Valpo to be visited by MVC this week, thoughts?

[vu72]

I do wonder about the quality of coaches in the MVC.  Honestly, given the new and coming coaches in the Horizon, the Horizon has the upper hand.

[a3uge]

I do wonder about the quality of coaches in the MVC.  Honestly, given the new and coming coaches in the Horizon, the Horizon has the upper hand.

Yeah, the MVC is going to go through a rebuilding phase like the Horizon did the past few years. Longevity isn't necessarily an asset in college basketball - it's probably much better to always have an up and coming young coach than to have retread fossils.

[ISUBird]

Someone mentioned that the searing capacity for Valparaiso's basketball arena is similar to some MVC schools, but it only seats a little over 500 more than Loyola (the smallest arena in the MVC) and the next smallest seats over 2,000 more.

[valpopal]

Someone mentioned that the searing capacity for Valparaiso's basketball arena is similar to some MVC schools, but it only seats a little over 500 more than Loyola (the smallest arena in the MVC) and the next smallest seats over 2,000 more.

I am not sure why people raise the seating capacity issue. What matters is not how many seats there are, but how many people in those seats. In fact, I think it is worse to have a large venue with mostly empty seats. Valpo's average attendance for 2016 was 3,572, which is double the figure for Loyola (1,831) and not far from the average for all MVC teams (4,609) if you subtract Wichita St. (10,805). (Additionally, I'm willing to bet Valpo's attendance would be even higher if playing in the MVC, and the average for the MVC members would be lower without Wichita State's 9 games as a visitor bringing its fan base.)  Valpo's average attendance also ranks better than its two presumed competitors for an invite: Belmont (2,536) and Murray State (3,266).

[valpotx]

I also think that the facility size and quality issue is very much overblown.  Several A-10 schools have much crappier arenas than we do, and much smaller facilities.  It seems to mainly be Missouri State and Illinois State fans bringing up this issue on the MVC forum.  You also have the NDSU guy that is delusional, which is fun to read.

[usc4valpo]

Facilities are important for Valparaiso University in the long term. do we need a huge arena? Of course not? But upgrades to the ARC are required as it is becoming antiquated. locker rooms need upgrades, more chair back seats, expand the north end another 1000 seats, and some cosmetic enhancements. Make the ARC a facility we can be proud of.

Btw, the swimming facilities need significant help. that situation is ridiculas.

Regarding the NDSU guy, maybe he believes we need to get free tan Sierras from some dude named Lundegaard and have available wood chippers.

[FieldGoodie05]

Facilities are important for Valparaiso University in the long term. do we need a huge arena? Of course not? But upgrades to the ARC are required as it is becoming antiquated. locker rooms need upgrades, more chair back seats, expand the north end another 1000 seats, and some cosmetic enhancements. Make the ARC a facility we can be proud of.

Btw, the swimming facilities need significant help. that situation is ridiculas.

Regarding the NDSU guy, maybe he believes we need to get free tan Sierras from some dude named Lundegaard and have available wood chippers.

Personal opinion is a new pool ONLY makes sense placed in the new rec-center design.  Remodeling one at the ARC is plan worthless.

Swimming doesn't bring a ton of value as the MVC demonstrates not having a conference affiliation in swimming.  I say this having two close friends at VU who swam and a sister that swam in the Big East.

It's a reaaaally expensive investment in a no income sport for VU.

[FieldGoodie05]

I also think that the facility size and quality issue is very much overblown.  Several A-10 schools have much crappier arenas than we do, and much smaller facilities.  It seems to mainly be Missouri State and Illinois State fans bringing up this issue on the MVC forum.  You also have the NDSU guy that is delusional, which is fun to read.

Would we all agree that permanent seating is the single largest need?

[vuny98]

I also think that the facility size and quality issue is very much overblown.  Several A-10 schools have much crappier arenas than we do, and much smaller facilities.  It seems to mainly be Missouri State and Illinois State fans bringing up this issue on the MVC forum.  You also have the NDSU guy that is delusional, which is fun to read.

Would we all agree that permanent seating is the single largest need?

