Nice article about TK

[cj]

http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/con...ssellside.html

[Dirty Sanchez]

I think the hiring of Purnell was a fantastic move, maybe one of Kissel's best moves here at UD. A testament to that is the fact that OP was hired away into the best basketball conferences in college bball. He then took a dormat team, Clemson, and made them into one of the top 3-4 teams in that conference today.

[UDBrian]

I think the hiring of OP was great at the time because that is what he does best, take a team performing below expectations and improve the program. I also think that the hiring of BG was a great hire because he is capable of taking the program to greater heights than OP showed the ability to. That remains to be seen, but OP had a long time to win an NCAA tournament game. I still believe that if Keith W hadn't been so determined to attend UD that the good run we had never would have happened.

[SCFlyer]

In my opinion, the point of this article has NEVER gotten enough pub. The hiring of Oliver Purnell saved the program. This cannot be understated - we were TERRIBLE under Jim O'Brien. I mean, flat out awful. Not bad for a UD team, not bad for an A10 team (I know we weren't in the A10 then, before you start), bad for an NCAA team. I credit TK for pursuing and landing him. There hasn't been a more important move in our program, aside from the hiring of Don Donoher at a young age after Blackburn's death. I mean that. We were dead.

Now, I don't want to hijack the thread and ask why it is you think BG can take us to heights Purnell couldn't (or what has shown you that), so I'll stay away from that, and I hope other posters do too. But I just really wanted to comment on how important that hiring was. If Kissell did nothing else in his time, he did that.

	Don Donoher DON DONOHER Legendary Flyer men's basketball coach who guided Dayton to 435 victories in 25 seasons (1964-1989) including the 1967 NCAA Runner-Up. Took over the program after the passing of Tom Blackburn and earned many NCAA and NIT bids over his career, including five Sweet-16s, one Elite Eight appearance, and the 1968 NIT Championship. Groomed All-Americans Don May and Jim Paxson, along with all-time leading scorer Roosevelt Chapman. Coached UD as they joined conference affiliation for the first time (Midwest Collegiate). A graduate of UD, Donoher played for Blackburn and credits much of his coaching success to his mentor's teachings: defense, ball protection, patience, and unselfishness.

	Ted Kissell TED KISSELL Athletic Director at the University of Dayton from 1993-2008. Helped spearhead a renewed commitment to athletic excellence by hiring Oliver Purnell to resurrect the men's basketball program, and emphasized major non-revenue sports to raise UD's profile. Helped UD receive an invitation to the A10 Conference, developed new baseball, softball, soccer, football, and basketball facility upgrades, and achieved NCAA appearances in men's basketball, men's and women's soccer, and volleyball -- the latter three being program's firsts. Also served as UD's Vice President and improved overall academic performance among student athletes.

[UACFlyer]

Guys, you are entirely too focused on men's BB.

No doubt, the O'Brien era was a disaster. But, OB's first two years weren't bad and UD had a well established legacy of excellence in men's BB.

The humilating rejection by C-USA had little to do with basketball. Even in the depths of the OB era UD was still drawing 10,000 fans to a game. Any school with attendance like that would have no trouble persuading C-USA that all it needed to do was hire a new coach and the ship would be righted.

But, recall that in all other sports,...the non-revenue sports,....UD had not won a single game in two years in the Great Midwest. UD did not have an athletics "program" at all; not even a good Div III level program. No Div 1 conference would want such a school as a member. That's why the Great Midwest schools tossed us overboard when C-USA was formed. It was not because of a few bad years in men's BB.

Hiring a good replacement for OB was necessary; but that was the easy part. The really dificult job TK had was persuading the A10 to take us by convincing the A10 leadership that the University was finally willing to invest in a broad-based sports program across the board that would be a credit to the A10. UD had never before in its history done that.

The C-USA humiliation convinced the UD administration that it had to bite the bullet, spend money on coaches, scholarships, facilities for ALL sports,....just like the other colleges! That is what it takes to sustain membership in a conference.

Over the years TK has explained that; but the BB fanatics just don't seem to undertand it. A credible, broadbased athletics program is a requirenent in order for the men's BB team to play in a good conference. The best men's BB team in the land will not get you membership in any conference without a commitment to Div 1 standards for all the non-revenue sports. That is why the performance and facilities of UD's non-revenue producing teams is so very important.

This ain't rocket science folks. The level of success we crave for men's BB is dependent on having a good, broad-based athletics program across the board. TK's greatest accomplishment is making that happen.

[anthonycharles]

We should also thank Mike Deane for taking the Marquette job and spurning UD, considering he was TK's first choice.

That's not meant to be a knock on TK, Deane was a hot commodity at the time, and just goes to show what an inexact science it is in selecting a head coach.

[UDBrian]

UACFLYER, I agree 100%. UD has improved in almost every sport since TK took over.

[College B-Ball Fan]

UAC, great response and all points are well taken and IMHO correct. You are also correct that some folks who have been both long time UD hoops fans and some short term fan(s)--(i.e. students or recent graduates) either don't remember where we were as an "athletics department"----(which makes sense because of there age) in 1985-1992 before TK was hired away from UArizona or just don't care to try and understand how it all fits together.

Instead they look at X or Gonzaga or some other school and just want to be there now! I want to win in not only hoops but all sports. I spend heavily on my seats, charters, and many other ways associated with The University Of Dayton on the whole because I care about the University and know that basketball is only a small part of the great overall good that I support with my time, energy and $$$$. I expect and hope for many NCAA runs in the near future--I believe we'll see that come to fruition in the near future.

TK did a great job during his tenure at UD. If you can't understand that after reading todays DDN you either dislike TK way too much or refuse to acknowlege the truth of what most folks can clearly see from the information contained in the articles.

Some guy actually stated in an earlier post on this topic that he/other posters had "gotten there way" with TK's resignation???? Ted could've stayed as long as he reasonably wanted to in his position at UD but has talked of retiring for some time! Some of these guys really believe that what they "think" matters when it comes to UD's hirings and firings? I doubt these folks will even read the entire article before sitting down to take credit for TK's departure.

[SCFlyer]

In case UAC was referring to anything in my post, I was clearly just talking about the basketball program.

Having said that, while I completely understand how there is a relation between all the sports and our overall conference standing and marketability, let's not forget that without basketball during that time, we are a Division III school, as you pointed out. You make it sound like these other programs saved the basketball team or something. I would say that you could argue at least as well that basketball saved them! As a former student who went to a LOT of non-revenue sports games, I can tell you that without the basketball program, our sports as a whole are pretty much going nowhere. I realize that we have made tremendous strides in many other sports (women's soccer, volleyball, men's soccer, women's crew), but come on, let's not get it twisted - our basketball program keeps many of those alive. I don't just mean in money though that is a huge part of it. I mean the fact that the way many people have heard about us is through basketball.

So, if you're saying that the emergence of our other sports teams coincided with our recovery in basketball, I'd agree, it's not a coincidence. And I think basketball is the one that helped, more than the other way around.

[ud69]

One other item that is often overlooked - The Clay Mathile/Brooks Hall mess. TK had to deal with it - even though it happened completely outside of his department.


I do remember when TK announced that we were joining the A-10. He very directly mentioned that we traded on our tradition one last time and we needed to get our house in order.

