Saw this on the MBB Board...

[e5fdny]

Interesting article with a quote or two from somebody we all know and love...

http://www.app.com/story/sports/col...utgers-basketball-facilities-crisis/27241339/

 

[NotInRHouse]

Thanks for posting, fascinating read.

The near misses of RU at everything over the years should really all be compiled into a book. Get Townsend dropping the ball on the cover. Chapter on saying no to the BE, turning down the arena, Jay Wright almost coming here, etc.

Always leaves us wanting for more. I still like this idea.

 

[RU MAN]

Thanks for that NIOH. It's the story of Rutgers. Always short-sighted looking to save a buck instead of doing it right the first time. Let's hope being in the B1G will force the provincial way of thinking at Rutgers to change for the better good of the university. I'm holding my breath.

 

[Upstream]

It's the story of Rutgers. Always short-sighted looking to save a buck instead of doing it right the first time.

This is actually a major contributor to the athletics deficit. Rutgers wastes so much money being cheap. It would be a lot more cost-effective to spend the right amount of money upfront, rather than waste it on the back-end.


(And this is where I give Barchi credit. In his response to Lesniak about funding for a basketball practice, he wrote that the cost for appropriate facilities would be greater than the $30 million Lesniak suggested. Link. The old Rutgers would have tried to figure out how to get something in place for $30 million or less. At least the new Rutgers is looking at what is needed and making the appropriate investments.)

 

[Scarlet Pride]

I don't see this as a "being cheap" issue at all. The RAC wasn't a cop out option it just wasn't a downtown arena. Which may or may not have been a good decision.

A downtown mini-MSG sounds great but who's to say the downtown arena wouldn't have become a soulless multipurpose arena? And 40 years later we would still probably be talking about replacing or major renovations. It's not as though the decision made years ago was some slam dunk in the other direction. Rutgers may have made the best decision after all.

The RAC was a good venue for a long time. It was a great place to watch college basketball. Now it has become outdated but it wasn't some cheap band aid that hurt Rutgers basketball. The RAC is not the reason for Rutgers basketball woes.

 

[e5fdny]

The finished RAC we got was most certainly RU being cheap.

The non-scaled back version with the ice option would have been nice.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

I would say the loss of the practice gym was much bigger than the ice (which to me was more a luxury). The construction style and not being able to expand was a big issue. But hard to say if that was being cheap or just an architectural mistake. Had they built it in a manner that could have been expanded and also included the practice facility we would be in a better place right now.

I just think it's hard to say Rutgers was being cheap without knowing more facts. The article only says that it was scaled back because of lack of bond funding. $2 million dollars was not chump change in 1977.

Regardless, Rutgers didn't see the dawn of big time college sports coming (reinforced by turning down the Big East invite) and that was a bigger issue than the lack of a practice gym. If Rutgers had seen the opportunity the Big East presented the RAC (as constructed) was more than suitable.

 

[e5fdny]

"Big Time College Sports" was already a thing by then. The Worldwide Leader just made it seem like it was bigger because that's what they told us. More available, yes. Bigger? not sure. We just weren't part of it, and were VERY late and under dressed to the party when we got the invitation.

And agree about the practice facility being more important. The ice thing was the first one that popped into my head.

Sometimes thinking "cheap" is as bad as spending cheap.

The opportunity now is the B1G. Which overall is bigger and better than anything the now gone Big East could have ever given to Rutgers.

I'll concede it was not a slam dunk as you say but an easy lay up IMO.

 

[NotInRHouse]

The RAC was shortsighted for a few reasons

- It was built away from public transportation
- It was built away from the main mass of students
- It was too small for RU's size even then
- It did not take into account that RU could earn from concerts, hockey, and other uses

The bottom is line is that was a time when there was massive flight from urban centers, but building there probably prevents NB from getting as deep into the abyss as it did.

 

[e5fdny]

The RAC was shortsighted for a few reasons

- It was built away from public transportation
- It was built away from the main mass of students
- It was too small for RU's size even then
- It did not take into account that RU could earn from concerts, hockey, and other uses

The bottom is line is that was a time when there was massive flight from urban centers, but building there probably prevents NB from getting as deep into the abyss as it did.