Permanent bowl seating on lower level is the biggest need for sure.

I don't even think we need to expand with more seating to the north. I personally would be in favor of permanent bowl seating in the lower bowl. Small expansion to create room for small private suites all the way around where the track is on the north east and west and we can always leave the upper seating as it is (or update with permanent seating). That would greatly improve the look and feel of the ARC, the suites would add a premium feel while not being overly expansive or a major construction undertaking while also providing an added revenue stream.

[a3uge]

I also think that the facility size and quality issue is very much overblown.  Several A-10 schools have much crappier arenas than we do, and much smaller facilities.  It seems to mainly be Missouri State and Illinois State fans bringing up this issue on the MVC forum.  You also have the NDSU guy that is delusional, which is fun to read.

Would we all agree that permanent seating is the single largest need?

That would be nice for fans, but recruits aren't coming to Valpo based on seat comfort. Practice facilities and locker rooms are far more important for the success of the program. I believe they're still going through with the locker room and Hilltop renovation this summer.

[VU2014]

I do wonder about the quality of coaches in the MVC.  Honestly, given the new and coming coaches in the Horizon, the Horizon has the upper hand.

I like the HL recent hires (but maybe not YSU & CSU's...) also but I have a feeling that many of these coaches other then Kampe would jump to a "Better" (bigger) school in a better conference at the first chance they get.

Once/if they turn around the programs they are in jeopardy of getting poached. Unfortunately a lot of the success follows the coach or the coach is short sited and leaves for a pay raise but never experiences the success he had without the momentum he built at his last school.

This is all very cyclical.

[VU2014]

I also think that the facility size and quality issue is very much overblown.  Several A-10 schools have much crappier arenas than we do, and much smaller facilities.  It seems to mainly be Missouri State and Illinois State fans bringing up this issue on the MVC forum.  You also have the NDSU guy that is delusional, which is fun to read.

Would we all agree that permanent seating is the single largest need?

That would be nice for fans, but recruits aren't coming to Valpo based on seat comfort. Practice facilities and locker rooms are far more important for the success of the program. I believe they're still going through with the locker room and Hilltop renovation this summer.

Agreed, permanent seat would be nice but probably should not be the priority.

Valpo would need to build the Student Rec Center first or more renovations for Hilltop first. By putting the permanent seating around the court it limits the use of the space for other sports practices (including Basketball) and even limits the use of the space for other events at the ARC.

If the University were to put permanent seating there then it would need to be very well thought out.

[vu72]

I also think that the facility size and quality issue is very much overblown.  Several A-10 schools have much crappier arenas than we do, and much smaller facilities.  It seems to mainly be Missouri State and Illinois State fans bringing up this issue on the MVC forum.  You also have the NDSU guy that is delusional, which is fun to read.

Would we all agree that permanent seating is the single largest need?

That would be nice for fans, but recruits aren't coming to Valpo based on seat comfort. Practice facilities and locker rooms are far more important for the success of the program. I believe they're still going through with the locker room and Hilltop renovation this summer.

Agreed, permanent seat would be nice but probably should not be the priority.

Valpo would need to build the Student Rec Center first or more renovations for Hilltop first. By putting the permanent seating around the court it limits the use of the space for other sports practices (including Basketball) and even limits the use of the space for other events at the ARC.

If the University were to put permanent seating there then it would need to be very well thought out.

An interesting point.  I guess I thought the chairbacks were retractible as are the bleachers.  Am I wrong on that?  I like the idea about the suites and chairbacks all the way around the lower seating but if 2014 is correct then that can't be done util the Rec center is open.  I believe the locker room was done last year.  I think pretty much all the locker rooms have been redone at this point.  I've seen pictures of football, soccer etc and they look very nice.  Mark indicated the pressing need for air conditioning in Hilltop which has had further enhancements.  Pretty sure that will be the next thing done.

[valpopal]

I also think that the facility size and quality issue is very much overblown.  Several A-10 schools have much crappier arenas than we do, and much smaller facilities.  It seems to mainly be Missouri State and Illinois State fans bringing up this issue on the MVC forum.  You also have the NDSU guy that is delusional, which is fun to read.