	Brooks Hall BROOKS HALL 6-6 205lb Troy HS | Troy (OH) Cool, calm, cerebral wing player who finished among the Top-25 scorers in Flyer history. Deadly three-point shot and excellent passing skills. Helped Dayton reach two NCAA tournaments under Oliver Purnell. Consensus Top-125 recruit out of Troy HS in 1999 where he was D-I First Team All-Ohio and the media's choice for Ohio Mr. Basketball. CAREER STATS 1999-00 10.4ppg 5.8rpg 2000-01 9.20ppg 4.6rpg 2001-02 13.2ppg 5.0rpg 2002-03 12.8ppg 6.9rpg TOTALS 1404pts 686rbs 275asts

[flyer2003]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer Guys, you are entirely too focused on men's BB. No doubt, the O'Brien era was a disaster. But, OB's first two years weren't bad and UD had a well established legacy of excellence in men's BB. The humilating rejection by C-USA had little to do with basketball. Even in the depths of the OB era UD was still drawing 10,000 fans to a game. Any school with attendance like that would have no trouble persuading C-USA that all it needed to do was hire a new coach and the ship would be righted. But, recall that in all other sports,...the non-revenue sports,....UD had not won a single game in two years in the Great Midwest. UD did not have an athletics "program" at all; not even a good Div III level program. No Div 1 conference would want such a school as a member. That's why the Great Midwest schools tossed us overboard when C-USA was formed. It was not because of a few bad years in men's BB. Hiring a good replacement for OB was necessary; but that was the easy part. The really dificult job TK had was persuading the A10 to take us by convincing the A10 leadership that the University was finally willing to invest in a broad-based sports program across the board that would be a credit to the A10. UD had never before in its history done that. The C-USA humiliation convinced the UD administration that it had to bite the bullet, spend money on coaches, scholarships, facilities for ALL sports,....just like the other colleges! That is what it takes to sustain membership in a conference. Over the years TK has explained that; but the BB fanatics just don't seem to undertand it. A credible, broadbased athletics program is a requirenent in order for the men's BB team to play in a good conference. The best men's BB team in the land will not get you membership in any conference without a commitment to Div 1 standards for all the non-revenue sports. That is why the performance and facilities of UD's non-revenue producing teams is so very important. This ain't rocket science folks. The level of success we crave for men's BB is dependent on having a good, broad-based athletics program across the board. TK's greatest accomplishment is making that happen.

I gotta say, that was one of the more truly informative posts I've read on this board. I really had no clue that's how it went down. Good work.

[UDDoug]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer But, recall that in all other sports,...the non-revenue sports,....UD had not won a single game in two years in the Great Midwest.

Which of course means UD had 1 win in all sports during its time in the GMW. If UD had any success in the other sports there would have been some acceptance that the administration had the focus, desire and commitment to improve men's basketball. Instead, the only conclusion that could be reached by the other members was that they were debating whether to offer an invitation for membership to a poor Division III athletic program.

The A10 struggled with much the same issues. UD was very fortunate that the A10 members were willing to listen, that Xavier lobbied for UD. It was also fortunate the A10 had been going through some level of membership instability with Penn State, West Virginia, Rutgers and the like all having left for greener pastures in recent years.

	Xavier XAVIER MUSKETEERS Dayton's biggest rival dating back to the early 1900s. Founded in 1831, Xavier University is a Jesuit, Catholic university in Cincinnati, Ohio. Its three colleges offer 78 undergraduate majors, 43 minors and 11 graduate programs to 6,646 total students, including 3,961 undergraduates. The University is the sixth-oldest Catholic university in the nation and one of 28 Jesuit colleges and universities nationwide. Xavier's nickname is the Musketeers and are fellow A10 Conference members.

[The Chef]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer Guys, you are entirely too focused on men's BB. No doubt, the O'Brien era was a disaster. But, OB's first two years weren't bad and UD had a well established legacy of excellence in men's BB. The humilating rejection by C-USA had little to do with basketball. Even in the depths of the OB era UD was still drawing 10,000 fans to a game. Any school with attendance like that would have no trouble persuading C-USA that all it needed to do was hire a new coach and the ship would be righted. But, recall that in all other sports,...the non-revenue sports,....UD had not won a single game in two years in the Great Midwest. UD did not have an athletics "program" at all; not even a good Div III level program. No Div 1 conference would want such a school as a member. That's why the Great Midwest schools tossed us overboard when C-USA was formed. It was not because of a few bad years in men's BB. Hiring a good replacement for OB was necessary; but that was the easy part. The really dificult job TK had was persuading the A10 to take us by convincing the A10 leadership that the University was finally willing to invest in a broad-based sports program across the board that would be a credit to the A10. UD had never before in its history done that. The C-USA humiliation convinced the UD administration that it had to bite the bullet, spend money on coaches, scholarships, facilities for ALL sports,....just like the other colleges! That is what it takes to sustain membership in a conference. Over the years TK has explained that; but the BB fanatics just don't seem to undertand it. A credible, broadbased athletics program is a requirenent in order for the men's BB team to play in a good conference. The best men's BB team in the land will not get you membership in any conference without a commitment to Div 1 standards for all the non-revenue sports. That is why the performance and facilities of UD's non-revenue producing teams is so very important. This ain't rocket science folks. The level of success we crave for men's BB is dependent on having a good, broad-based athletics program across the board. TK's greatest accomplishment is making that happen.

Being the contrarian I am, I'm going to quibble with UAC's point by saying that he's missing a distinction between what an "accomplishment" is and what a "move" or "decision" is. Accomplishments are things like winning conference championships and getting into tournaments (i.e., results). Decisions are not results in and of themselves. The accomplishments flow from decisions, and as such they should not construed as one in the same.

Now with that said, anyone who doesn't think TK's decision to install Oliver Purnell as the University of Dayton's head men's basketball coach was the MOST SIGNIFICANT AND MOST IMPORTANT SINGLE MOVE/DECISION that TK made as UD's athletic director is living in an alternate universe.

I mean, this is common knowledge. Men's basketball is UD's only net positive income sport. It's very easy to say that the reverse of what UAC said is true (i.e, that the level of success that our overall athletic program can have is dependent on having a good, healthy, vibrant, winning men's basketball program because it pays for everything else, and to risk losing that revenue that would risk not having a chance to succeed at anything.) In that context, bringing in a guy who would be responsible for resurrecting a program that was basically in ashes was a pressure packed deal. He got that one right, and if he hadn't gotten that one right we probably be in the Horizon League instead of the A-10 and wouldn't average that 12K a night attendance any more. It's that serious.

Now, if we are talking about accomplishments as an athletic director, getting us into and established in the Atlantic 10 conference might have been TK's most significant achievement. That was no small task at the time. That's where being a good guy with friends to network with truly helps, and TK was that.

[tman]

I am somewhat surprised with the lack of attention.
One poster wrote "watch the board lite up now". It didn't happen.
I don't think many people care.
I speak to sports fans everyday in great numbers and--no one seems to care.

Shouldn't we be in panic mode?

I know there are posters who would like to paint a picture of Ud Arena boarded up. All sports programs shut down. Terror in the streets. ETC-- had Ted not been named AD.
Its a rather silly and distorted view.

UD basketball draws great fans in huge numbers. Its not easy to keep a program with that much going for it down--at least not for too long.

As far as the other sports programs are concerned----sorry--very few people care.
How about--we have to improve the rowing team so we can joint the big east---that didn't happen.

Course you could try to sell the idea that the a-10 would invite Duquene and not UD --had UD not had a strong softball team---sorry--that doesn't holdwater.

