DamStrait Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 I was kind of wondering what people thought of the basketball team playing a majority of their home games in the hockey arena? I think it stinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND Fan Posted November 4, 2003 Author Share Posted November 4, 2003 Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 I think they should only play a few big games in there a year, but doesn't look like it is going to be that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Basketball is more of a cozy sport. It's much better when the fans are on top of the game. Playing in the big arena will be like a wasteland (unless it's filled). I remember playing at Concordia and the gym was so big you had no idea fans were there. The more space the harder it is to just distances as far as shooting. This is becasue you can see through the backboard. I think 3,000 fans in a 4k arena will be rockin, where 3k fans in a 12k arena will be sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Folks, we know Roebuck prefers a cramped-feeling home gym with people hanging right on the court. Look at the inside edge of that roof truss relative to the top row of seating. I think it's designed to feel "cozy." We also know that even with "The Beaz" last year, UND mens hoops averaged 500 less than capacity of that place. I still believe that REA is "home court" as a recruiting tool and that only the games that are obviously going over the 4000 seating capacity will be in The House that Ralph Built. I can't prove it. Call it a gut feeling. Time will tell. PS - Only 133 of 327 DI mens BB and only 23 DI womens BB teams averaged more per game last year than REA-SC holds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Sicatoka I hope you are right, I hope they only have a handful of games in the big arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Why? Many reasons. Uncle Ralph built the REA for hockey, not to be a multipurpose arena. I think the ice will suffer. Not only do the hockey players play in the REA main arena, they also practice there. More BB games in the main arena will interfere with that. The club levels in the main arena will be behind the backboards. Not exactly premo seats for premo seat prices. I think it's best to have BB play and practice on the same floor. If the new BB/VB facility proves too small, then the new facility should be built to be expandable. To my eye, it looks like that is what has been done. It looks to me like it should not be a big deal to virtually double the new facility's seating capacity. Hockey is king at UND. Its revenues fund pretty much all the other sports. In order for hockey to continue as a cash cow, it needs to be one of the nation's premier programs (to keep butts in the seats). That means don't do anything to make recruits want to go play elsewhere (like deny hockey players access to their own facilities). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 REA has posted the latest photos here. That place is looking more and more "cozy" every day. From the court, with that low truss, it'll look like there really are people hanging in the rafters. I found the latest drawings here. PS - Why would you set up media/TV broadcast facilities in a practice arena? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent_Bobyck Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 REA has posted the latest photos here. That place is looking more and more "cozy" every day. From the court, with that low truss, it'll look like there really are people hanging in the rafters. I found the latest drawings here. PS - Why would you set up media/TV broadcast facilities in a practice arena? Because there will be some games played there I would assume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 Because there will be some games played there I would assume. (We otta take this act to Vaudeville because you just played the perfect straight-man for a punchline.) Why, I thought the big arena would be home to UND BB so you wouldn't need TV capabilities in the practice facility. Could it be that a fair number of games will be played in the REA-SC so you'll need the TV capabilities in there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 Didn't somebody for REA or UND state that all conference games would be in the big arena next year? Where did I read that....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 When did the name of the 'REA Sportscenter' get changed to the 'Betty Engelstad Sioux Center'? Perhaps this is a bit presumptuous, but is this name change an additional way of thanking the Engelstad's past extraordinary generosity, or is 'something else' happening? A few additional questions: Is there still a plan to have a temporary roof/cover for Memorial Stadium? (It seems track and field is getting more emphasis lately.) Is talk of a new natatorium attached to the Wellness Center, which begins construction this fall, any more than a long-range plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 When did the name of the 'REA Sportscenter' get changed to the 'Betty Engelstad Sioux Center'?Wha'-who-wha'? Is there still a plan to have a temporary roof/cover for Memorial Stadium? (It seems track and field is getting more emphasis lately.) I've heard that but not much about it lately. Is talk of a new natatorium attached to the Wellness Center, which begins construction this fall, any more than a long-range plan? You could be nice to guys who've had long weeks and refer to those by their common names. On a related note, I heard some really interesting talk about a possible future life for old REA (but not as a natatorium). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Well I'll be .... The Betty Engelstad Sioux Center Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 On a related note, I heard some really interesting talk about a possible future life for old REA (but not as a natatorium). Would it be possible to elaborate on that? The old REA would seem ideal for a development team site (rather than Ann Arbor). It would probably need Olympic-sized ice though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Would it be possible to elaborate on that? The old REA would seem ideal for a development team site (rather than Ann Arbor). It would probably need Olympic-sized ice though. Yes, come on now, spill it, what is really interesting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Not as a natatorium. Not as a hockey facility. No further comments. Sorry. (I'd give away a good source.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Boy Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 A water park with a big ol' slide? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 Not as a natatorium. Not as a hockey facility. No further comments. Sorry. (I'd give away a good source.) Sicatoka: How about this as speculation: the old Engelstad will be taken over by its neighbor, the UND Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC), and converted into development / production facilities? I'm probably way out in the realm of speculation (and am probably risking the boredom of others), but a pollution control device for particulate and mercury control, Advanced Hydrid, developed by the EERC has the potential to be the single most important invention to come out of Grand Forks since the headbolt heater or Cream of Wheat. Since neither of those directly benefitted the local economy (with production facilities), I'm hoping W. L. Gore (a highly innovative company that was the developer of Gore-tex and is the main licensee of the patent) or ELEX, a Swiss company with a sublicense, will locate a production facility in it. With new EPA regulations aimed at mercury and particulate emissions from coal-burning sources coming in 2007, this product has the potential to be a huge success and boost to the local economy, ... if a production and/or development facility is built in GF. Here's a report on it from DOE: 99.99% removal. Again, this is highly speculative on my part, but it would potentially help explain the seemingly lack of interest in refurbishing the old Engelstad and the building of the Betty Engelstad Sioux Center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND Fan Posted December 30, 2003 Author Share Posted December 30, 2003 Your speculation would be outstanding for the GF economy and it would be great if it happens! But do you think that building could be upgraded for such a purpose - it would cost a million $ just to repair the roof plus there are many other sturctural problems with the building. I also wonder if there is enough room around the building (access to it by truck, etc.) for a manufacturing concern. The rumors I am hearing is that the building will be knocked down and replaced by a year-round practice facility for UND football, track, baseball, etc. Too bad there isn't room enough for both there. Although the manufacturing facility could easily be built out west in the Industrial Park, it probably should be right there with the EERC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 I hate to throw cold water on the speculation, but I sincerely doubt that the old Engelsad Arena is being considered as a manufacturing site for the EERC's advanced hybrid particulate control (AHPC) technology. Before that technology takes off, regulations requiring coal-fired power plants to cut particulate emissions below current levels need to be passed. It seems more likely that regulations to cut mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will be passed, and the EERC's AHPC technology doesn't address those issues. Also, if the technology has advanced to the commercial stage as the EERC claims, there's really no reason why a facility to manufacture the equipment would need to be located near the EERC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Anyone think of breaking up the cement and looking for hoffa? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 I agree with PCM that regulations on reducing particulates would cause high demand for EERC's 'Advanced Hybrid', but the system can also be used for mercury reduction, which looks to be mandated soon. Also, it can be used for non-utilities and non-US markets, which have entirely different regulatory issues. My speculation (with no inside info) was heavily based on a reference in the Herald more than one year ago about the possibility of a plant being built in GF to make the equipment (sorry, I can't find the link). If there truly is a plan for the old Engelstad other than a costly demolition, light industrial use would seem possible, as GF and ND economic development would probably pay for structural and internal refurbishment. Without an available (and low rent) building, the chance of a company locating is almost nil. It's interesting that two of the foremost players in the pollution control business, ELEX and Gore, so prominently display the not yet commercially available Hybrid technology on their websites. Pronounce me guilty of wishful thinking. With EERC's recent expansion (and more hoped for), the old Engelstad arena (or land) will probably, at some time or another, fall under EERC control. With the Hyslop being freed up with basketball moving and the temporary Wellness Center moving out, the athletic department should have alot of available room for football, track and baseball training in the Hyslop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 I agree with PCM that regulations on reducing particulates would cause high demand for EERC's 'Advanced Hybrid', but the system can also be used for mercury reduction, which looks to be mandated soon. AHPC is a particulate control technology, not a mercury control technology. It's true that some mercury can be captured in the ash of exhauast gases of power plants, but existing particulate control devices already remove a very high percentage of mercury in that form. AHPC is useless at removing oxydized mercury from exhaust gas, which is far and away the most difficult form to control and the greatest threat to the environment. Also, it can be used for non-utilities and non-US markets, which have entirely different regulatory issues.So why isn't it? I see that one cement plant in Italy is employing the technology, but beyond that nobody appears to be lining up to use AHPC. My speculation (with no inside info) was heavily based on a reference in the Herald more than one year ago about the possibility of a plant being built in GF to make the equipment (sorry, I can't find the link). The EERC has been saying that about AHPC and other technologies it's developed for a decade or more. They appear no closer to making that happen now than they did five years ago. If there truly is a plan for the old Engelstad other than a costly demolition, light industrial use would seem possible, as GF and ND economic development would probably pay for structural and internal refurbishment.All the plans I've heard about relate to athletics, not the EERC. Without an available (and low rent) building, the chance of a company locating is almost nil. Why wouldn't a company that expects to make a ton of money off AHPC be willing to pay for such a building itself? And what is the advantage of locating such a facility in Grand Forks? It's interesting that two of the foremost players in the pollution control business, ELEX and Gore, so prominently display the not yet commercially available Hybrid technology on their websites. AHPC is available and has been for at least two years -- if not more. You have to ask yourself: If it's so great, why isn't it being used for more industrial applications? The answer is because as with nearly all environmental technologies, their deployment is driven by regulation. I heard that from a Gore representative who gave a presentation on AHPC at an air quality conference. Pronounce me guilty of wishful thinking.   Okay. You're guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.