Would we all agree that permanent seating is the single largest need?

That would be nice for fans, but recruits aren't coming to Valpo based on seat comfort. Practice facilities and locker rooms are far more important for the success of the program. I believe they're still going through with the locker room and Hilltop renovation this summer.

Agreed, permanent seat would be nice but probably should not be the priority.

Valpo would need to build the Student Rec Center first or more renovations for Hilltop first. By putting the permanent seating around the court it limits the use of the space for other sports practices (including Basketball) and even limits the use of the space for other events at the ARC.

If the University were to put permanent seating there then it would need to be very well thought out.

An interesting point.  I guess I thought the chairbacks were retractible as are the bleachers.  Am I wrong on that?  I like the idea about the suites and chairbacks all the way around the lower seating but if 2014 is correct then that can't be done util the Rec center is open.  I believe the locker room was done last year.  I think pretty much all the locker rooms have been redone at this point.  I've seen pictures of football, soccer etc and they look very nice.  Mark indicated the pressing need for air conditioning in Hilltop which has had further enhancements.  Pretty sure that will be the next thing done.

I believe the ARC is scheduled to receive a new roof. Perhaps upgraded air conditioning could be done at the same time. However, I am also thinking if the new roof is just a replacement, that might mean no imminent plans for expansion.

[4throwfan]

Seems that chairbacks on both sides of the lower bowl would help, along with significant addition to concessions and restrooms.  The lines for both of those are ridiculous, even when there isn't a significant crowd.  I also still go back to WH's post about parking.  Seems that they should put down some gravel in the old Porter Hospital lot.  Seems to me that giving prospective fans a place to park, sit without a backache, and snack and go to the john (without a 20 minute wait) should be the priorities for bringing in more fans (and their money).

[VULB#62]

I agree that matching the north side retractable chairbacks on the south side would be a decent interim solution until a Rec Center/Field House is built. The current floor space is necessary to support a whole bunch of other sports and activities, so retractable is the only way to go in the lower bowl (for now).  I also would like to see permanent retractable bleachers at the east end to complete the bowl feel during games.  I realize this would require moving the concession stand    That goes with what 4throwfan mentions below and I don't see how that can be done without an expansion on the north side. 

This could be done in a series of phases as funding becomes available and would not displace the basketball or volleyball teams nor put the floor space out of circulation as it is implemented:
 
Phase One: North side ground level expansion that includes restrooms, two concession stands as well as, for instance, a new and expanded training room and physical therapy/sports medicine facility.  This construction could be accomplished with hardly any interference with existing building use. The design would take into consideration metrics and structural loads that would support further expansion during Phase two.

Phase Two: Second level expansion above the Phase One structure involving an additional gym floor.

Phase Three:  Demolish the upper wall on the north side thus connecting the new north side gym to the main arena and installing retractable bench seating similar to what exists on the south side above the track. This would compensate for the loss of seating (probably 100-200) that occurred as a result of replacing the south side ground floor bleachers with retractable chairbacks (chairbacks being a bit wider across the bum), and add additional seating to bring the arena up to 6,000 - 6,250.

Phase Four:  Eventually constructing permanent seating in the lower bowl once the Rec Center/Field House is built. The addition of all permanent seats in the lower bowl would probably drop the total capacity to just under 6,000 but still a bit better than what it is today.

[VU2014]

I also think that the facility size and quality issue is very much overblown.  Several A-10 schools have much crappier arenas than we do, and much smaller facilities.  It seems to mainly be Missouri State and Illinois State fans bringing up this issue on the MVC forum.  You also have the NDSU guy that is delusional, which is fun to read.

Would we all agree that permanent seating is the single largest need?

That would be nice for fans, but recruits aren't coming to Valpo based on seat comfort. Practice facilities and locker rooms are far more important for the success of the program. I believe they're still going through with the locker room and Hilltop renovation this summer.

Agreed, permanent seat would be nice but probably should not be the priority.

Valpo would need to build the Student Rec Center first or more renovations for Hilltop first. By putting the permanent seating around the court it limits the use of the space for other sports practices (including Basketball) and even limits the use of the space for other events at the ARC.

