|
Post by SteveA'07 on Feb 28, 2010 16:46:35 GMT -5
Why do we need something big and fancy? Gersten held all the fans 20 years ago. A state of the art gym just isn't necessary, in my opinion. I don't believe that Jenny Craig is not that much bigger than Gersten. It's HUGE compared to us, it feels. Or...maybe the emptiness is so obvious because the facility is gigantic compared to the actual seat count... Gersten was my home for almost 3 years, so of course I've got a bit of an emotional attachment to it, but if we built another gym, that wouldn't be Hank's House. There's a certain bit of sentiment in Gersten. Why tear it down? We don't bring in enough people to warrant a new, state of the art gym. Besides, in this economic downturn, the last thing we should be spending money on is a new gym simply because it "looks better" than the one we have now. Bland and ugly? What do you expect it to be? It's a GYM, for crying out loud. I know it's a gym. That doesn't make it any less dated and ugly. I've heard opponents refer to it as an "overgrown high school gym," and they're pretty much right. It's not terrible by any means (and "ugly" probably wasn't the best word), but it just screams "low level basketball." (although so does McKeon Pavilion at SMC, and I don't know if they have any plans for a new place) It's fine for the time being, but it needs to be upgraded or replaced before too long.
|
|
|
Post by LMUpepbander on Feb 28, 2010 16:57:40 GMT -5
I'd love it if we could build the arena near the NIMBYs. Heck, here's a thought... move the baseball stadium and build it right at the southeast corner of campus so the people in the house with the permanent "STOP LMU EXPANSION" sign tied to their tree at 80th and Georgetown have to look at it every time they walk outside.
Seriously though, they could definitely keep making renovations instead of trying to get a whole new arena built. Add in locker rooms and weight rooms, put in the new seats in the 200 level, consider a hanging scoreboard, etc. What does handcuff though is the fact that the load-bearing walls of the arena are the ones surrounding the court area. I'd like to see more baseline-seating available, but unless we flip the orientation of the court (which isn't exactly feasible), we'll have to keep the two-sided layout.
|
|
|
Post by SteveA'07 on Feb 28, 2010 17:01:55 GMT -5
I'd love it if we could build the arena near the NIMBYs. Heck, here's a thought... move the baseball stadium and build it right at the southeast corner of campus so the people in the house with the permanent "STOP LMU EXPANSION" sign tied to their tree at 80th and Georgetown have to look at it every time they walk outside. Seriously though, they could definitely keep making renovations instead of trying to get a whole new arena built. Add in locker rooms and weight rooms, put in the new seats in the 200 level, consider a hanging scoreboard, etc. What does handcuff though is the fact that the load-bearing walls of the arena are the ones surrounding the court area. I'd like to see more baseline-seating available, but unless we flip the orientation of the court (which isn't exactly feasible), we'll have to keep the two-sided layout. Why not? That seems like a great option. All the current seating would have to be completely moved or replaced, but it wouldn't require major structural changes or anything. Although there's probably other factors I'm not considering. Which is why I'm asking I guess.
|
|
|
Post by fanblade on Feb 28, 2010 18:27:59 GMT -5
Gersten is ugly and could use more sprucing up until a worthy Pavilion is built. Not to say it is the worst in the WCC or D1 ball cause it is not at all but it is not attractive by any stretch of the imagination . First things on the "to do" list after the locker rooms/weight rooms. 1) Upgrade 200 level seats 2) Upgrade outdated bathrooms 3) Upgrade outdated old-timely lobby. New flooring, better integration of the plasmas, etc But I like the incremental steps to "liven" up the place so far like the spotlights, outside lighting, banners, etc so the HS gym is pretty spruced up but ultimately it's a big HS gym that was home to the Summer Olympics Wrestling matches. I'm not sure why that little bit of history isn't more known either in the artwork inside GP. Ultimately though money better spent on recruiting/coaches/player facilties etc because I'd rather see (W)s than pretty stucco and cup holders.
|
|
|
Post by crazycagegirl on Feb 28, 2010 19:08:08 GMT -5
Am I the only one who doesn't see anything wrong with Gersten?