One would think that if folks believed a key component of the program is gone---panic would break out--ok maybe not panic--but at least concern. I don't get that feeling at all---
I did read a post by SD flyer---something like---this could be the end of the good times---I'm paraphrasing.


It appears to me that the average fan doesn't think this will effect the program in any negative way----How is that possible?
How can you lose a person who some of you think is so important to this program and no one is worried? Concerned? Did we not lose the most important piece of the puzzle?? Are we not fearful that the sports program are now going to he11--
I dont hear or see anyone saying or writting any such thing


That in its self tells me something.

[smitch425]

Originally Posted by tman It appears to me that the average fan doesn't think this will effect the program in any negative way----How is that possible? How can you lose a person who some of you think is so important to this program and no one is worried? Concerned? Did we not lose the most important piece of the puzzle?? Are we not fearful that the sports program are now going to he11-- I dont hear or see anyone saying or writting any such thing That in its self tells me something.

I am sure that everyone would have the concerns you spoke of if TK was being replaced by an outsider, but the fact that his job will be going to someone that has closely worked with him for many years (and is a UD guy himself) eases my mind a great deal. The transition will not be perfectly seamless, but I believe Tim will keep the successes for all our Flyer teams going full steam ahead.

[UACFlyer]

tman,....the reason why Ted's retirement has drawn so little comment is another positive reflection on TK. Often it is said that a CEO's most important responsibility is selecting his successor. TK gets an A+ for that.

The main reason TK's retirement is not the source of much comment is that UD's new AD has been TK's right hand man throughout TK's entire tenure. Tim Wabler's promotion will ensure a seemless, efficient transfer of responsibility featuring continuity.

In Tim W. we will have "more of the same" but with a fresh set of eyes. Tim will build on Ted's very solid foundation; but, no doubt, has views of his own for areas of improvement.
All to the good!

If there was no successor lined up you would be hearing plenty about the impact of Ted's leaving. But, precisely because Ted has planned for succession there is no fuss at all. Score another one for Ted!.

	Tim Wabler TIM WABLER Current Director of Athletics for the University of Dayton. Took over for Ted Kissell on Jan. 1, 2009, and brings considerable experience and leadership in athletics. Assistant AD for many years and a former standout baseball player for the Flyers, Wabler has Dayton roots and understands the unique paradigm that makes Flyer athletics and the city of Dayton a tremendous relationship.

[Chris R]

Originally Posted by tman How can you lose a person who some of you think is so important to this program and no one is worried? Concerned? Did we not lose the most important piece of the puzzle?? Are we not fearful that the sports program are now going to he11-- I dont hear or see anyone saying or writting any such thing That in its self tells me something.

Perhaps the opinion is we're going to reload in the ADs office, not rebuild.

Out with Carson Palmer, in with Matt Leinart. Hence no panic.

[IAFlyer]

Originally Posted by tman It appears to me that the average fan doesn't think this will effect the program in any negative way----How is that possible? How can you lose a person who some of you think is so important to this program and no one is worried? Concerned? Did we not lose the most important piece of the puzzle?? Are we not fearful that the sports program are now going to he11-- I dont hear or see anyone saying or writting any such thing That in its self tells me something.

Adding to the others comments -- Ted built a solid foundation for the next AD -- a basketball team that is moving in the right direction with better recruits - it's up to the coach and players, not the AD.

A full-blown athletic program wherein there are some sports where we EXPECT NCAA tourney invites (e.g. women's volleyball). Do I follow women's volleyball through the season? Not really, but that doesn't take away from the expectations and how that is better than what we had before.

I agree that w/o men's b-ball, the rest would fall -- hard. However, when TK took over all of our sports, including the primary sport, were in disarray. You can't say that today.

[longtimefan]

Originally Posted by smitch425 I am sure that everyone would have the concerns you spoke of if TK was being replaced by an outsider, but the fact that his job will be going to someone that has closely worked with him for many years (and is a UD guy himself) eases my mind a great deal. The transition will not be perfectly seamless, but I believe Tim will keep the successes for all our Flyer teams going full steam ahead.

Originally Posted by UACFlyer tman,....the reason why Ted's retirement has drawn so little comment is another positive reflection on TK. Often it is said that a CEO's most important responsibility is selecting his successor. TK gets an A+ for that. The main reason TK's retirement is not the source of much comment is that UD's new AD has been TK's right hand man throughout TK's entire tenure. Tim Wabler's promotion will ensure a seemless, efficient transfer of responsibility featuring continuity. In Tim W. we will have "more of the same" but with a fresh set of eyes. Tim will build on Ted's very solid foundation; but, no doubt, has views of his own for areas of improvement. All to the good! If there was no successor lined up you would be hearing plenty about the impact of Ted's leaving. But, precisely because Ted has planned for succession there is no fuss at all. Score another one for Ted!.

Originally Posted by Chris R Perhaps the opinion is we're going to reload in the ADs office, not rebuild. Out with Carson Palmer, in with Matt Leinart. Hence no panic.

Very good responses to a rather silly post.

	Tim Wabler TIM WABLER Current Director of Athletics for the University of Dayton. Took over for Ted Kissell on Jan. 1, 2009, and brings considerable experience and leadership in athletics. Assistant AD for many years and a former standout baseball player for the Flyers, Wabler has Dayton roots and understands the unique paradigm that makes Flyer athletics and the city of Dayton a tremendous relationship.

[UDDoug]

Originally Posted by tman It appears to me that the average fan doesn't think this will effect the program in any negative way----How is that possible?

Because most realize the AD basically runs the business side of athletics and isn't the primary force behind success of the one program they truly care about.

[Avid Flyer]

Originally Posted by UDDoug Because most realize the AD basically runs the business side of athletics and isn't the primary force behind success of the one program they truly care about.

The fact that is missing here is that tman is a disgruntled old man who likes to complain about anything at anytime. Its his signature. Had UD not hired within tman would be leading the charge attacking the admin, etc.

Gets really tiring, but we all know he is what he is.

[UACFlyer]

Doug, indeed, it's true that the AD runs the business side of the athletics enterprise. And, he runs just about everything else as well.

While the AD doesn't get out on the field and play, he alone selects the coaches of all the teams, incl the "one" program you are referring to. In connection with men's BB, selecting a coach and deciding when its time to change coaches is an awesome responsibility.

As for BG, he's a TK hire and he's entering his sixth year, if I recall correctly. Everyone inside and outside the program is fond of saying things like, "we're on the right track", "we're getting better recruits', yada, yada, yada. But soon, very soon, the Faithful had better start seeing results. And "results" at Dayton go well beyond what would be expected at most schools, and they should considering that 12,000+ people turn out to support the Flyers.

For Dayton 20 win seasons and NIT appearances are not enough. Making the NCAA with a one-and-out is not enough. For our program making the Dance three years out of every five, or so, is what is expected, along with getting past the first game. Nothing less will be considered acceptable. And, as BG enters his sixth year (?) we are still struggling to reach our goal.

It will be Tim Wabler's responsibility to decide whether or not we really are on the right track and to act accordingly. Certainly, everyone will agree that ten years is more than enough time to get where we want to be. So, with each passing year the pressure grows. Hopefully, we'll get there soon and we can all smile. If we don't, questions have to be asked and answered. "Do we have the right coach? Is our goal achievable, i.e., are we kidding ourselves?

	Tim Wabler TIM WABLER Current Director of Athletics for the University of Dayton. Took over for Ted Kissell on Jan. 1, 2009, and brings considerable experience and leadership in athletics. Assistant AD for many years and a former standout baseball player for the Flyers, Wabler has Dayton roots and understands the unique paradigm that makes Flyer athletics and the city of Dayton a tremendous relationship.