If the University were to put permanent seating there then it would need to be very well thought out.

An interesting point.  I guess I thought the chairbacks were retractible as are the bleachers.  Am I wrong on that?  I like the idea about the suites and chairbacks all the way around the lower seating but if 2014 is correct then that can't be done util the Rec center is open.  I believe the locker room was done last year.  I think pretty much all the locker rooms have been redone at this point.  I've seen pictures of football, soccer etc and they look very nice.  Mark indicated the pressing need for air conditioning in Hilltop which has had further enhancements.  Pretty sure that will be the next thing done.

This is what it looks like when the team is just practicing or when Volleyball is in there. The Chairbacks get pushed back and they often use the entire court surface.

Maybe they could building a similar setup in the lower bowl on all 4 sides of the court? (They would have to move the concessions which might not be a bad idea or building more then one concession stand for the entire arena) Although I like that the student section is a bleacher setup. You can pack more students in the bleachers seating, plus students shouldn't be sitting down unless its half time or before the game anyways.

https://twitter.com/ValpoBasketball/status/793604978787098624
https://twitter.com/ValpoBasketball/status/772853140538396672
https://twitter.com/ValpoBasketball/status/772852950259605504
https://twitter.com/ValpoRobotics/status/850706093215027201

[wh]

Seems that chairbacks on both sides of the lower bowl would help, along with significant addition to concessions and restrooms.  The lines for both of those are ridiculous, even when there isn't a significant crowd.  I also still go back to WH's post about parking.  Seems that they should put down some gravel in the old Porter Hospital lot. Seems to me that giving prospective fans a place to park, sit without a backache, and snack and go to the john (without a 20 minute wait) should be the priorities for bringing in more fans (and their money).

As I mentioned before, the university took what was an "indoor-only" problem and compounded it by systematically eliminating available parking in every direction around the ARC. Someone commented in the "Facilities" thread that building new facilities on former parking lots and building new facilities without parking lots is part of the university's plan to transition to a "walking" campus. That's fine - for healthy 18-22 year old kids.  It's not fine for the general public (your target market for basketball games) with an age range of 8-80.  People are looking for ease of access, convenience, and limited exposure to the elements. For example, how many people are going to frequent a restaurant when every time they go they have to circle the neighborhood only to find a parking spot 2 or 3 blocks away (in winter time, no less). Same with going to the movies, or to the grocery store.  And, finding a spot is only half the battle.  When the game's over, busy people at the end of their day want to walk out to an adjacent parking lot, again with as little exposure to the elements, get in their car, and get home.  Put another way, the fan "experience" should begin and end at the entrance to the building.

As someone else suggested, adding an expansive parking area on the SE corner of the old hospital grounds is a good idea.  To cover the cost, I would make it a "pay" lot @ $5/vehicle.  Trust me, people will flock to it.  I would also turn the lot directly across the street to the south of the ARC into a premium pay lot ($10/vehicle).  Trust me again, people will flock to it (including myself, other family members, friends).  I would do the same for women's games. Up until 5 p.m., the lots can be used for general parking, just like the small lot adjacent to the west side of the ARC.  People will love it.  Attendance will pick up dramatically, and the university will have a new revenue source (plus increased revenues from ticket sales).  Low risk - high reward. 

[vu72]

Not sure it would help ARC parking much but the master plan calls for a parking garage on the north side of the union.

[VU2014]

I don't think there is a great enough push for the administration to create a new Student Rec Center...

A Student Rec Center is not some flashy or needless building (Cough... Duesenberg Welcome Center... Cough Cough (looks nice but was not the most pressing need for the University (not my $. it was a donation)).

Student Rec Centers are very standard on almost ever College Campus and is a really big selling point to many perspective students. I kid you not I had probably 5 students from my High School come visit Valpo on 'Over-Nights' to see how they like the college campus and see if the University was a fit for them and all of them said the lack of a student center and very tiny student fitness center was one of the factors not to come to Valpo for them. I remember walking down to the ARC to see if the any of the gyms were available to play pick up basketball and probably 80% of the time the ARC had no space available because teams had practice or some group rented out the space. Also Valpo's tiny (and I mean really tiny) student fitness center doesn't have enough room or equipment to lift. I remember you had to wait 20-30 min to use the squat rack sometimes. Not to mention everybody is packed into there and on top of each other while your trying to lift.

