Dave in Green

As mentioned earlier, over the last 5 years the Zips have averaged about 3,300 attendance at all home games. The JAR's capacity of 5,500/3,300 attendance works out to 60% of seats sold for all home games. How does that compare with other schools? Fortunately the NCAA has a statistical database that includes the capacity of each team arena and attendance for every NCAA game. In a study comparing attendance for D-I women's basketball vs. men's basketball, the following data was revealed in a table at the end of the paper: 52.63% = average home attendance/capacity for all 2012-2013 D-I men's teams So as bad as the Zips' 60% attendance/capacity average may seem, it's actually comfortably above the NCAA average. Zips fans are certainly envious of the exceptional schools like Duke that sell out every home game every season. But we tend to forget that for every Duke there are a bunch of Butlers. Butler is in the heart of basketball crazy Indiana. From 1928-1989 Hinkle Fieldhouse had a capacity of 15,000. In 1989 capacity was reduced to 11,000 and in 2009 to 10,000. Shortly after that last downsizing Butler played in two consecutive NCAA tournament national championship games. During those two seasons and the season following when they were the darlings of college basketball, Butler averaged less than 70% attendance/capacity, not all that much better than the Zips.

What kind of evidence is there to support the theory that having higher-profile opponents at the JAR would significantly increase attendance at home games? Following are the top teams that have played in the JAR in recent years comparing their attendance to the Zips' average home game attendance that season: 2011-2012: VCU, 3,993 vs. 3,440 average (+16%) 2010-2011: Creighton, 2,861 vs. 2,821 average (+1%) 2007-2008: Temple, 2,309 vs. 3,454 average (-33%) 2007-2008: VCU, 4,098 vs. 3,454 average (+19%) 2006-2007: Nevada, 3,302 vs. 3,593 average (-8%) VCU and Creighton are nationally recognized mid-major powers, Temple has one of the winningest programs in NCAA history and Nevada was ranked in the Top 25 when they visited Akron. These are examples of the best teams that could realistically be expected to agree to play at the JAR. Yet they did not produce much local interest and some of the games actually drew smaller crowds than average. Even the best VCU game drew less than 75% capacity.

TCU making a statement about not being included in the 4-team playoff.

I'm not sure at what the dividing point is between a young team and a veteran team. Looking at the minutes played by class last night suggests that the Zips are somewhere in between: 61 minutes (30.5%) = freshmen 35 minutes (17.5%) = sophomores 61 minutes (30.5%) = juniors 43 minutes (21.5%) = seniors So, 52% of PT by upperclassmen and 48% by lowerclassmen. That's actually fairly well balanced. Noah is going to skew the figures more toward the freshman class as he will most likely average 30+ minutes per game for the season -- more than any other player on the team.

That $400 has to be a typo as $40 would be more in line with Can't, where:

The 4,400-seat Stroh Center replaced the old (1960) 4,700-seat Anderson Arena, so BG gave up only 300 seats in exchange for a much nicer facility with all chairback seating for a total cost of $30 million. It makes an interesting recent case study of the attendance bump of a new arena with an Ohio-based MAC team that's had a fairly flat won-lost record before and after the transition. Average home game attendance went from about 1,550 the last 5 seasons in Anderson Arena to about 1,950 the first 3 seasons in the Stroh Center for an average improvement of about 400 more per home game, which equates to a 25% increase. The Zips have averaged about 3,300 per home game over the past 5 seasons, or more than double what BG averaged in the 5 seasons before their new arena opened. If the Zips could generate the same 25% attendance increase with a new arena that BG did, that would produce an average home game attendance increase of about 825 to about 4,125 per game, assuming the team's won-lost record remained as flat as BG's has been. Here's the old/new arena attendance for BG: 1,403 -- 2006-2007 (13-18) 1,352 -- 2007-2008 (13-17) 1,729 -- 2008-2009 (19-14) 1,709 -- 2009-2010 (14-16) 1,574 -- 2010-2011 (14-19) ------------------------------------ 2,157 -- 2011-2012 (16-16) 1,992 -- 2012-2013 (13-19) 1,759 -- 2013-2014 (12-20)

That was one crazy game. Imagine a game where the home team gets whistled for 6 personals in the first 5.5 minutes of the game to none for the visitors, and then over the next 10 minutes 9 personals are called against the visitors and none against the home team. Just bizarre. Frenchy was dead-on in his description of the Zips' passing game. Just horrible for much of the game. But I give Marshall a lot of credit. They worked their butts off challenging every pass, and any time they didn't tip it away their fingertips were just inches from doing so. I hope the Zips learned something tonight about dealing with defenders who work their butts off non-stop on every play. Pat did a nice job with 13 points, 10 rebounds and 4 blocks. His inside game is so important to the Zips' success. Speaking of the inside game, BJ finally started getting some results out of all those drives to the basket. BJ also tied for second most rebounds (5) in his 19 minutes. Getting his first start against a D-I team was a big deal, and he responded well. It wasn't a pretty game, but at least the Zips buckled down and played well enough to win at the end when Marshall was putting a lot of pressure on them. Finding ways to win in pressure situations is an important part of a good team coming together. Now it's on to 18 straight regular season MAC games, and the Zips need to win 12 of them to lock up their 20 wins before the MAC tournament. EDIT: Shame on me. How could I overlook Coppin State.

