will argue that the city of st. louis produces more talent to choose from basketball-wise - another plus for slu.

why did i say marquette fans were short sited, with delusions of grandeur? for the past 15 years, the programs have been relatively similar, with each school having its moments. several years ago i remember watching a pre-larry hughes team absolutely demolish marquette in milwaukee. there were no fans at the game. yet, fans were absolutely packing the kiel center. yes, things changed over the course of a few years. the excitement of spoonhour and larry hughes left and the program was set back. again my point being that, one big year, with a lot of luck does not necessarily set a program in stone. give things a little more time before you develop the notre dame or duke complex. the highmark/claggett teams reached a ranking of 17 with feature articles in SI and USA today. mu was barely in the top twenty this season if i recall correctly, prior to the tourney. a decent coach behind that mizzou bench and tom crean may have been headed straight for champaigne. i believe i could have coached mizzou to a victory in that game.

[davidnark]

Marquette is making a big mistake with their program and it has nothing do with the Big East or CUSA: they are building a practice facility--not an arena--that costs tens of millions of dollars. This mistake will bite them in the future. In the long-run, schools with first-rate on-campus arenas like SLU, Creighton, Dayton, and Xavier will be at an advanatage over Marquette. I have never understood why Marquette is spending a lot of money to build an on-campus women's basketball gym.

Why does this matter? On-campus arenas help recruiting, scheduling, gameday success (i.e., practice where you play), and most importantly atmosphere.

[kwyjibo]

Holy crap! You are really drinking the kool-aid!

Marquette plays in an excellent facility and has a favorable rent deal. Their decision to build a top-notch practice facility, honoring a college basketball great, will reap far more tangible recruiting benefits than any arena (on-campus or not).

The benefits such as they are of an on-campus arena is for the fans and local businesses; the costs are all the university's. If things work out for SLU the university will not be saddled with unnecessary debt--that is the best the university can get (yes their are intangible benefits but that helps the team little and hurts other sports programs).

Marquette made a far more prudent and responsible decision; one that will likely result in a much longer term and less risky future.

[mcglotherirvin]

umm, kweicacljwqe, i think you're the one sipping the crazy kool-aid. explain to me how a multi-million dollar PRACTICE facility is a more prudent investment than an on-campus arena, which eliminates any scheduling difficulties, cuts the cost of renting at the Savvis center, and eliminates the need for a new practice facility. the situation may be different in milwaukee, but the savvis center is nothing but a pain in the ass and a money drainer. while the fans and the local business owners will be benefitting, so will the students and players - in every way and more than those at mu. the new arena will be used not only for games, but also practice, same thing mu is using their al mcguire dome for.

how slu doesn't come out on top with an on-campus facility is beyond me. the school is putting forth absolutely zero dollars. so any money that was once being paid for use of the kiel center is now being reaped from the fans who pay to park and attend at the on-campus cite. think of all those dollars donated for mu's practice facility and multiply it by ten. now figure that that amount is all donated and convince me that slu is sipping the kool-aid for building a practice/game facility. here's what biondi should say, "no, mr. shanahan, novelly, and friends, please don't give us 70 million dollars - just give us 7 million so we can build a nicer looking west pine gym and continue to rent at the savvis." in my mind, what mu is doing makes little sense. what slu is doing makes perfect sense.

[davidnark]

Good points. From the very start of this process, SLU's administrators have always stated that any facility must be "budget-neutral" from a revenue/expenses standpoint. The intangible benefits I cited in my earlier post are not factored into this analysis; therefore, the total benefit to the SLU should significantly outweigh the costs.

Marquette, on the other hand, is building a practice facility that will create little, if any, real revenue and will have a significantly smaller intangible benefit to the university. Nonetheless, Marquette is sinking over $30 million into their facility.

Explain to me once again why SLU is the dumb one?

[Mobile-iken]

Billiken Law in answer to your question:

"I think you'd agree that going to the GMC was a great move for SLU at the time. Should they have been loyal instead of being proactive and bettering their program?"

I think all but one of us knows the correct answer.

[kwyjibo]

Both facilities are being funded by donations. Because the Marquette facility costs less the amount of other donations to the university foregone by the sports facility donations are less.

Advantage: Marquette (a small one to be sure as foregone university donations are not directly measurable)

You both lose a lot of credibility when you claim that SLU's--as of now still mythical-- 70 million fund is somehow real and the McGuire Center--which already has all/most of the money donated --which is very real is somehow fictional.