This is a real problem for many perspective students and I don't think people realize this. It was a factor with the 5 young men I hosted on overnights that didn't chose Valpo when I talked to them about it. Ironically I believe one ended up at Drake and 1 went to Loyola, and 2 went to Bradley (MVC schools).

Just food for thought I guess. Mark Labarbera even says he has blueprints for the Student Rec Center but can't find a donor. I don't believe it should just be on him to find the Rec Center donor (that should be broader initiative & I'm sure there are a few folks works on that too).

[vu84v2]

While I am not sure that attendance would go up dramatically, wh's suggested parking plan makes a whole lot of sense. Having been to other campuses with similar issues, this two-tiered parking plan with $5 and $10 parking prices improves the fan experience and is reasonably priced (I might even go a little higher on the premium lot).

[ISUBird]

Someone mentioned that the searing capacity for Valparaiso's basketball arena is similar to some MVC schools, but it only seats a little over 500 more than Loyola (the smallest arena in the MVC) and the next smallest seats over 2,000 more.

I am not sure why people raise the seating capacity issue. What matters is not how many seats there are, but how many people in those seats. In fact, I think it is worse to have a large venue with mostly empty seats. Valpo's average attendance for 2016 was 3,572, which is double the figure for Loyola (1,831) and not far from the average for all MVC teams (4,609) if you subtract Wichita St. (10,805). (Additionally, I'm willing to bet Valpo's attendance would be even higher if playing in the MVC, and the average for the MVC members would be lower without Wichita State's 9 games as a visitor bringing its fan base.)  Valpo's average attendance also ranks better than its two presumed competitors for an invite: Belmont (2,536) and Murray State (3,266).

I want to make it clear the I am in favor of adding Valpo.

However, the same argument was made when adding Loyola that their attendance would go up being in the MVC.  It hasn't (in fact their average attendance has dropped by about 400) and we are replacing our second school that averaged over 10,000 fans a game with good arenas.

Facilities are important for Valparaiso University in the long term. do we need a huge arena? Of course not? But upgrades to the ARC are required as it is becoming antiquated. locker rooms need upgrades, more chair back seats, expand the north end another 1000 seats, and some cosmetic enhancements. Make the ARC a facility we can be proud of.

Btw, the swimming facilities need significant help. that situation is ridiculas.

Regarding the NDSU guy, maybe he believes we need to get free tan Sierras from some dude named Lundegaard and have available wood chippers.

I would prefer for a minimum capacity of 7,000 for Valley schools.

[wh]

While I am not sure that attendance would go up dramatically, wh's suggested parking plan makes a whole lot of sense. Having been to other campuses with similar issues, this two-tiered parking plan with $5 and $10 parking prices improves the fan experience and is reasonably priced (I might even go a little higher on the premium lot).

You're right. It's a needless oversell. I removed it from my post.   

[wh]

Seems that chairbacks on both sides of the lower bowl would help, along with significant addition to concessions and restrooms.  The lines for both of those are ridiculous, even when there isn't a significant crowd.  I also still go back to WH's post about parking.  Seems that they should put down some gravel in the old Porter Hospital lot. Seems to me that giving prospective fans a place to park, sit without a backache, and snack and go to the john (without a 20 minute wait) should be the priorities for bringing in more fans (and their money).

As I mentioned before, the university took what was an "indoor-only" problem and compounded it by systematically eliminating available parking in every direction around the ARC. Someone commented in the "Facilities" thread that building new facilities on former parking lots and building new facilities without parking lots is part of the university's plan to transition to a "walking" campus. That's fine - for healthy 18-22 year old kids.  It's not fine for the general public (your target market for basketball games) with an age range of 8-80.  People are looking for ease of access, convenience, and limited exposure to the elements. For example, how many people are going to frequent a restaurant when every time they go they have to circle the neighborhood only to find a parking spot 2 or 3 blocks away (in winter time, no less). Same with going to the movies, or to the grocery store.  And, finding a spot is only half the battle.  When the game's over, busy people at the end of their day want to walk out to an adjacent parking lot, again with as little exposure to the elements, get in their car, and get home.  Put another way, the fan "experience" should begin and end at the entrance to the building.

