jimdahl Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 The Dakota Student changed their format so articles don't have a permanent URL (grrrrr). So, let's see what I can extract: The starting gun finally went off in UND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmduf Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Wasn't it posted earlier that a Wellness Center was a requirement of the NCAA before jumping to D-IAA, D-I??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 That is not accurate. I had made a statement about that earlier (based on my misinterpretation of some statements from NDSU and SDSU) but, after contacting the NCAA, I determined that a wellness center is not a formal requirement. Sorry for creating the confusion. Is this architect just for the Hyslop to Wellness renovations or will they be looking at renovating old Engelstad Arena and the new athletics offices/training building as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 The Herald article from yesterday states the Old Engelstad may be demolished to make way for the Wellness Center. Can someone explain the apparent change in plans by the athletic department for the Old Engelstad? Is the Old Engelstad structurally unsafe and too expensive for refurbishment? The Old Engelstad would seem ideal for BB: more and better seating and still with a Hyslop 'feel'. Is there an intent to move BB to the Alerus? UND WELLNESS CENTER: Officials focus on three sites Architects contracted by UND students to study a proposed new wellness center are focusing on three campus sites, including land along the English Coulee west of Ralph Engelstad Arena. Other options under consideration are demolishing the old Engelstad Arena and building a new facility there, as well as replacing the fieldhouse portion of Hyslop Sports Center with a new wellness center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 There's a new twist. First time I've heard that. I always thought it was athletics (BB, VB) to old REA, wellness in Hyslop, build a new athletic training facility in the old REA parking lot, and 'sports bubble' Memorial Field's turf. Like I said, first time I've heard that. Interesting twists. And a good question about moving BB to Alerus too. I've heard that idea bounced (basketball, bounce, har-har) about, but wondered why more hasn't been said about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverman Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 The Al didn't buy that new floor just to look at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I thought Roebuck and Glas like to practice on the court they play on. The Al wouldn't lend itself to that very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND Fan Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Glas is all for making the move into The Ralph, Roebuck is opposed. I understand and agree with each of their thoughts. It is much more difficult to recruit talented men to the cold, northern plains than it is women. The guys are very impressed with the Ralph; therefore, it helps Rich's recruiting immensely. There are 2-3 players who are playing or have committed to UND because this facility was a "tie-breaker" when compared to another school. It is easier for Gene to recruit women to UND - partially because there are more girls able to play good DII BB in ND and Minnesota than there are men. Although this trend is changing, girls havealso been less likely to sign at a school a long distance from their home. Therefore, with Gene able to get most the girls he really wants, he wants to play in Hyslop which does provide more of a "home court" advantage than The Ralph. Both are correct in their thinking - one will get his way, the other won't. It will be interesting how this plays out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamsioux Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 If the Sioux BB teams move to the Al....well to say least there will be a lack of atmosphere. 3,000 fans will make tha place seem like a morgue. Some of those Fb games late in the year with double that were horrible. I can't imagine cutting the crowd by half again. Unless UND goes D1, I hope BB stays at the Hyslop....there is no better atmosphere around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSiouxFan Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I went to the Red River vs. Central basketball game at the Alerus Center, and I must say it is a pretty good setup for basketball. They move the bleachers from one end to the other and put a curtain up behind it. Plenty of good seating on all four sides. Perfect place to play some D1 ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Well here's a new twist to the whole conversation: UND eyes 'Ralph' expansion Highlights (from the GF Herald): - $7 million basketball/volleyball venue attached to the west side of Engelstad Arena's Olympic-size ice sheet building - NDSBHE gave the go-ahead to UND administration to negotiate with REA - 3,200-seat capacity for basketball game days; options could allow for seating up to 4,000 - No state money is needed for the project, financing would be handled by REA - Kupchella told the board that it's his understanding if men's and women's basketball moved to Ralph Engelstad Arena and the proposed expansion, most of their games would be played in the large 12,000-seat hockey arena (not sure how much I like that) The article includes discussion on options for Hyslop if this were to happen. I guess a wellness center just north of REA makes a little more sense now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I would love to see a new basketball facility, but I fail to see the point of making it a 3,200 seating capacity. UND averaged 3,800 in 2001-02 and 3,400 this year. I would think that a 4,500 to 5,000 seat facility would make more sense. It's fine if the bigger games would be moved to the big Ralph, but at least make the new facility comparable in seating capacity to Hyslop so that nearly every game doesn't have to be moved. Otherwise, what's the point in building a new facility at all? It reminds me of Minnesota's building that women's basketball/volleyball facility only to have the womens b-ball games moved to Williams Arena immediately thereafter due to lack of seating capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I would love to see a new basketball facility, but I fail to see the point of making it a 3,200 seating capacity. UND averaged 3,800 