[The Chef]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer Doug, indeed, it's true that the AD runs the business side of the athletics enterprise. And, he runs just about everything else as well. While the AD doesn't get out on the field and play, he alone selects the coaches of all the teams, incl the "one" program you are referring to. In connection with men's BB, selecting a coach and deciding when its time to change coaches is an awesome responsibility.

I think Doug's basic point is that one would hope that the head coach would be the primary driving force behind the success of a particular program in the field of play and that the Athletic Director's role is that of supporting that head coach in that endeavor. If the AD is the one guy making all of the decision for a particular sport, it cannot be good for that program or the department as a whole. I mean, that's why you hire a head coach, right? If the AD could do all of it, a separate head coach would not be needed.

[Piqua Flyer '66]

awhile back tht he would never be back on this board!

Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.

[The Chef]

Challenge the ideas, not the individual.

[tman]

Originally Posted by Avid Flyer The fact that is missing here is that tman is a disgruntled old man who likes to complain about anything at anytime. Its his signature. Had UD not hired within tman would be leading the charge attacking the admin, etc. Gets really tiring, but we all know he is what he is.

I'm very hurt by this post.
I thought we were friends.

Lets see, I get banned (banned jerry-banned) for name calling and lack of respect for others--though I called no one a name and disrespected no one.

Yet we have posts like these (piqua too). Is Avid going to get a warning?----perhaps banned?----a time out? . I highly doubt it.

You added nothing---.Nor did you in any way touch base on the topic.

By the way Avid---I'm 48---i guess thats old to some folks--AND I'm not thrilled that the U didn't attempt to at least take a look at other options---so you're wrong on both points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some posters need to make up their mind----The AD saved our bacon or the AD doesn't matter that much--I guess it depends on what day you post.

By the way--one of the most important things any AD does for its basketball squad is create a scheduling model.

Coach Callipari
Quote.
Coaches win games. administrations win championships
End Quote.

One of the great mistakes that UD made during the last decade was the idea to invest millions into the renovation of UD arena. Ted reported, as did OP that they (UD) considered a new building--So it is a fact--they considered it----instead they optioned for the renovation. A renovation that did very little to enhance the experience of watching the game . IE video boads.

PLEASE RECONSIDER AGAIN.

I think this would have been a great investment into the future for UD basketball. And it would put Dayton on par with other great Arena's around the State and Country. It would have been a great shot in the arm.

I love UD arena---I would hate to think were this program would be without the efforts to build UD arena but Arenas all over the country are being built and either you keep up or fall behind. Now is the time to ensure UD basketball will thrive for many years to come.
Build it.
They will come---to watch the NCAA's ,Concerts ,and especially the Flyers.
Why not dream big---In 1967 folks said UD didn't need a new arena. Man has it paid off.

Uk announces today plans to build a new Rupp Arena.
Yesterday Louisville made public plans for a new Arena.

[UDDoug]

Originally Posted by tman Quote Coach Callipari. Coaces win games. AD's win championships End Quote

I think the correct quote is more along the lines of "coaches win games, administrations win championships". It references a far broader commitment than athletics and the AD. Not sure if Calipari said this initially, as people at xU have used that same phrase for a long time.

Anyway the quote refers to the commitment of the university to provide resources required to ensure long-term success. The underlying point is that anyone can make a great hire at some point in time and win games, but that won't provide championships over the long haul as coaches and players come and go. The constant is the commitment and level of support of the administration.

For the large part, in my opinion the administration side of the equation has been fulfilled sufficiently to win championships. The men's basketball program has all the resources it needs to be able to win championships. It's the coaches win games side that has fallen short. That seems to be the consensus of individuals far more knowledgable than we who type anonymously on message boards.

By the way, coaches have a large say in the schedule, and sometimes have virtually total say. The UC schedule this year was primarily put together by Mick Cronin, not Mike Thomas. Thomas may have negotiated contracts, but Cronin largely decided who, when and where they would play.

UAC, you are reading way to much into an offhand comment directed to a particular viewpoint as to how people could believe TK was a good AD but not believe the world is coming to an end when he retires.

	Xavier XAVIER MUSKETEERS Dayton's biggest rival dating back to the early 1900s. Founded in 1831, Xavier University is a Jesuit, Catholic university in Cincinnati, Ohio. Its three colleges offer 78 undergraduate majors, 43 minors and 11 graduate programs to 6,646 total students, including 3,961 undergraduates. The University is the sixth-oldest Catholic university in the nation and one of 28 Jesuit colleges and universities nationwide. Xavier's nickname is the Musketeers and are fellow A10 Conference members.

[flyerfanatic86]

Be careful what you wish for tman. Building a new arena could be a good thing, but generally I think the Arena is great how it is. It is a basketball venue, not a concert venue. Personally, I prefer it that way. Look at our NIT game at the Schott, that was played in a concert venue that happened to have a basketball court in the center, and the atmosphere of the games isn't even close to the Arena. I can agree with video boards as being a solid investment, but that's a completely separate issue from an entirely new arena.

[tman]

Originally Posted by UDDoug I think the correct quote is more along the lines of "coaches win games, administrations win championships". It references a far broader commitment than athletics and the AD. Not sure if Calipari said this initially, as people at xU have used that same phrase for a long time. Anyway the quote refers to the commitment of the university to provide resources required to ensure long-term success. The underlying point is that anyone can make a great hire at some point in time and win games, but that won't provide championships over the long haul as coaches and players come and go. The constant is the commitment and level of support of the administration. For the large part, in my opinion the administration side of the equation has been fulfilled sufficiently to win championships. The men's basketball program has all the resources it needs to be able to win championships. It's the coaches win games side that has fallen short. That seems to be the consensus of individuals far more knowledgable than we who type anonymously on message boards. By the way, coaches have a large say in the schedule, and sometimes have virtually total say. The UC schedule this year was primarily put together by Mick Cronin, not Mike Thomas. Thomas may have negotiated contracts, but Cronin largely decided who, when and where they would play. UAC, you are reading way to much into an offhand comment directed to a particular viewpoint as to how people could believe TK was a good AD but not believe the world is coming to an end when he retires.

You are right Uddoug and I have edited said sentence.

I do want to respond to part of your post. There are some that would dissagree with your
comments concerning the administration providing everythng necessary to win championships.

Many of these folks are Ted K supporters. They claim that the administration ties the hands of the AD by demanding to schedule so many home games in order to supply great revenue. You sell your soul and a chance to play top notch competition by demanding home, buy games that PROVIDE your program little, outside of cash.[/I]

Some have said that this puts the AD in a tough spot.

So I guess the question is--though many people see this administration as PROVIDING everything necessary-------does this administration put money first-- at the expense of the good of the program?

What do you say to a kid like Chris Wright who believes in you and your program----dismisses the chance to play at other higher profile schools then you provide a schedule that eliminates any chance of TV exposure for you and the player?

What does that say to a Mr. Payne?
Mr. Staten?

For the best of the program--and Ive said it for years--and it is the area I have the most problem with.
Get an excitting schedule
Generate exposure for your players.
Put your program on TV----
Generate some excittment for your club.

And your not going to do that with 18 homes games against nobody state.