Eh. Not so sure about that last one.

As much as we want to criticize about our past, and it is so easy to do...I will agree with Scarlet Pride in that we really don't know because we weren't there.

My understanding is that there was a plan for Livingston and this was part of that vision. So I can't agree 100% with your first two points.

As for the third, if the original seating capacity was built I think it would have been more than enough. So yes, in the long run if we stayed good maybe the 9K we ended up with would not have worked.

And even with what we ended up with, there were some big or big enough names who played at the RAC in the early to mid years. I think as other venues were built it hurt.

 

[derleider]

I don't see this as a "being cheap" issue at all. The RAC wasn't a cop out option it just wasn't a downtown arena. Which may or may not have been a good decision.

A downtown mini-MSG sounds great but who's to say the downtown arena wouldn't have become a soulless multipurpose arena? And 40 years later we would still probably be talking about replacing or major renovations. It's not as though the decision made years ago was some slam dunk in the other direction. Rutgers may have made the best decision after all.

The RAC was a good venue for a long time. It was a great place to watch college basketball. Now it has become outdated but it wasn't some cheap band aid that hurt Rutgers basketball. The RAC is not the reason for Rutgers basketball woes.

The real irony is that the RAC never did connect the campuses, which according to the article is why they didnt just build it on Busch. The plans to put more buildings in between Busch and the RAC never materialized (which is a good thing - RU is already spread out enough - the individual campuses should be denser).

 

[NotInRHouse]

Eh. Not so sure about that last one.

As much as we want to criticize about our past, and it is so easy to do...I will agree with Scarlet Pride in that we really don't know because we weren't there.

My understanding is that there was a plan for Livingston and this was part of that vision. So I can't agree 100% with your first two points.

As for the third, if the original seating capacity was built I think it would have been more than enough. So yes, in the long run if we stayed good maybe the 9K we ended up with would not have worked.

And even with what we ended up with, there were some big or big enough names who played at the RAC in the early to mid years. I think as other venues were built it hurt.

The problem is that the plan for Livingston started as a bad plan. I understand the context of all of it, I just don't think RU really developed decent foresight until McCormick...and they still lack it sometimes. It did not make sense for Livingston really to be a hive of activity. What it is now- a kind of freshmanland with pretty buildings and some professional schools, makes way more sense. The arena is just out of place. It's not like a football stadium where you need a ton of room. Most arenas in America are not surrounded by green space, especially in a fairly densely populated area.

 

[Sir ScarletKnight]

The problem is that the plan for Livingston started as a bad plan. I understand the context of all of it, I just don't think RU really developed decent foresight until McCormick...and they still lack it sometimes. It did not make sense for Livingston really to be a hive of activity. What it is now- a kind of freshmanland with pretty buildings and some professional schools, makes way more sense. The arena is just out of place. It's not like a football stadium where you need a ton of room. Most arenas in America are not surrounded by green space, especially in a fairly densely populated area.

I wouldn't call Livi a "freshmanland". The only things on it which are Freshman oriented are the quads and the Towers. The Apartments are geared towards Seniors and Graduate Students.

 

[e5fdny]

The problem is that the plan for Livingston started as a bad plan. I understand the context of all of it, I just don't think RU really developed decent foresight until McCormick...and they still lack it sometimes. It did not make sense for Livingston really to be a hive of activity. What it is now- a kind of freshmanland with pretty buildings and some professional schools, makes way more sense. The arena is just out of place. It's not like a football stadium where you need a ton of room. Most arenas in America are not surrounded by green space, especially in a fairly densely populated area.

I wouldn't call Livi a "freshmanland". The only things on it which are Freshman oriented are the quads and the Towers. The Apartments are geared towards Seniors and Graduate Students.

Right.

That was part of the vision. Took a looooong time but we're getting there.

RAC was supposed to be a cornerstone or an anchor store like at a mall.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Whatever Livingston is or was, I still like the idea of an arena downtown and making the RAC a practice or wrestling facility.