in 2001-02 and 3,400 this year. I would think that a 4,500 to 5,000 seat facility would make more sense. I agree. Building it any smaller than Hyslop doesn't make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted March 21, 2003 Author Share Posted March 21, 2003 - Kupchella told the board that it's his understanding if men's and women's basketball moved to Ralph Engelstad Arena and the proposed expansion, most of their games would be played in the large 12,000-seat hockey arena I don't like this at all. Going from independent facilities to a joint mega-sports-complex seems a step backwards to me. I know REA is the nicest athletics facility on campus, but I don't think that's a good reason to abandon all the other facilities and move all sports into it. At least you can't fit a football field in there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodakvindy Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I must agree, this is a bad idea. A 4000 seat arena kills any DI growth potential. Also, having basketball games at the Ralph would only make the ice conditions worse, and that certainly isn't needed. What happened to refurbishing the old Ralph? That would make a lot more sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Let me ponder aloud (sort of) some aspects to this: First, going any smaller than the current Hyslop is not a good idea in my opinion. However, they can't go too much bigger or the "why not play at Alerus?" question comes into play. Solution? About 5000 seats. Not all have to be fixed seating. Why not have some "mobile seating" that could be shared with the Olympic hockey rink? Going to the REA site offers built-in televising capabilities. You can use the existing control rooms and up-links. All you have to do is set cameras and run the cables. That matters. Why? Broadcast rights equal revenues. Another aspect of going to the REA site: Beer, and that also equals revenues. (Remember, positive revenues from REA go back to UND. Remember the check for womens hockey last fall?) The Ralph has the best training facilities around. If you want to grow the BB/VB programs (nodakvindy mentioned "DI potential") access to those facilities is key. With the size of those facilities, 20-some hoopsters and a dozen volleyballers isn't going to make much of a difference in equipment availability. And, last time I looked, there is still "undesignated space" that could be made into training areas in the ice level of REA. Is there an indoor running track around the Olympic rink right now? Will there be? There's another training facility. Who knows why types of training facilities (or athletic office space) may also be planned for such an expansion. The ice in the main arena is a problem right now. Let's get that primary problem fixed. Then let's see what putting a court on and off it will do. Still, I see the Kohl Center model and I don't like what it's doing for Wisconsin. So .... Play the majority of the BB games in the new facility. (I like "full houses.") The coaches like to play where they practice. Let them. Part of the problem with REA right now for the BB teams is it doesn't feel like "home" when they play there. Getting them more time in "the facility," even if its just using the training spaces, even if most games are played in a new arena, will make the main arena floor seem more like home. Also, wouldn't you bring the current Hyslop floor to the new arena? I'd guess you'd use that in the main REA arena for games played in there as well. (I know coaches aren't fond of the current REA court.) Other thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Doesn't UND already have seating for the entire population of Grand Forks and then some? I'm curious - why on earth do you need more? Grand Forks is a complete puzzle to me - there's almost no private industry, almost all personal income comes from the government, and yet, if my calculations are correct, there have been about 25,000 dollars worth of construction projects for each man, women, and child in Grand Forks within the last decade - with more coming down the road (hotel, waterparks, and now a new basketball arena!?!). Sure, about 70% of the funding for this stuff come from directly from other people's wallets, but there doesn't seem to be any rational explanation for spending more. Is there any point at which you'd take a look at Grand Forks and say, "Hey, I think that we've got enough infrastructure now?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 tony: Your questions are more than fair. First, GF (city) is 49,300+ people alone (2000 census). That times your "$25k" and that's about $1.25 billion dollars. Are you sure you have the right numbers? The rational explanation follows Fargo's explanation for building FargoDome: If you build it they will come. Right? The knock on GF has always been "nothing to do up there." Well, now there's something to do there. The chances for getting new business and industry improves. That is also part of the "build FargoDome" rationale, yes? Why not give it a shot? The Hyslop (north half) was built in the 1920s. I'm sure you've been in it. It has its problems. The 1997 flood, the June "flashflood" (same one put 12' of water in FargoDome), and general wear has cause some issues with the old REA. (Whoever came up with the idea of creating a building with an exterior designed to rust?) It sounds like UND wants to bring old REA down and use the space for something else. (Past Herald story.) Regarding seats and the city: Alerus 13500, REA 11406, so, no, you can only seat about half of Grand Forks. The other half, and EGF, and everyone else, has to stand. Remember, Alerus is the city's, not UND's. Hyslop holds 5000. Old REA held 6067. Being a little tongue in cheek, but from the news report "no taxpayer dollar will be harmed in the making of a new arena." REA must have the funds or they wouldn't offer. "Hey, I think that we've got enough infrastructure now?" --- When has Fargo ever said that? Oops, April of 2000. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted March 21, 2003 Author Share Posted March 21, 2003 Doesn't UND already have seating for the entire population of Grand Forks and then some? I'm curious - why on earth do you need more? Though other NDSU fans have cited dramatic overcapacity in arenas as a positive for abilitiy to grow in the future, I'm willing to accept it as proof of irrational overbuilding. FYI, here's a comparison of stadium capacity/attendance/average %full for 2002-03 season.              