I guarantee once the project is there will be no more complaining and people will be glad it’s happened. The university wouldn’t do someone for no reason
3 Likes
For what it’s worth, opposition to the Cook Field site doesn’t appear to just come from some online petition. It appears respondents to Miami’s own planning survey were against Cook Field as well.
‘An egregious affront’: Survey results show widespread opposition to arena on Cook Field
1 Like
The Oxford Free-Press’ reporting seems to prove my point. Cook is a red herring. People were against every site and the arena in general. The real issue is the spending of money for athletics.
More than 300 respondents explicitly opposed both sites or directly questioned the need for a new arena altogether.
6 Likes
Not sure why they opened up a two site choice and then pick the losing choice.
They offered an opinion poll/stakeholder survey. It wasn’t a binding vote.
Honestly, it’d be negligent if they just went with the most popular pick. It’s not like the general student or alumni population is really considering things like demolition cost, construction, site footprint, etc.
I’d be ok with either site (I actually liked what got maligned as the slant walk site too), but it’s hard to argue against cook making more sense.
4 Likes
I think anyone pretending there wouldn’t be a bigger or equal backlash if they picked literally bulldozing of the building that hosts the Myaamia center dedicated to the Native American tribe heritage for a hoops arena is fooling themselves and doesn’t understand campus activism.
If people want to argue that they don’t think we need a new basketball arena even with a lead donor (Miami will still be financing a decent chunk I imagine) that’s fine but let’s not pretend like the argument is something it’s not.
I mean, looking at the Oxford Free Press story many people responded that Millet Hall was fine which shows how informed the sample was. Miami should be embarrassed to have a facility ranked as last in the MAC pretty much unanimously.
6 Likes
I see Pfeffer Park, the Formal Gardens, Bishop Circle and the pond and Freedom Summer area on the Western as green space, as well. I do wonder when Miami might have to begin buying up some aready developed property - possibly behind fraternity row west of Talawanda.
The campus is over 2,000 acres….if students claim there’s not enough green space, they just need to walk an extra five minutes.
2 Likes
"Among those who indicated a direct preference between the two locations, Southwest Quad was preferred by a factor of more than two to one. "
It was 76 people, per the graph in the article, that opposed both sites or preferred another site. Just to be fair to the graph.
I think this debate is not being framed correctly. In an earlier post I believe it was DG who noted the downsides of not increasing the density of construction on campus. He made some excellent points which I hadn’t fully considered.
The corollary to his post is that those places that students use, particularly have to use(classrooms), should be most centrally located. Those used infrequently should be more on the periphery.
I think it is reasonable to point out that Cook field is the primary intramural and recreational open space on campus and has been since I was in school since the 80s. As such, when weather permits, it is used by hundreds of students almost every day. Moving it’s functions to a less convenient location is a significant loss for a current student.
3 Likes
MiamiJohn that is well said as was DG’s earlier post.
Thanks. Once in a while, I skip the dick jokes and say something substantive.
1 Like
Don’t get me wrong. I think the dick jokes are also among the most substantive and insightful things said on MHT!
I am posting this reluctantly because the time to do so was long before a decision was made. But, I have done a 180 in my thoughts on a new arena.
During the 90s and early 2000s I was a strong and somewhat beleaguered proponent of Coach Coles. I felt strongly that Millett had gone from a recruiting advantage to a decided disadvantage amongst peer institutions. I felt that we were overperforming our place in the college basketball landscape.
I supported the construction of a new facility as the only way for our program to retain it’s historic place in the basketball world. To a large degree that view has been vindicated by the post Coles era and I believe most of the posters and powers that be now share it.
I am no longer in favor of constructing a new facility. The impact of facilities on program prospects has declined precipitously. The NIL era and the general decline of MAC basketball have profoundly reduced the degree to which a new arena is going to move the needle on program success.
2 Likes
While Cook might be the best place for it. Especially if you include the hotel and restauran, yhrow in demo of current buildings and construction disruption. But it’s also probably the most controversial amoung what they’re considering.
You were probably right in the late 90s and your points are probably correct now
If a donor wanted to give $50m to improve mens basketball results and attendance he would much better impact that with sending $2m a year to fund NILs for the next 25 years (bad math I know)
But I thought Millet needed $80m of repairs so I am excited if instead of repairs we can get a new arena and offset some of that cost with a donation
5 Likes
I’m not going to promise a new arena will propel Miami hoops to greatness, but I do think you are discounting the effect of a modern, top of peer facility.
Talk to Coach Martin and staff how they feel the practice facility (which even after the years I still think is best in the MAC) helps their recruiting. When a kid walks into our facility, weight room, and lockeroom and then a week later walks into Akron’s or Kent’s…its a stark difference.
Likewise, if we are wanting to not only compete against Akron, Kent, and OU…but also in the best world against MVC, A10, and maybe even bottom tier Big East schools, we need to have a facility that isn’t embarrassing. I know most of us are focused on the fan experience, but the Millet player facilities are embarrassing even by MAC standards.
I haven’t been in any other MAC locker rooms or facilities, but I am pretty confident our football spaces (locker room, hangout areas, etc.) are the top of the MAC and our basketball ones are literally the very worst.
1 Like
I am NOT an insider in ICA despite my many years of working at games, but I have been told first-hand that there are many reasons Millett Hall is in need of replacement beyond the attractiveness to athletes and/or fans.
Among those reasons, the entire building is required to undergo asbestos abatement to the the tune of several million dollars. Additionally, the roof needs full replacement due to the failure of all efforts to repair and patch the many leaks. Water is regularly seeping upward in the underground areas and efforts to find the source have proven futile (it has tested positive for chlorine indicating that somewhere there is a major leak in the pipes running under the building. I don’t know what other structural issues there may be beyond those above, but if you add the dollar amount of just those problems on top of the cost to do even cosmetic upgrades, it just doesn’t make monetary sense to say we don’t need a new facility. It may well be that competing interests for the money the university might have to spend will win the argument, but since we don’t have even the slightest notion how much money that might be it seems foolish to argue that Millett is perfectly suitable.
I write this because I am reading many posts saying that a new arena is necessary to attract students, community, and prospective athletes without including any mention of how costly it WILL be (not MIGHT be) to turn down a major donation and simply do nothing.
18 Likes
The administration is on record as saying that there are 65 million dollars in deferred maintenance requirements. Without any knowledge to back up my supposition, I strongly doubt the true figure is that high.