	Chris Wright CHRIS WRIGHT 6-8 225lb | Trotwood Madison, HS (OH) A10 All Rookie Team. Preseason 2008 2nd Team All A10. Member of the UD Flight Club with a 40+ inch vertical leap. Consensus Top-75 national recruit. Uncle is former Flyer J.D. Grigsby. Nickname is Top Flyght. CAREER STATS 2007-08 10.4ppg 5.7rpg

	Xavier XAVIER MUSKETEERS Dayton's biggest rival dating back to the early 1900s. Founded in 1831, Xavier University is a Jesuit, Catholic university in Cincinnati, Ohio. Its three colleges offer 78 undergraduate majors, 43 minors and 11 graduate programs to 6,646 total students, including 3,961 undergraduates. The University is the sixth-oldest Catholic university in the nation and one of 28 Jesuit colleges and universities nationwide. Xavier's nickname is the Musketeers and are fellow A10 Conference members.

[IAFlyer]

Originally Posted by tman Many of these folks are Ted K supporters. They claim that the administration ties the hands of the AD by demanding to schedule so many home games in order to supply great revenue. You sell your soul and a chance to play top notch competition by demanding home, buy games that PROVIDE your program little, outside of cash.[/i] Some have said that this puts the AD in a tough spot. So I guess the question is--though many people see the as administration PROVIDING everything necessary-------does this administration put money first-- at the expense of the good of the program.

I think this is a valid point/question -- does the university tie the hands of the AD or is the scheduling strictly the choice of the AD/coach?

Many have contended that the athletics dept must be self-sustaining, which puts incredible pressure on the men's b-ball program to generate enough revenue for all of the other sports -- this would be the university not providing everything necessary to win championships.

It would be interesting to know what is fact and what is myth.

You do refer to "getting on TV" and playing good teams wherever. That is great -- IF we get the TV to go with it. Would you say play anybody, anywhere and don't worry if we are never on TV, at least we are playing somebody? That would be the way Temple used to schedule. They played a murderous OOC and rarely, if ever, got on the national TV stage as a result. I think that is an extreme we should avoid.

	Temple TEMPLE UNIVERSITY Founded in 1884 by Dr. Russell Conwell, Temple College became Temple University in 1907. Located in Philadelphia, Temple is a comprehensive public research university with 34,000 students, 8 campuses, and 300 academic degree programs. Notable alumni include Bill Cosby and Daryl Hall. Temple's nickname is the Owls and are fellow A10 Conference members.

[UACFlyer]

I don't think this is rocket science. The UD administration is taking advantage of the cash flow from men's BB.

The facts support this. Average attendance in the A10 is about 5000 per game, with several schools falling well below that level. UD has a solid sports program with excellent facilities; but, I doubt if our program/facilities are much better than GW's, DU's, LaSalle's, etc. Better? Yes. Much better? not likely.

That being the case; the administrations of other A10 schools must be providing significantly more financial support than UD's, when their much lower BB revenues are taken into account.

Were UD's administration to ease up a bit on the athletic division we could easily afford to play two fewer home OOC games in order to have more interesting OOC series opponents. So long as the administration keeps the screws on UD has a need to play 10, or so, OOC home games. Cut that back to eight and the Faithful will have at least three interesting OOC home games every year.

Decent opponents will not play a game at the Arena without a return game. They won't. So, in order to have a few interesting OOC home games every year something has to give. That "something" is a willingness to play at least one and probably two less OOC games at home,....fewer buy games.

In TK's "Realities 2007" Ted suggested that is what would happen. Then the `08/`09 schedule comes out appearing to contradict what was said in Realities 2007. tman has pointed this out the contradiction. I agree with him.

	LaSalle LA SALLE In 1863, La Salle University was established through the legacy of St. John Baptist de La Salle and the Christian Brothers teaching order, which De La Salle founded 300 years ago. Located in Philadelphia, La Salle is an educational community shaped by traditional Catholic and Lasallian values. La Salle's main campus is an ideal place for students to pursue an education. The 130-acre park-like setting includes 54 buildings and is located approximately six miles from Center City Philadelphia. The University can accommodate 2,114 resident students in its 12 residence halls, two apartment complexes, and 75 townhouses. Fellow members of the A10 Conference. Nickname is the Explorers. Notable athletes include Tom Gola and Lionel Simmons.

[cj]

... because I am usually quite the optimist but consider this. Between TK and TW they have discussed that this MUST be the year that BG gets to the NCAA. If the team does not make it then TW can be the bad guy and make the change. This begs the question, what kind of relationship do TW and BG have?

[Furio]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer I don't think this is rocket science. The UD administration is taking advantage of the cash flow from men's BB. The facts support this. Average attendance in the A10 is about 5000 per game, with several schools falling well below that level. UD has a solid sports program with excellent facilities; but, I doubt if our program/facilities are much better than GW's, DU's, LaSalle's, etc. Better? Yes. Much better? not likely. That being the case; the administrations of other A10 schools must be providing significantly more financial support than UD's, when their much lower BB revenues are taken into account. Were UD's administration to ease up a bit on the athletic division we could easily afford to play two fewer home OOC games in order to have more interesting OOC series opponents. So long as the administration keeps the screws on UD has a need to play 10, or so, OOC home games. Cut that back to eight and the Faithful will have at least three interesting OOC home games every year. Decent opponents will not play a game at the Arena without a return game. They won't. So, in order to have a few interesting OOC home games every year something has to give. That "something" is a willingness to play at least one and probably two less OOC games at home,....fewer buy games. In TK's "Realities 2007" Ted suggested that is what would happen. Then the `08/`09 schedule comes out appearing to contradict what was said in Realities 2007. tman has pointed this out the contradiction. I agree with him.

The Realities of an AD and The Realities of the actual budget he is given from the top of the University don't always match. UD at the top of the University has a very long history of putting the absolute minimum dollars into sports.

	LaSalle LA SALLE In 1863, La Salle University was established through the legacy of St. John Baptist de La Salle and the Christian Brothers teaching order, which De La Salle founded 300 years ago. Located in Philadelphia, La Salle is an educational community shaped by traditional Catholic and Lasallian values. La Salle's main campus is an ideal place for students to pursue an education. The 130-acre park-like setting includes 54 buildings and is located approximately six miles from Center City Philadelphia. The University can accommodate 2,114 resident students in its 12 residence halls, two apartment complexes, and 75 townhouses. Fellow members of the A10 Conference. Nickname is the Explorers. Notable athletes include Tom Gola and Lionel Simmons.

[UDDoug]

Originally Posted by tman So I guess the question is--though many people see this administration as PROVIDING everything necessary-------does this administration put money first-- at the expense of the good of the program?

tman, that's where you take comments out of context and read into them more than there is. Those who may have a different view aren't typically to the far extreme you take it to by using absolutes, such as providing everything. There is a difference between providing everything, and providing enough.

The basketball program has enough resources to win championships. It has better game and practice facilities than nearly all of its conference members, equal or better video equipment and recruitiing budgets, travels better. Those are the things typically referred to in saying administrations win championships. The men's basketball program at UD is not starved for resources.

That doesn't mean the administration has PROVIDED everything necessary. The balance of funding of that infrastructure could be more balanced between season ticket holders and the university general fund. Perhaps that could also be used to change slightly the mix of home and road games.

Ultimately I think the items you are taking issue with are directly tied to the fact the men's basketball program hasn't won at a sufficient level despite the support it does receive. If it had, the schedule might be different. No matter who is AD, the schedule isn't going to change dramatically by going on the road more frequently, advancing in the NCAA is a bigger requirement for that to happen in my mind. Two of this year's nobody state games are a requirement to play Marquette and Auburn. Not sure how the Chicago tournament works, but in many of these events UD would only make a hosting fee, far less than would be made with a real home game.