I'm with fanblade on the money better spent on recruiting/coaching/player facilities. Maybe I'm just comparing LMU to all the other WCC gyms I've been to. The only one I found worthy was SCU.
SMC - incredibly inconvenient location, tiny, pretty inaccessible, old high school bathrooms, and severe lack of parking.
USF - HS gym to the max. Not much more to say. It's pathetic.
SCU - great size and seating arrangement - not too large during bad seasons, but perfect for good seasons. The only problem is the lack of parking available on campus and the fact that you have to pay to park.
USD - Too big for a school that doesn't really breed sports love. They use bribery to get fans to show up, and their performance isn't consistent enough to warrant a fancy gym like that.
LMU - It's small, but at least we can fill it during good seasons and not seem so bare during bad seasons. Don't have to pay for parking...there are plenty of places to park and more than one entrance to the university. Bathrooms are clean and totally fine, IMO.
Pepperdine - If you want to complain about an ugly facility, this is definitely the place to do it. There is no character to this gym. It just feels like a big block of cement and blandness. The good thing about Pepperdine is that if you get there early enough, you can park right outside the gym. "Early enough" simply means "go to the girls' game too." Also, you don't have to pay to park here either.
If we were performing at a level as consistent as Gonzaga, I'd definitely pull for a new pavilion. We're not, though, and people are going to call us a "high school" gym because that's the best way they can poke fun at us: easy, cheap, unoriginal shots. Honestly, I prefer sitting center court. We have a better vantage point of ALL action on both ends of the court if we are sitting directly across from the scorer's table.
One last point, if I may. We JUST redid the floor. Why do we need to get a new pavilion after all the renovation they've already begun?
|
|
|
Post by SteveA'07 on Feb 28, 2010 19:20:19 GMT -5
By no means is this something that needs to be done NOW. But it will be time to upgrade the facility bigtime in the near future. And you're absolutely right about Pepperdine...THAT is a dump and makes Gersten look like a palace.
|
|
|
Post by LMUpepbander on Feb 28, 2010 19:35:39 GMT -5
I'd love it if we could build the arena near the NIMBYs. Heck, here's a thought... move the baseball stadium and build it right at the southeast corner of campus so the people in the house with the permanent "STOP LMU EXPANSION" sign tied to their tree at 80th and Georgetown have to look at it every time they walk outside. Seriously though, they could definitely keep making renovations instead of trying to get a whole new arena built. Add in locker rooms and weight rooms, put in the new seats in the 200 level, consider a hanging scoreboard, etc. What does handcuff though is the fact that the load-bearing walls of the arena are the ones surrounding the court area. I'd like to see more baseline-seating available, but unless we flip the orientation of the court (which isn't exactly feasible), we'll have to keep the two-sided layout. Why not? That seems like a great option. All the current seating would have to be completely moved or replaced, but it wouldn't require major structural changes or anything. Although there's probably other factors I'm not considering. Which is why I'm asking I guess. The issue is that the 200 level seats are directly above the locker rooms and athletic offices. So, until they build that L extension and gut the entire building, I don't see that happening. Also, I don't really see them having enough space to have a second tier along the sidelines if they flip the orientation, but I don't know the exact dimensions, so I really can't say for sure.
|
|
|
Post by SteveA'07 on Feb 28, 2010 19:58:32 GMT -5
Ah that's right, forgot about that.
|
|
|
Post by stillalion on Feb 28, 2010 20:05:19 GMT -5
Am I the only one who doesn't see anything wrong with Gersten? Yes. Ok - all kidding aside - you are correct, it is not THAT bad of a building. And the upgrades they have been making have certainly made the venue about as nice as it can be for the fans. And soon the athletes will have a better experience as well - so things are looking up. The big reason it feels like a HS gym is because of the lack of baseline seats. They have put a few rows in on the one side and that has helped but there just isn't enough side to side room to get more of a "big time" feeling. Nothing will fix that problem except a new building. But, never fear crazy - we will all be quite a bit older when they retire Hanks House. So, you will have plenty of more time to enjoy the memories!
|
|
|
Post by crazycagegirl on Feb 28, 2010 20:41:09 GMT -5
I think you're right, still. The only difference IS baseline seating. Crazy how that is the one thing that makes all the difference. I, too, am glad that they redid the bleachers. They were broken and wobbly when I was a student...we could barely stand up on them without them breaking or causing us to fall on each other....then again, that was part of the fun. I definitely miss the days of the chain link fence, but even THAT kept breaking. LOL
|
|
|
Post by titanczar on Feb 28, 2010 22:26:46 GMT -5
Using that 1990 season as a benchmark.