UND               NDSU Football      13,500  9,488 .70    18,700 10,620 .57 Hockey      11,406 11,156 .98     N/A BBall M       4,792  3,423 .71     8,000  2,869 .36 BBall W       4,792  2,444 .51     8,000  2,562 .32 Though a ratio of arena capacity to population shows that G.F. has many more seats per person than Fargo, it looks to me like UND's facilities are being well used. That's why I question basketball/volleyball moving onto the main floor of REA. Having UND teams play in empty caverns is a bit of a break from the status quo. As far as a building "binge", UND hasn't really built a new athletics facility since the Winter Sports Center in 1972 (at least that I can think of). I think Sica hit the nail on the head with talk of broadcast capability/beer sales of REA (not to mention recruiting power). I guess it only makes sense to use that tremendous asset to provide as much benefit as possible to all of UND athletics, but I'm still philisophically not a huge fan of the University mega sports complex concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I'm just wondering when enough is enough. ~500 million on flood protection, 100+ million (plus attendant costs to the city improving infrastructure of several million more) on the Ralph, nearly 100 million on the Alerus, 11 million dollar publicly-financed hotel, 20+ million (if the GFH gets what they want) on an indoor waterpark, now a new arena (7 million), dome over Memorial, $1 million on new turf at Memorial, and property tax breaks to a number of other private service industry projects. We're talking a nearly $1 billion with no non-service jobs created. Seating: 13500-22000 Alerus, 11400-19000 Ralph, 5000 Hyslop, 6000 old Ralph, 4000 the proposed Ralphette, 2400 Chester Fritz, etc. That's more seats than people. Even if you tear down the existing 11000 seats in the Hyslop and old Ralph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I don't have all the numbers but I'll work from your list. (You have to love Friday afternoon and a search engine. ) ~500 million on flood protection: The Army Corps says about 2/3 of that number for both GF and EGF. GF and EGF pick up significant chunks of that with local dollars. 100+ million (plus attendant costs to the city improving infrastructure of several million more) on the Ralph: The Ralph was $104 million (and change) of private donation dollars. Yes, the city put in some infrastructure, but not much. It sits on pre-existing streets in a pre-developed area. A recent GF Herald article stated that REA brings $17,000+ per month in sales tax revenue to GF. Nearly 100 million on the Alerus: The Alerus ended up at about 75% of the number you cite. What's interesting here? Sales tax revenue (see The Ralph above) goes to pay this off. 11 million dollar publicly-financed hotel: No, CANAD would build the hotel. Private dollars. Yes, they'd get a lease on the land similar to that of NDSU to Fargo for the land to build FargoDome on, plus some tax breaks. 20+ million (if the GFH gets what they want) on an indoor waterpark: From The Herald: "To me, the only acceptable one is the $7 million one because that's the only one we can afford and the only one that will pass (a vote of the people)," (GF city) commissioner Bill Hutchison said. None has been decided on. GF lost their water park to the 1997 flood. A new arena (7 million): Again, privately financed by REA. No taxpayer dollars. Dome over Memorial: Dome is way too strong of a word. Sports bubble, and it would just cover the turf and track so they could be used all year. $1 million on new turf at Memorial: Did UND know the Aurora/Alerus would ever pass and be built? Your number for REA max is about 4000 too high. They only got 13500 in for KU hoops. Old REA is 31 years old and you can see through the exterior wall in some spots (seriously, see 'rust' above). There is talk (first link in thread) of bringing it down. Hyslop is 80+ years old. UND has found a way to update its athletic facilities without being a strain on the State or city of GF. (Yes, GF built the Alerus Center. And Fargo built FargoDome. Call it a wash there.) I'm not sure what your concern is. And at the risk of repeating myself, the rational explanation follows Fargo's explanation for building FargoDome: If you build it they will come. Right? The knock on GF has always been "nothing to do up there." Well, now there's something to do there. The chances for getting new business and industry (non-service sector employment) improves. That is also part of the "build FargoDome" rationale, yes? Why shouldn't GF it a shot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 At first glance, I did not like the idea of attaching a basketball facility to the Ralph, especially if refurbishing the Old Ralph remained an option. But on further review, it makes more and more economic sense. Economic benefits are more than beer/vendor sales, as suite annual rental costs would be increased, booked events would increase with little overhead increase, and actual basketball attendance would almost certainly increase, even with higher ticket prices. Consider these figures: Hyslop avg attendance Men Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soSIOUXme Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 My $.02 Build a 6,000 seat basketball arena attached to REA (new technology allows for "movable walls" such as those used in new arena in Omaha(?)) This would allow for most NCC games and big high school events. More important games could be held in REA, as they are now, with less compromise to ice conditions throughout the hockey season. This could also lead to something I have been wishing for for a while-- the "Betty Engelstad Parking Garage" Which in turn could lead to further development as we wouldn't need all the parking lots. Build a $20+ million dollar waterpark instead of a $7 mil. Make it a destination so people will want to come from great distances. Then it will stand a chance of making/generating money for the area. It does need an attached hotel as well as shuttle service from other hotels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 UND Student Senate votes to build Wellness Center on Bronson Property. That'd be by the new REA. Reasons for the decision in the link. REA, Wellness Center, possible new BB arena west of The Ralph (The Betty? ): The Bronson Property is finally being developed. 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.