That's what has happened 50 miles to the south has a nearly identical funding philosophy. They win enough to get different games, not because they fund differently. For example, just last winter Miller was talking to the press about how he liked that they had a scrimmage at Akron (closed to the public under NCAA rules) than a second exhibition game as it provided a more controlled environment and allowed them to work on more things for a longer period of time. Said he would like to do that every year. Bobinski quickly chimed in that while they would look at it, the budget may not permit giving up those game receipts every year.

[UDDoug]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer UD has a solid sports program with excellent facilities; but, I doubt if our program/facilities are much better than GW's, DU's, LaSalle's, etc. Better? Yes. Much better? not likely.

The comparison between basketball facilities isn't even close. It's close to as big a gulf between a mid-tier BCS football program and mid-tier FCS. Non revenue sports might be a little closer, but I doubt most in the A10 come very close.

Funding isn't the only reason UD plays the number of home games it does. There is a very large contingent of season ticket holders that when asked cites 16 regular season home games as the preferred number. And as noted above, I doubt this year is as simple a fix as counting the Chicago tourney home games as regular home games and replacing them with two on the road. The promoter almost certainly gets a very large portion of the gate.

[Flyer2]

Originally Posted by flyerfanatic86 Be careful what you wish for tman. Building a new arena could be a good thing, but generally I think the Arena is great how it is. It is a basketball venue, not a concert venue. Personally, I prefer it that way. Look at our NIT game at the Schott, that was played in a concert venue that happened to have a basketball court in the center, and the atmosphere of the games isn't even close to the Arena. I can agree with video boards as being a solid investment, but that's a completely separate issue from an entirely new arena.

Just a FYI- the reason we don't have video boards is the roof structure cannot support them. For those of you who don't know when the arena was first built a friend of mine was installing phones in the office area when he heard this terrible noise and got his butt out as the roof collapsed. Turns out the wrong "grade" of bolts were used to fasten the beams and they sheared. I know I look up occasionally at the roof and wonder about the condition of the bolts. So if your at a game and hear a rumble look up.

[John R]

Originally Posted by Flyer2 Just a FYI- the reason we don't have video boards is the roof structure cannot support them. For those of you who don't know when the arena was first built a friend of mine was installing phones in the office area when he heard this terrible noise and got his butt out as the roof collapsed. Turns out the wrong "grade" of bolts were used to fasten the beams and they sheared. I know I look up occasionally at the roof and wonder about the condition of the bolts. So if your at a game and hear a rumble look up.

We hear at every game. Lets get ready to rumble.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by tman I'm very hurt by this post. I thought we were friends. Lets see, I get banned (banned jerry-banned) for name calling and lack of respect for others--though I called no one a name and disrespected no one. Yet we have posts like these (piqua too). Is Avid going to get a warning?----perhaps banned?----a time out? . I highly doubt it. You added nothing---.Nor did you in any way touch base on the topic. By the way Avid---I'm 48---i guess thats old to some folks--AND I'm not thrilled that the U didn't attempt to at least take a look at other options---so you're wrong on both points. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some posters need to make up their mind----The AD saved our bacon or the AD doesn't matter that much--I guess it depends on what day you post. By the way--one of the most important things any AD does for its basketball squad is create a scheduling model. Coach Callipari Quote. Coaches win games. administrations win championships End Quote. One of the great mistakes that UD made during the last decade was the idea to invest millions into the renovation of UD arena. Ted reported, as did OP that they (UD) considered a new building--So it is a fact--they considered it----instead they optioned for the renovation. A renovation that did very little to enhance the experience of watching the game . IE video boads. PLEASE RECONSIDER AGAIN. I think this would have been a great investment into the future for UD basketball. And it would put Dayton on par with other great Arena's around the State and Country. It would have been a great shot in the arm. I love UD arena---I would hate to think were this program would be without the efforts to build UD arena but Arenas all over the country are being built and either you keep up or fall behind. Now is the time to ensure UD basketball will thrive for many years to come. Build it. They will come---to watch the NCAA's ,Concerts ,and especially the Flyers. Why not dream big---In 1967 folks said UD didn't need a new arena. Man has it paid off. Uk announces today plans to build a new Rupp Arena. Yesterday Louisville made public plans for a new Arena.

Oy ve.

And Boston still plays in that old dump Fenway. The Cubs still play in that dump Wrigley. Someday probably neither will. But just because you CAN build a new facility doesn't mean you SHOULD build a new facility.

It's amazing how some people can take one tiny sliver of reality and extract an entire world of conspiracies, failures, etc. This is the 20/20 (the news show) version of the world.

I think some people live in a world where the political ads make sense. The ones that say things like "Senator John Doe voted against saving babies from drowning." Well, yes, because it was attached to another bill that would have required grinding up puppies to feed starving people in Africa. But let's all ignore the big picture. Focus on the narrow sliver instead.

[Fudd]

I love our Arena and am very satisfied with the decision to renovate rather than build new. The university definitely has the funding to build something new, but why mess with something that works so well when it really isn't needed? My fear is that we build something new within the next 10 years and it isn't on par with UD Arena. It will take something really special to replace it when it's time is over. I wonder if they would tear it down and rebuild there or on a new site. Anyone have any insight on that?

[rollo]

If the long term goal was to tear down the arena and build a new one closer to campus, then why would the University build the baseball, softball and football practice facilities right next to it? I was told that UD likes the exposure of having all those facilites right off I-75. Kinda like free advertising for all who pass thru Dayton.

Considering the parking and supplemental facilities necessary to accomodate both athletes and fans, I don't see where they could even put a new arena. Even the new properties recently purchased wouldn't be large enough.

I've told my 12 year old that when he's my age, he can have my season tickets. It's my expectation that the arena will be around for a loooong time.

[flyerfanatic86]

Originally Posted by Flyer2 Just a FYI- the reason we don't have video boards is the roof structure cannot support them. For those of you who don't know when the arena was first built a friend of mine was installing phones in the office area when he heard this terrible noise and got his butt out as the roof collapsed. Turns out the wrong "grade" of bolts were used to fasten the beams and they sheared. I know I look up occasionally at the roof and wonder about the condition of the bolts. So if your at a game and hear a rumble look up.

Agreed, but the idea has been floated, at least on these boards, of perhaps upgrading the scoreboards in the Arena corners to be video boards. This would be doable, albeit very expensive.

[smitch425]

Personally, I'd rather see a new football stadium be built with any available funds that the university has. Having a stadium that belongs to UD instead of the city should take priority over a new basketball arena because our current arena is fantastic. When we start selling out every home game then we can worry about bigger and better things, but why build a 20,000( for example) seat arena and put 12,000 people in it?
As for Louisville building a new arena, they desparately need one. The current one is ancient and in a horrible location. They will benefit from a new one, but we don't need one yet.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by smitch425 Personally, I'd rather see a new football stadium be built with any available funds that the university has. Having a stadium that belongs to UD instead of the city should take priority over a new basketball arena because our current arena is fantastic. When we start selling out every home game then we can worry about bigger and better things, but why build a 20,000( for example) seat arena and put 12,000 people in it? As for Louisville building a new arena, they desparately need one. The current one is ancient and in a horrible location. They will benefit from a new one, but we don't need one yet.