Three WCC schools, USD, Gonzaga, and Santa Clara, now play in a different arena than they did in 1990.
Any of the other six WCC schools have plans for a new arena? So it's not like LMU needs to keep up with the Jones. Two of the schools with new arenas aren't doing so well.
But the new arena brings up the chicken or egg question.
Do you build an arena and then you become a basketball power?
Or do you become a basketball power and then build a new arena?
Gonzaga proves the second theory.
San Diego St. is an example of the 1st theory. SDSU was nothing in basketball until they built Cox. Even after Cox was built they struggled.
But USD and UCI prove that a new arena doesn't mean you'll become a basketball power.
My opinion is that an arena speeds up the process of becoming a basketball power. You need the right coach but good facilities help attract a better candidate of coaches.
|
|
|
Post by crazycagegirl on Feb 28, 2010 22:38:10 GMT -5
I would think our campus itself does just a fine enough job recruiting athletes without having a "pretty" gym, if you want to talk about aesthetics.
Facilities (training room, locker room) is a different story, I know.
|
|
|
Post by lmutourney2011 on Feb 28, 2010 22:56:15 GMT -5
While I love Gersten the way it is becuase it gives it that high school feel that teams are afraid of. Big teams dont like to play in little places like ours because of the unexpected, look at the notre dame game last year. Our place was packed and loud. However the idea of turning the court is interesting. What if we turn the court sideways right down the middle. Make the two sets of bleachers on the sides be U shaped and then build a lower level only set on either side of the basket. Add a couple walkways in one on the soccer field side that connect inside the building which could be the student side being the smaller and on the other build ontop of the lobby. With either a second deck of seats or maybe just consessions with a viewing platform. It would make the current upper section in the "endzones" but you could but the season ticketholders on the lobby side students on the other and if there is an overflow of students because we continue to win then they can fill in the rest of the bowl. The new sides would either be real steep or not have that many seats but either way the opposing players would feel our fans right on top of them. Figuring the gym is currently 110' inside approx(guessing 94 for court +6 on soccer and 10 on loby side) if we turn the court and place it in the middle it would be 30 feet on either side which is 2/3 of the distance of the bleachers on either side currently. If we made them a little steeper though it would be perfect. The new bleachers wouldnt have to be huge but the feel of the arena would become very electric with the big games in the future. Plus I like the idea of doing the wave....my favorite however is the slow motion wave so hopefully when some kids gets in the new arena he can start that up for me. Look it up on youtube if youve never seen it.
|
|
|
Post by SteveA'07 on Feb 28, 2010 23:01:01 GMT -5
Using that 1990 season as a benchmark. Three WCC schools, USD, Gonzaga, and Santa Clara, now play in a different arena than they did in 1990.Any of the other six WCC schools have plans for a new arena? So it's not like LMU needs to keep up with the Jones. Two of the schools with new arenas aren't doing so well. But the new arena brings up the chicken or egg question. Do you build an arena and then you become a basketball power? Or do you become a basketball power and then build a new arena? Gonzaga proves the second theory. San Diego St. is an example of the 1st theory. SDSU was nothing in basketball until they built Cox. Even after Cox was built they struggled. But USD and UCI prove that a new arena doesn't mean you'll become a basketball power. My opinion is that an arena speeds up the process of becoming a basketball power. You need the right coach but good facilities help attract a better candidate of coaches. Santa Clara has been playing in the Leavey Center since 1975. Also, SDSU is an interesting and good example. Their rise to respectability was a result of the school finally willing to spend significant money on the program. That meant new arena (Cox) and high profile coach (Fisher).
|
|
|
Post by lmutourney2011 on Feb 28, 2010 23:04:28 GMT -5
Oh and the benches can go on the baselines liek duke and vandy! I like that
|
|