There are a lot of "better" smaller arenas - but that's missing the point. It isn't all one thing or another. You can have a small arena and a good program overall - like Gonzaga. You can have a big arena and be irrelevant, like Siena.RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑5 months agoIt says they have access to, and a working relationship with, Madison Square Garden, so they can tailor their arena to various conditionsPlayMikeMotenMore wrote: ↑5 months agoSo we have a difference of opinion. I think how nice an arena is more important than the size of the arena. To me, that's more of a reflection of the university's commitment to its basketball program. Kudos to Loyola for reimagining and redesigning their basketball arena into a top-flight basketball arena. Loyola's campus is very difficult to get to for any alumni living in the suburbs, especially on weeknights.RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑5 months ago
"-Arena size is irrelevant. You build an arena to fit the needs and the demand. (what's the season ticket base, where do ticket holders live, what's the potential ticket base if the school consistently wins, should it be a multi-purpose facility, is there even land to build a larger arena, etc.)"
Season ticket base, where do ticket holders live, and what's the potential ticket base if the school consistently wins all seem like very important factors in deciding what conference a school belongs in. If a school doesn't have a big enough fanbase buying tickets they're not going to have the money to compete long-term in this conference. There's a reason why La Salle, Fordham, and Duquesne are consistently near the bottom, why Dayton and VCU are consistently near the top, and programs like St. Louis, Rhode Island, and Richmond are mid-pack programs that bounce all around the standings.
Arena size says a lot about a program. Part of the design process is studying what your fan base is and what it could be under optimal conditions. That Loyola has about 4500 seats for a home gym, with the same student enrollment as URI, in the third most populous city in the country, with no plans to expand, and an average attendance below UMass says everything about that program, and none of it is good
In the same city, UIC plays in the former UIC Pavilion. UIC has 22K undergrads and their arena holds 9,500. I can guarantee you that 10 out of 10 people would tell you that Loyola's Gentile Center is a far better basketball arena.
Build an arena too big and you have the Mullins Center. Sure, it was filled in the Camby hey-days. But otherwise, it's a ghost town. St. John's is in NYC, enrollment 16,000 undergrads and has Carnesecca Arena with a capacity of 5,600. What does that say about St. John's program?
This is losing the point. Loyola is not a "make your conference better" type program.
They're an academically focused school with a fanbase of nerds who do not care about sports or basketball in particular.
This is pointed out in easy examples like the fact that they can't routinely fill up their very small arena even when they are a very good program (that one time). The rest of the time they cannot recruit the kind of talent to sustain a good record throughout a better conference than the Horizon or MVC. Good basketball players don't want to go to miserable tightly fisted academic schools.
Basically, the battle axe grabbed a team that had one hot streak to the final four but otherwise isn't a good program to have on your schedule.
We grabbed them because of their "exception" season, not the rule.
Now we have a new media contract that still pays a pittance, and an NCAA sharing policy where everyone gets an equal share. AKA we have no way to incentivize any legitimate basketball programs to join us - or worse, keep the few flagship programs we have.
Great job!