zippyman23

I don't believe that is the case at all. If another school is genuinely interested, they are going to reach out to him regardless. If Duquesne of all places can tempt him, a better school than that isn't going to shy away from him. His age might be a bigger factor in it.

DePaul just (re)hired Dave Leitao. Not exactly a hire that is going to energize the fan base.

It's not a bad thing to have your coach listed for the open jobs. It means you have had success. I'd liked to get back to the point where his name comes up, even if it is just Duquesne.

Might actually be a good thing for Buffalo that the St. Johns job open. Danny Hurley is rumored to be one the front runners for the job, If Danny takes it, I doubt Bobby will want a lesser job in the same conference as his brother.

Dayton had Marcus Johnson (ASVSM grad) on their roster at the time, which was the big reason why they agreed to series. Don't think they ever had any plans to extend it beyond the two years. FWIW...They didn't schedule Miami as a replacement. Miami/Dayton have played 131 times over the years. It's a longstanding rivalry.

The attendance increase didn't come until 2009 when we were undefeated and rated #1 in the country. It's not going to be easy or even remotely possible for the basketball team to have that same type of success. Even multiple Sweet Sixteens were ignored when it comes to soccer, which were likely viewed the same as 20+ win basketball seasons.

Tree gets suspended every November. Nothing to see here. He will be back.

They can only play in it once in every four years.

Louisville wouldn't pay us to go there if it was a home and home. Realistically, I think we would need to agree to play there twice if we wanted any chance of Louisville agreeing to such an arrangement.

Julian Mavunga didn't sign with an NBA team, he signed directly with a team overseas. Since he wasn't drafted, he is still free to sign with any NBA team. Even though he may have went overseas at the suggestion of Indiana, they hold no more rights to him than anyone else. I'd suggest keeping that in mind for your personal situation.

NBA teams own the right to sign the draft pick to a contract, nothing more, nothing less. They cannot force the player to sign with them, which should make it pretty obvious that cannot force them to sign a contract with a foreign team instead. The players being "stashed" overseas are signing directly with foreign team, not the NBA team, while the NBA team retains the right to sign them to a contract. Conversely, teams can send players to the D-League because they are under contract with the NBA team.

All the CBA says that an NBA team will retain the players rights for an additional year if the player signs a contract with a foreign team. Nowhere does it state that an NBA can force a player to sign with a foreign team. Pat Riley did not force anyone to sign a contract with a foreign team. You seem to be confusing players agreeing to go overseas with teams actually sending them overseas. There's obviously a difference.

An NBA team cannot force a player to sign a contract with a foreign team, therefore the notion that an NBA team can send a player overseas is inaccurate. When an NBA team sends a player to NBDL, they are under contract with the NBA team and is taking up a roster spot. That is what gives the European players an edge. Again, nothing I wrote was wrong.

If Thomas agrees to do that, yes.

Nothing I wrote was wrong.

An NBA team can't send a player overseas. With an American player, you either have to keep them on your roster, or you end up cutting them and losing the rights to them. Their not delaying going to the NBA because they prefer to play in Europe first. With European players, they usually want to stay overseas for a couple more years, which allows those teams to retain their rights for that time. You can save money, while developing a player that you may not currently have room for on your roster.

No team selects a European player thinking that they will never play in the NBA. They do it with the intent of using Europe as a de facto minor league for a couple years, while retaining the rights to the player. That doesn't work with American players, which is why they tend to get picked over.

Would public acknowledgement be worth the recruiting violations that would be sure to follow?

When you rent a facility to a third party that has no affiliation to the university, it's not a university event.

To host as many events as possible to help pay for it. That has been the constant argument. There's a pretty glaring flaw in the notion that engaging students in non-university events is going to increase support back to the university.

If we are at the point of discussing whether or not this facility should be capable of hosting these other events, I think we’ve already moved a little further past those preliminary questions. Not that the conversation is there in reality, but that’s the way it is being presented in this thread. No, I’m addressing the only argument presented for building a facility with additional capabilities, which has been to raise additional revenue to help pay for it. That would be a separate and distinct financing decision, which I have addressed. That doesn't mean I don't think that this facility could be used for what ever additional needs the university might have, but then again it comes down to if this facility is the best way to address those additional needs.

That's not what I wrote. They need regular tenants, which means a regular revenue stream not more revenue to cover their everyday costs. Those facilities are already built, paid for, and do not need to incur additional costs in order to make them capable of hosting such events. Again, that is not the same situation UA is facing when they make their decision on a new arena.

Most of those were built 30+ years ago, paid off, and need regular tenants to pay operating costs. Toledo is a product of government funding. None of those are comparable situations to the decisions to be made by UA. UA doesn't need to build an arena with such capabilities to pay for it or keep it open. That decision is a seperate, even though you are unable it to view it as such. Never going to happen even if it is built with such capabilities. It's really not economical to power a structure like this for such a purpose. It would be more efficient to build a seperate for such a purpose that could actually be used regularly by students. And if it is not worth building a separate structure, it probably isn't as valuable as you make it out to be.

You are forgetting that it costs more to construct a building capable of hosting such events. All things are not equal. Those other events would need to at least earn enough to cover those additional costs. I'm not sure they can. And you need a 7-8K seat structure for this?

And this supposed funding will be contingent on UA hosting minor league hockey, arena football, etc.? If so, fine. I have my doubts such funding will be available, let alone contigent on hosting minor league sports.