OK, now to the real point that I have made before. Like almost any large scale capital project the real costs are depreciation and to some extent operating expenses. The operating expenses of a practice facility (both Marquette's and SLU's new arena based practice facility) will be small. That's a wash.

The difference is that an arena in this era depreciates very rapidly and a practice facility will both depreciate less rapidly and have an easier/more cost effective upgrade path 10 years out. Future David Nark's will be on this board whining in 10 years about building a new arena because the old one is no good anymore (this is exactly what happened with Savvis--I remember people whining about it on this board's precursor less than 4 years after it was built).

The arena will incur losses on operating expenses every year (nearly every arena in the country does this and this is why their are few private parties that develop AND own arenas.) Every city has selfish boosters that fleece third party payers--whether cities or universities--to make them money. There are of course third parties supporting SLU's arena--why shouldn't they--it is a riskless increase in their profitability. There is no way SLU as a university will make money on basketball and the handful of events they bring in.

The students will of course be further fleeced by student fees if there is any financial problems watering down their educational dollar.

I realize that SLU will try to minimize these losses and wish them luck in solving these serious problems.

Marquette will have regular, fixed and relatively inexpensive rent payments. This is really not that hard to understand, SLU does this now and makes money.

Advantage: Marquette

[Major Majerus]

Plus we get to keep the popcorn take

[slufanskip]

This is nice that we have people who probably know very little about the funding, financing, costs and revenues of owning an arena arguing about which is more economical.

The fact is the student athelete doesn't care ... he just wants a place that will be "cool" to play in so his family and friends will be impressed and hopefully get a lot of TV exposure

[Schasz]

Agreed on the arena argument. Some supposed Billiken fans do not like the idea and that is their choice. The fact is that it will be built and this long time fan is overjoyed. By the way, I know a few Dayton Alums and I have been to their on campus arena. I can't tell you how old it is, but I know it has been over 20 years since I have been in that fine building. Funny, but I have never heard any of my Dayton friends ever whine about the upkeep of their arena which may be fully depreciated by now.

[davidnark]

Dayton's arena is over 30 years old, but it was renovated a few years ago. It is a great facility. http://www.daytonflyers.com/ud_arena.html

The last arena built by SLU is over 80 years old and yet it still houses our AD offices and is our primary practice facility. http://slubillikens.ocsn.com/school-bio/st...neberhardt.html

SLU's new arena will be expected to last many, many decades. We should esteem to have a legendary facility along the lines of Indiana, New Mexico, UCLA, etc.

Those of us who are unhappy with the Savvis Center understand that it is a facility designed for professional hockey, not college basketball. As a result, there are a lot of drawbacks--most notably, the 23,000 seats.

[jjray]

>>the school is putting forth absolutely zero dollars. so any money that was once being paid for use of the kiel center is now being reaped from the fans who pay to park and attend at the on-campus cite.<<

I agree with the tenor of Mac's post but wish to comment on one point. SLU is, as you say, not putting forth any dollars out-of-pocket on the new Bondi Dome but shall be borrowing part of the building cost. The project is expected to be revenue neutral in that revenue from the building is supposed to meet pay off the bonds. Now I do not know whether "revenue" in this projection is just non-university outside revenue they gather from renting out the building for outside events or whether they count as "revenue" self-imposed rent to the b-ball team for home games. My guess is that by "revenue neutral" they mean that they are factoring in the money the university had been spending to rent Savvis as going to retire the bonds.

The one danger is that the projected outside revenue from renting out the building does not materialize and the Bondi Dome ends up being a revenue drain on the university. Personally, I think the future benefits from having an on-campus arena outweigh the potential financial risk but one should not forget that this project does come with some risk for the university.

[kwyjibo]

I hope that the any future SLU facility lasts a long time and that everyone is happy with it. I also suspect that these issues are getting far more serious attention in the proper circles than they do on this board.

I love West Pine Gym and have defended it on this board.

I am most definitely a Billiken fan and base my opposition to the arena on that very idea. I resent the notion there is one way to be anything, let alone a Billiken fan. Billiken fandom itself is a big metaphorical arena that should fit all.

I have no interest in continuing this because I have now been personally attacked unfairly (to some extent I was unnecessarily shrill yesterday but David's dissing of Marquette for not having an arena was so ridiculous I responded badly).

The most important fact is that arenas and practice facilities do not win games; good play and good coaching does -- let's all hope that there is a lot of that in the Billiken future.