As someone else suggested, adding an expansive parking area on the SE corner of the old hospital grounds is a good idea.  To cover the cost, I would make it a "pay" lot @ $5/vehicle.  Trust me, people will flock to it.  I would also turn the lot directly across the street to the south of the ARC into a premium pay lot ($10/vehicle).  Trust me again, people will flock to it (including myself, other family members, friends).  I would do the same for women's games. Up until 5 p.m., the lots can be used for general parking, just like the small lot adjacent to the west side of the ARC.  People will love it.  Attendance will should pick up dramatically, and the university will have a new revenue source (plus increased revenues from ticket sales).  Low risk - high reward. 

[VU2014]

Seems that chairbacks on both sides of the lower bowl would help, along with significant addition to concessions and restrooms.  The lines for both of those are ridiculous, even when there isn't a significant crowd.  I also still go back to WH's post about parking.  Seems that they should put down some gravel in the old Porter Hospital lot. Seems to me that giving prospective fans a place to park, sit without a backache, and snack and go to the john (without a 20 minute wait) should be the priorities for bringing in more fans (and their money).

As I mentioned before, the university took what was an "indoor-only" problem and compounded it by systematically eliminating available parking in every direction around the ARC. Someone commented in the "Facilities" thread that building new facilities on former parking lots and building new facilities without parking lots is part of the university's plan to transition to a "walking" campus. That's fine - for healthy 18-22 year old kids.  It's not fine for the general public (your target market for basketball games) with an age range of 8-80.  People are looking for ease of access, convenience, and limited exposure to the elements. For example, how many people are going to frequent a restaurant when every time they go they have to circle the neighborhood only to find a parking spot 2 or 3 blocks away (in winter time, no less). Same with going to the movies, or to the grocery store.  And, finding a spot is only half the battle.  When the game's over, busy people at the end of their day want to walk out to an adjacent parking lot, again with as little exposure to the elements, get in their car, and get home.  Put another way, the fan "experience" should begin and end at the entrance to the building.

As someone else suggested, adding an expansive parking area on the SE corner of the old hospital grounds is a good idea.  To cover the cost, I would make it a "pay" lot @ $5/vehicle.  Trust me, people will flock to it.  I would also turn the lot directly across the street to the south of the ARC into a premium pay lot ($10/vehicle).  Trust me again, people will flock to it (including myself, other family members, friends).  I would do the same for women's games. Up until 5 p.m., the lots can be used for general parking, just like the small lot adjacent to the west side of the ARC.  People will love it.  Attendance will pick up dramatically, and the university will have a new revenue source (plus increased revenues from ticket sales).  Low risk - high reward. 

I agree this would be a good move in theory but that parking lot is mainly used by the JR/SR students on campus who live in Guild Memorial Hall. Those students are already paying for parking passes that University forces every student who has a car on campus to purchase every year. I forget what the prices were when I was on campus a few years ago, but just did a quick search and they are $100 for a single semester or $180 for 2 semesters and $225 to include the summers. Not cheap to a college kid.

If the University started forcing students to start parking else where it would cause an uproar. There is no other parking lot "near" for the students in guild memorial.

Another factor that is not going to help is that sometime in the near future Fraternities are going to be building new Fraternity Houses across the street from the Sorority House and that is going to create even less parking in that area. Something to keep in mind also.

Does anyone remember when the City stopped allowing people to park on the residential streets next to the ARC? I could be completely wrong but that may have happened when they received the ok from the City to build the sorority housing. May have been a hand shake agreement between the city and the University to not allow parking on the streets there because it really ticked off the people who lived there.

The University really needs to figure out the parking situation at the ARC, because you can't be doing this to paying customers. It will only hurt attendance (if it hasn't already).