Good confidence from BJ, too.

At this point I'm just looking for small signs of progress. As The Hip Zip points out, Marshall is really missing senior forward Shawn Smith who's out with a shoulder injury. Smith is one of only two players on the team averaging double-digit points. Sophomore forward Ryan Taylor leads the team in scoring (14 PPG), rebounding (9) and assists (3.3). Marshall plays a similar deep bench to the Zips with 10 players averaging double-digit minutes.

The full $38 million renovation is far from inevitable. UA hasn't even committed to a minor first stage yet, which would cost only a small fraction of that. They're just discussing it now, though a minimum renovation is likely at some point in the near future. Some in UA administration do read ZipsNation, including some in higher positions than you might imagine. They may not pay much attention to venting blowhards throwing out repetitive rants lacking in substance. But they do look for the kind of thoughtful ideas that some forum members post. If anyone wants their thoughts to be heard, say something worthy of consideration.

It's interesting to look at how general trends in college basketball attendance and local interest in specific college programs affect arena sizing. From the modest research I've done, there was an era when many facilities that were originally built too small were expanded followed by the more recent era of downsizing facilities to match generally falling attendance. Of course there are exceptions within the general trends with programs on the rise drawing more attendance even in times of generally falling attendance and programs on the decline drawing less attendance even in times of generally rising attendance. Western Kentucky's E. A. Diddle Arena is a random example of the boom and bust of college basketball arena sizing as its capacity has greatly increased and decreased over the years with various redesigns for various reasons: 1963 - 8,500 1965 - 12,500 1970 - 13,508 1979 - 13,164 1980 - 12,370 1991 - 11,300 2002 - 7,381 2003 - 7,368 2005 - 7,326 The point here is that we're speculating on the optimum size for a Zips arena without really knowing what the situation will be 5 or 10 years from now. Aim too high and money is wasted on seating that will go unused. Aim too low and many fans will be shut out from being able to attend big games for lack of adequate capacity. Even if you size it just right for today, how will that work in a few years? Ultimately UA has to consider all the points being made here and more, including their vision for the future of the university as a whole. There's no easy solution due to all the variables.

Rather than basing everything on wild speculation and potentially getting off track, let's go back and look at some specific statements in the ABJ interview with Dr. Scarborough that give clear indications of what's likely to happen and why: This is important because it's UA's President publicly acknowledging he recognizes an obvious need for at least some renovation, which means it's likely to happen. The fact that the first stage could be included in the next school budget indicates the level of urgency Dr. Scarborough assigns to at least minimum upgrades for the JAR. The work being done in phases fits in with the next comment. This likely means that the early phases of renovation would be focused on improvements the building will need regardless of whether or not a new arena is built. This buys time for various new arena proposals to be made, whether by UA alone or along with the city and county. That also means the initial renovation will be made independently of whether UA remains in the MAC or finds a way into a more prestigious conference where a larger capacity arena would be required. What we don't know are what the individual renovation phases involve and what each will cost. I think it's likely the early phases would represent only a fraction of the proposed $38 million maximum renovation, which would not be necessary if a new arena were to be approved. Assuming there are several phases over several years, that leaves plenty of time for stuff to happen that would affect the outcome. Finally, it's encouraging that Dr. Scarborough personally cares enough about college sports that he includes it in his personal biography:

St. Mary's is an interesting case. Let's compare to UA: Student population -- 4,200 vs. 27,000 at UA City population -- 16,000 vs. 200,000 for Akron Like the Zips, the Gaels only reach capacity at a few conference home games each season. St. Mary's renovation plan for McKeon Pavilion is to add 1,000 seats.

It was the City of Akron that proposed building a $70+ million arena/entertainment complex. No one has suggested that UA spend that much money on its own. What has been suggested is that a $50 million new arena might make more economic sense in the long run than a $38 million JAR renovation.

Can we at least agree on the numbers? Simple math point #1: A $38 million renovation of the JAR gives you a semi-modern arena with chairback seating for 4,450. A thoroughly modern TD Arena clone with chairback seating for 5,100 can be built for $51.5 million. That $51.5 million is NOT "twice as much" as $38 million. If 4,450 capacity is the goal, a slightly smaller TD Arena clone could be built for less than $50 million. But 4,450 capacity should not be the goal (see below). Simple math point #2: Average home conference attendance at the JAR two seasons ago was 4,533. A $38 million JAR renovation gets you 4,450 chairback seats. Since 4,533 is larger than 4,450, the conference average from two years ago is greater than the capacity of a renovated JAR. Beyond that, 4,533 is the average. Several of the games were close to the 5,500 capacity. With a renovated JAR you'd likely be turning away up to 1,000 fans at several games per season (Can't, OU, Buffalo, Toledo). Please double-check the bolded sections above and let me know if you agree with the math.