Interesting thought--maybe the administration was afraid to build a new basketball stadium because it wanted to keep dry powder for something else.

[UDBrian]

I did not enjoy my view from the OSU arena, much prefer UD Arena. I think as the team becomes more successful there might be a way to leverage that into more money (such as luxury boxes) where a new arena, or redesigned arena might be required. UNtil then don't change anything. But, tickets are getting harder to come by. If UD has two season with NCAA appearances it will become hard to buy tickets.

Even though it was considered a bad idea last year I still think it is possible to leave the lower arena as it is and begin making changes above the concourse to increase the number of seats and possibly even a few boxes.

[Fudd]

Originally Posted by smitch425 Personally, I'd rather see a new football stadium be built with any available funds that the university has. Having a stadium that belongs to UD instead of the city should take priority over a new basketball arena because our current arena is fantastic. When we start selling out every home game then we can worry about bigger and better things, but why build a 20,000( for example) seat arena and put 12,000 people in it? As for Louisville building a new arena, they desparately need one. The current one is ancient and in a horrible location. They will benefit from a new one, but we don't need one yet.

I thought I heard once that when the renovation was done, they were expecting around 10 - 15 years of more service from UD Arena. I have no idea if that is really true, but for some reason it is stuck in my head. I love the Arena and fear that the atmosphere could change dramatically with a new building, but part of me is excited about what could be if it is done right too. I think we need to build a bit bigger on the next one. I really think we could attract 15,000-17,000 for some of the big games and you have to look to the future also. Frericks had an awful lot of foresight to build our current Arena back in 1969. I really dislike what Saint Louis did with the size of their new building, and I think XU undersold themselves as well. If there is any fanbase who has proven that they will faithfully support their team, it's us. We need a home court that accomodates the type of fan support we have here. When the day comes to build new, we need to think big. And the lighting is important. I love how the house lights go out with the exception of the court when the game starts. It's dramatic, and a bit intimidating.

	Xavier XAVIER MUSKETEERS Dayton's biggest rival dating back to the early 1900s. Founded in 1831, Xavier University is a Jesuit, Catholic university in Cincinnati, Ohio. Its three colleges offer 78 undergraduate majors, 43 minors and 11 graduate programs to 6,646 total students, including 3,961 undergraduates. The University is the sixth-oldest Catholic university in the nation and one of 28 Jesuit colleges and universities nationwide. Xavier's nickname is the Musketeers and are fellow A10 Conference members.

	Saint Louis SAINT LOUIS Saint Louis University is a Jesuit, Catholic university ranked among the top research institutions in the nation. The University fosters the intellectual and character development of more than 12,700 students. Founded in 1818, it is the oldest university west of the Mississippi and the second oldest Jesuit university in the United States. Located in St. Louis, MO, and just five minutes from the Gateway Arch, SLU offers 85 undergraduate programs and over 50 graduate study tracks. Over 99% of the SLU faculty hold the highest degree in their respective fields. Fellow member of the A10 Conference. Nickname is the Billikens, but also commonly known as "Sloo", the phonetic pronunciation of the school's initials. Athletic claims to fame include multiple national titles in men's soccer and men's basketball star Larry Hughes.

[Chris R]

New hoops arena aint happening. Would cost $150-200 million to build one and do it right and make it worthwhile, all privately funded again. And in so doing, you can forget it being a basketball only facility or it being called UD Arena. Id suspect ticket prices would go up too. In between UD games there would be Travis Tritt concerts and tractor pulls.

A new facility doesnt buy the university much. They went from 5500 to 13,500 when the Arena was built. They might go from 12,500 to 15,500 in a new building. We already have suites and loges. Just not enough margin to spend $200 million and hope to recoup it unless you plan on bringing in Joel Osteen permanently.

[UACFlyer]

You can count on one hand the number of schools like UD that have anything approaching UD Arena. This is a building that, I believe, has been selected to host more NCAA tournament games than any other campus facility. And we just spent close to $15 million to ensure that it's "fresh" for another 20 years, or so. Further, it is plenty big; only two,or so, games a year would sell out a larger arena.

As for a UD owned on-campus football stadium?,....another not-so-swift notion. Welcome Stadium seats 11,000, now has a state-of-the-art playing surface, and is being modernized in other significant ways,....all at others expense. How can you possibly beat a deal like that? Average attendance is about 50% of capacity. WS is one of the best FCS non-scholarship football stadiums in the country.

The ability to develop our most impressive sports complex around the Arena and Welcome represents a stroke of very good luck, i.e., luck in that the land was available for purchase at a reasonable price. Because of the sports complex UD is now the proud owner of exceptional athletic facilities for a mid-sized private school. Indeed, more than few larger public universities do not have facilities like ours. And it is true that the siting of the complex just off Rt. 75 is ideal from a PR perspective.

UD will have no need to spend money on bigger/better athletic facilities for a long time. Instead, the focus will be on expanding the campus across Brown Street, which will be one of the most significant "bricks-and-mortar" developments in the school's history. Anyone doubting that should take a look at the proposed plan as presented in the Campus Master Plan.

[Chris R]

UD Arena is the second largest on-campus facility at a private institution in the nation, behind only BYUs Marriott Center (23,000).

Unless my research from a couple years ago is now out of date.

[shocka43]

Originally Posted by UDDoug Because most realize the AD basically runs the business side of athletics and isn't the primary force behind success of the one program they truly care about.

Business side is what builds a program. You don't draw coaches/players/fans if you can't run the business. If they didn't run the business properly and revenues from hoops died, you can kiss every other program goodbye.

The business side can be executed better. It always can be improved, no matter who is at the helm.

[Fudd]

If UD Arena is in good condition structuraly, I'm sure there is no need for a new facility in the near future. I was under the impression that there was a projected lifetime for the building. I guess I always thought it was feasible in the next 10-15 years, putting the age of the facility at about 50 years. The university has spent 150 million on campus construction and renovations over the last 5 years, after all. I thought it was in a DDN article where they mentioned a very general time-line on the usable years left in the building.

I am not against a multi-purpose facility. I think it is a necessity these days. But I just would hope that basketball is made the first priority in layout and design. Sometimes, I think that is lost. I am assuming that prices would go up whenever the replacement occurs. It would take an awfully big commitment. I don't think it is a question of if, but when.

[Atlantic 10]

Originally Posted by Fudd If UD Arena is in good condition structuraly, I'm sure there is no need for a new facility in the near future. I was under the impression that there was a projected lifetime for the building. I guess I always thought it was feasible in the next 10-15 years, putting the age of the facility at about 50 years. The university has spent 150 million on campus construction and renovations over the last 5 years, after all. I thought it was in a DDN article where they mentioned a very general time-line on the usable years left in the building. I am not against a multi-purpose facility. I think it is a necessity these days. But I just would hope that basketball is made the first priority in layout and design. Sometimes, I think that is lost. I am assuming that prices would go up whenever the replacement occurs. It would take an awfully big commitment. I don't think it is a question of if, but when.

If we do build such a multi purpose arena, the money for other events go to the university, its a money maker for the U. I thought when the arena was built that you could add more seating, maybe not

[tman]

Don't kid yourself.
The administration did not consider a new building for nothing.
UD fans are probably watching their last NCAA tournament games.
If you started today, an arena couldn't be built by five years.

Since UD arena was built--the Reds have gone through THREE stadiums.
The bengals ---THREE stadiums.
X has played in three different locations
Cleveland St.
WSU
UC
Ohio U
OSU
All have newer arenas
the list is too long.