The only CUSA school with a basketball arena capacity of less than 5,000 is the University of Texas at San Antonio with an arena built in 1975 that seats 4,080. UTSA plans to replace it with a new 10,000-seat arena as the second phase of the school's Park West sports complex.

CUSA's average basketball arena capacity for its current 14 member schools is just over 8,000. Reducing the JAR's capacity from 5,500 to less than 4,500 would not be a great way to impress a CUSA membership committee.

The structure of the JAR will not allow it to be made into a TD Arena even if the full $38 million is dumped into it. It would be nicer than now but would lack the wraparound seating and sight lines of modern arenas among other things. As mentioned previously, replacing all the bleacher seats with chairback seats would result in a maximum capacity of less than 4,500. Just two seasons ago the Zips averaged 4,553 paid attendance at all home conference games. Spending $38 million to turn the JAR into a poor imitation of a modern arena with seating capacity reduced to less than the team recently averaged for a whole season's conference home games makes absolutely no sense.

tomzip, all the Zips fans who went to Charleston really liked TD Arena. It's not fancy or extravagant, but it's modern and nice. I really felt comfortable there and would be totally satisfied if the Zips played in a facility like that. The only odd part to me is that the second level consisted of only four rows of seats. It was almost as if they had down-scaled it from a larger arena that had many more rows of seats in the second level. I think these modern arenas are fairly flexible in terms of seating capacity, so you can get the same basic design and just add or subtract rows of seats from the second level. The best part to me is that Dr. Scarborough was there and got a chance to experience that arena firsthand. It's absolutely the type of arena that would work for UA, and at just over $50 million the cost is not unreasonable, though far from a slam dunk given the current financial situation. But I do think it serves as a great benchmark for a new arena compared with a JAR renovation, and I'm glad that Dr. Scarborough got to experience the Zips win there over South Carolina.

Here's a little hypothetical number crunching to serve as a starter in comparing a new arena to a JAR maximum renovation: Forum member akronad posted here that he was told by an architect that every chairback seat = 1 1/2 bleacher seats. ZachTheZip posted here that he counted seats at the JAR and estimated there are currently about 2,350 chairback seats and about 3,150 bleacher seats. A rough estimate would be that replacing 3,150 bleacher seats with 2,100 chairback seats would result in an all-chairback seating capacity of about 4,450. So a $38 million JAR renovation with 4,450 seats would result in a cost per seat of $8,540. A $51.5 million TD Arena clone with 5,100 seats would result in a cost per seat of $10,100. So the new construction ends up being only an 18% increase in cost per seat over a full renovation. Beyond the obvious that the new construction is going to have a longer lifespan and reduced maintenance costs over a full renovation, sight lines in a renovated JAR could never match the new construction as the main support columns in the corners of the JAR prevent wraparound seating. Everything I've read about Dr. Scarborough is that one of his biggest strengths is understanding financial matters. If the rough numbers above can be verified by professionals, I'm confident that Dr. Scarborough could make a smart decision on which investment would produce the best longterm returns for UA.

Interesting to see the story is based on an interview with Dr. Scarborough. Since the plan is to do improvements in stages, the only way they ever spend the full $38 million is if they totally give up on the idea of a new arena being built. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to spend $38 million on improvements if volleyball were going to be the biggest spectator event held there. But the full $38 million renovation would mean a reduction in seating capacity as bleachers would be replaced by chair-back seating. Dropping capacity down to less than 5,000 when your biggest games are already selling more than that many tickets would be a clear sign that UA has no intention of raising the level of Zips basketball beyond where it is today. A nicely remodeled JAR would likely attract at least a few more fans, and reducing capacity makes no sense in that context. Due diligence would require UA to compare the cost of a new arena to the $38 million for a total renovation. The projected $79 million for the proposed downtown arena would be a giant leap -- more than double the cost. But that $79 million was for a 9,000-seat arena to be used for a variety of regional events. The Zips don't need 9,000 seats. I'd like to know what the cost would be for a new arena with seating capacity similar to what the JAR is now or maybe a little more -- a modern arena with comfortable seating and good sight lines but no extravagant luxuries. For example, Zips fans who attended the tournament in Charleston were impressed with the 5,100-seat TD Arena, which cost $51.5 million in 2014 dollars to construct. Would an all-new arena in the $50 million range make more longterm economic sense than a $38 million JAR renovation that reduced seating to less than 5,000? Someone at UA needs to crunch those numbers and share them with Dr. Scarborough.

Hilltopper, we're you waiting for me to crunch the Summit County Ohio numbers for you? Sheriff (including Jail) funding comes out of the Summit County general fund. In 2008 the general fund was $121.9 million and total Sheriff budget was $34.2 million. In 2014 the general fund was $102.6 million and total Sheriff budget was $29.6 million. Merry Christmas.

Try here for Summit County, Ohio. Even goes back to 2008.

There's all kinds of data out there to be found with a simple search, like this story that documents how many employees the Sheriff's Dept. has lost since 2008 and how much under-budgeted it is this year to meet minimum standards:

New Carrollton senior kicks around career soccer decision