This speaks volumes on what a great arena UD arena is and has been.


I don't know why fans would assume an increase in ticket prices .
We've had huge inceases in the last twelve years.
All the improvments folks like to boast about here are done. They have been made. The money is spent, the field, complexes etc are paid for, as is the arena.

Besides if they did make another pocket pick--at least we would be paying for something worthwhile.

Its not just about the size of your arena.
Baseball stadiums are actually bulit with fewer seats now--Teams are seeing a greater interest and more tickets sold. Why? Because new Stadiums and Arenas generate greater interest---and a greater return.

Programs all over the nation have improved their programs by improving their arena.

You think UK needs a much bigger Arena?
The university of Louisville by their own admission , made a terrible mistake spending millions on their renovations---they are now building a new basketball arena.

Its a true investment into your program. Just like the one AD Tom F made back in 1967.
People said the U didn't need a 13,000 seat arena. Said Dayton didn't need an arena.
They said it would cost too much. Ticket prices would be to high.

Why wait untill you are so behind everyone that you cannot catch up---why wait untill your program is dead.

This week---UK and Louisville became the newest programs to announce the building of a new home for their basketball programs.

UD fans are more concerned about spending money than any other fans on the planet. It has been drilled into us for so long--we are unable to think of anything--anything without considering money. Pretty strange for a program with so much money generated from its basketball program. It has been drilled into us. Talk to any---and I do ---basketball fans--the issue of money never comes up---
Now that the so called vast improvements have been made--and the arena paid off,, this should free up some cash--wouldn't you think?

The monentary commitment from this university for its sprots programs is as weak as any school you will find. You get what you pay for---UD doesn't want to pay for a great sports program.

Ted K stated that UD has cashed in for the last time on its traditions---I take that means that UD must find a way now to stand on its own feet. Its fine tradition will no longer allow for a free ride. So lets start a new tradition with a new arena and a new era of UD basketball.

The last time I checked there appeared to be plenty of space in Dayton to build an arena. Down on the river next to ballpark would be perfect. The students take buses to the arena anyways--at least the ones that still come out. Plus--perhaps the city, state or federal money could become involved.
Paradyms--did I spell that correctly? Think outside the lines.



Is there anyone here that WOULD NOT be excitted by the notion that UD is going to build a new UD arena? That we could take our rightful place as the basketball CAPTITAL of Ohio and the midwest.

[UDBrian]

Tman,

After UD strings together 2-3 good NCAA appearances this subject will come up again.

Are you saying that UD is behind WSU because they have a newer place to play? Have you been to WSU's arena? Would you trade WSU's arena for UDs?

I do agree with thinking outside the lines, many times people are stuck in the way they think. When I was with IBM a manager told me that at one time they had gotten rid of the wild ducks (like myself) who weren't satisfied with doing things a certain way. They later found that those were the creative people who moved the company forward.

Before the bridge closed there were still a lot of students who walked to the games but canoes would be their only option now unless they build a swinging bridge over the river. Maybe some type of assault bridge would work.


You are probably correct about UD providing little funding to the athletics dept compared to other schools.

[The Chef]

Originally Posted by UACFlyer WS is one of the best FCS non-scholarship football stadiums in the country.

I highlight this just so that DF can unleash himself on you. I generally don't agree with this statement either, but I'll let DF tell you why.

With that said, I would bet that UD currently gets the most ROI (that's return on investment) from their football stadium situation than any other FCS non-scholarship school, perhaps with the possible exception of Drake.

And Brian, tman did say the following:

Originally Posted by tman This speaks volumes on what a great arena UD arena is and has been.

I think that tman is saying that the longevity of UD Arena is a testament to how special the building is. I guess I could be wrong though.

With that said, I do have to quarrel with tman's extended treatise on fans' concerns (he would say obsession) about spending priorities. I think money is an important consideration at UD. But, to have limits on spending is a wise for a school of UD's size. We are not going to compete year in and year our in any substantial way with Texas, OSU, and Michigan. We don't have those resources. We can't spend our way to greatness. And even if you thought you could, the evidence is clear: neither of those three teams have won a national championship in almost 20 years, so there goes that argument right out the door anyway.

While Dayton indeed needs to consider the value of stuff, it can just willy-nilly through lots of money it doesn't have after athletic achievement. In this sense, you're right. If it takes tens of millions of dollars per year to compete at top level in men's hoops, we wouldn't be interested. Fortunately, it doesn't take that much. That's not the issue, and it's also not why a private educational institution exists. UD has to deal with limits and realistic expectations of what it's athletic program can achieve. It cannot be all things to all people, and trying to do that will lead to a quicker death than anything else can do.

[longtimefan]

Originally Posted by tman X has played in three different locations Cleveland St. WSU UC Ohio U OSU All have newer arenas the list is too long. The monentary commitment from this university for its sprots programs is as weak as any school you will find. You get what you pay for---UD doesn't want to pay for a great sports program.

First of all, Ohio University does not have a new arena. The Convo was built in the 60's. And most of those others built new arenas because their old arenas were pieces of crap. There is nothing wrong with UD Arena. Also, thank you for finally admitting that the ticket price increases have not been TK's fault. They are due to what you stated above. So why haven't you been trashing the administration all this time instead of trashing TK?

[Glen Clark]

Originally Posted by longtimefan First of all, Ohio University does not have a new arena. The Convo was built in the 60's. And most of those others built new arenas because their old arenas were pieces of crap. There is nothing wrong with UD Arena. Also, thank you for finally admitting that the ticket price increases have not been TK's fault. They are due to what you stated above. So why haven't you been trashing the administration all this time instead of trashing TK?

Wasting your breath:

[tman]

Lomgtime
I said newer--as in newer than UD arena--not new.

I was thinking the convo---was built a year or two after the Arena---it now looks like they opened around the same time.

I write a 49 line post and the best you can do is point out that I may have listed OU as the newer arena.

Dude--thats some kind of come-back.
Why do you even bother?

Why do I upset you so?
If I were you, I would use the ignor feature---I just wouldn't read my stuff-----

[Gazoo]

tman, every last bit of your 49 lines would require 10 lines to explain just how many ways you are wrong. Stop hiding behind BS.

Every team you listed except _avier is a PUBLIC institution. The Bengals stadium was paid for with public money. The Reds stadiums were paid for with public money. I'll leave others to comment about _avier.

The comments are so painfully political.

	Xavier XAVIER MUSKETEERS Dayton's biggest rival dating back to the early 1900s. Founded in 1831, Xavier University is a Jesuit, Catholic university in Cincinnati, Ohio. Its three colleges offer 78 undergraduate majors, 43 minors and 11 graduate programs to 6,646 total students, including 3,961 undergraduates. The University is the sixth-oldest Catholic university in the nation and one of 28 Jesuit colleges and universities nationwide. Xavier's nickname is the Musketeers and are fellow A10 Conference members.

[longtimefan]

tman, you are such a moron. I guess you didn't read the second half of my post. I brought up a pretty significant issue there - of course you would ignore that.

[UDDoug]

Originally Posted by shocka43 Business side is what builds a program. You don't draw coaches/players/fans if you can't run the business. If they didn't run the business properly and revenues from hoops died, you can kiss every other program goodbye. The business side can be executed better. It always can be improved, no matter who is at the helm.

Of course that's true. Don't disagree a bit.

I will point out that leaving out the quote the comment was made in response to actually takes the comment you quoted out of context.