ISU should model Dahlberg

[Grizbacker1]

ISU should model Dahlberg
Commentary by Tim Flagstad

Missoula, Mont.
As part of the ambitious Bengal Village dream, Idaho State wants to build a multi-purpose arena that would become the new home of the men's and women's basketball teams.

If the university somehow manages to raise the needed funds to build that new facility, it doesn't have to look far to find a perfect model to emulate while constructing the gym that will house Bengals hoops.
-- Advertisement --
A mere 362 miles from Pocatello sits Dahlberg Arena. While the facility on Montana's campus may not be the biggest or newest in the region, it does provide an ideal atmosphere for Big Sky basketball.

The arena can hold 7,500 fans, and the seats are built basically straight up from the court. So despite its size, Dahlberg provides an intimate setting that allows even those in the cheap seats to feel like they're a part of the action.
It also makes it loud.

After watching the Big Sky championship game Saturday night and listening to 5,016 fans scream for the entire 40 minutes, my ears felt like they would after sitting in a packed NFL domed stadium with 60,000 people shouting and an obnoxious sound system blaring music the entire time.
Junior Mandy Morales, who earned tournament MVP honors as the Grizzlies advanced to a 17th NCAA appearance under coach Robin Selvig, credited the crowd for Montana's win.

''That pretty much won the game for us,'' Morales said. ''They got us going.''
Now that might be a bit of an exaggeration. The way the Grizzlies were playing they likely would've won had the game been in Bozeman, Mont.; Odgen, Utah; or Azerbaijan, which senior Dana Conway, in her Montana media guide bio, admits she couldn't find on a map.

Still, the fact remains that their home court provides a tremendous advantage. The Montana women are good, but the backing of their fans surely played a role in their 17-0 record at home this season.
For the Big Sky tournament, at least, students and the pep band had their reserved section right behind the opposition's second-half basket - prime real estate for heckling and distracting.

The best thing about Dahlberg other than its setup is its size. The seating capacity allows adequate space for even the largest Big Sky basketball crowd, but even half-full, the arena doesn't feel vacant, something that can't be said about Holt Arena or Weber State's spacious Dee Events Center.
A 12,000-seat arena or a massive, spread out venue might look more imposing and impressive from the outside, which Dahlberg surely doesn't. But on the inside, its hard to top for a basketball venue.

Idaho State should take that into consideration if it ever builds its new home for Bengals hoops.
Tim Flagstad's column appears Mondays. With comments or story ideas,

contact him at 239-3124 or by e-mail at [email protected].

 

[GrizBBIsKing]

If ISU is going to design their stadium after Dahlberg arena, then I have a suggestion. they should rotate the floor. That is one mistake the powers at be at UM didn't do. Of course, rotating floor would have cost more money which is the reason they didnt' do it. But, if your going to start from scratch, build a dahlberg arena with floor going in different direction.

 

[Grizbacker1]

If ISU is going to design their stadium after Dahlberg arena, then I have a suggestion. they should rotate the floor. That is one mistake the powers at be at UM didn't do. Of course, rotating floor would have cost more money which is the reason they didnt' do it. But, if your going to start from scratch, build a dahlberg arena with floor going in different direction.

and this would matter because.........

 

[GrizBBIsKing]

If ISU is going to design their stadium after Dahlberg arena, then I have a suggestion. they should rotate the floor. That is one mistake the powers at be at UM didn't do. Of course, rotating floor would have cost more money which is the reason they didnt' do it. But, if your going to start from scratch, build a dahlberg arena with floor going in different direction.

and this would matter because.........

Because most of the seats lost in the remodel of dahlberg were between the baskets. Those are the seats that earn the most bucks.

The remodel lost 1,500 seats. the north side never lost any seats. the south side really didn't lose too many seats considering that the upper level of the south side the seats were spread out with so much leg room before remodel. I would almost say the south level didn't lose any seats, and if it did, wasn't by that many.

So, where did most of the 1,500 seats get lost? the east and west sides between the baskets. Those seats were the students and the golden grizzly seating. The high priced seats. So, to not lose as much money, they moved the students. Because of the loss of all those seats, I can understand O'Days reluctance to move the students where they were before. Loss of revenue.

Now, if they rotated the floor, because of the way the fieldhouse is designed with rounded roof, it would have left more seats between the baskets. there would have been fewer seats behind baskets, though. But, with rotated floor, they would have still allowed students sit where they did before, between the baskets because that is where most of the seats would have been.

If I remember right, when they were considering the alternatives for remodel, rotating the floor would have cost at least $2 million more (possibly more than that).

 

[Grizbacker1]

If ISU is going to design their stadium after Dahlberg arena, then I have a suggestion. they should rotate the floor. That is one mistake the powers at be at UM didn't do. Of course, rotating floor would have cost more money which is the reason they didnt' do it. But, if your going to start from scratch, build a dahlberg arena with floor going in different direction.

and this would matter because.........

Because most of the seats lost in the remodel of dahlberg were between the baskets. Those are the seats that earn the most bucks.

The remodel lost 1,500 seats. the north side never lost any seats. the south side really didn't lose too many seats considering that the upper level of the south side the seats were spread out with so much leg room before remodel. I would almost say the south level didn't lose any seats, and if it did, wasn't by that many.

So, where did most of the 1,500 seats get lost? the east and west sides between the baskets. Those seats were the students and the golden grizzly seating. The high priced seats. So, to not lose as much money, they moved the students. Because of the loss of all those seats, I can understand O'Days reluctance to move the students where they were before. Loss of revenue.

Now, if they rotated the floor, because of the way the fieldhouse is designed with rounded roof, it would have left more seats between the baskets. there would have been fewer seats behind baskets, though. But, with rotated floor, they would have still allowed students sit where they did before, between the baskets because that is where most of the seats would have been.

If I remember right, when they were considering the alternatives for remodel, rotating the floor would have cost at least $2 million more (possibly more than that).

Your point isn't too bad, until you know that they never intended to keep 9000 seats. 7500 is more than enough for a BSC team. Take a look at the Dod Pound at Gonzaga, not even close to 7500, and it serves them just fine. Their program is national caliber, so I am not buying your arguement. Golden Grizzy donors are not down by the way.

 

[GrizBBIsKing]

If ISU is going to design their stadium after Dahlberg arena, then I have a suggestion. they should rotate the floor. That is one mistake the powers at be at UM didn't do. Of course, rotating floor would have cost more money which is the reason they didnt' do it. But, if your going to start from scratch, build a dahlberg arena with floor going in different direction.

and this would matter because.........

Because most of the seats lost in the remodel of dahlberg were between the baskets. Those are the seats that earn the most bucks.

The remodel lost 1,500 seats. the north side never lost any seats. the south side really didn't lose too many seats considering that the upper level of the south side the seats were spread out with so much leg room before remodel. I would almost say the south level didn't lose any seats, and if it did, wasn't by that many.

So, where did most of the 1,500 seats get lost? the east and west sides between the baskets. Those seats were the students and the golden grizzly seating. The high priced seats. So, to not lose as much money, they moved the students. Because of the loss of all those seats, I can understand O'Days reluctance to move the students where they were before. Loss of revenue.

Now, if they rotated the floor, because of the way the fieldhouse is designed with rounded roof, it would have left more seats between the baskets. there would have been fewer seats behind baskets, though. But, with rotated floor, they would have still allowed students sit where they did before, between the baskets because that is where most of the seats would have been.

If I remember right, when they were considering the alternatives for remodel, rotating the floor would have cost at least $2 million more (possibly more than that).

Your point isn't too bad, until you know that they never intended to keep 9000 seats. 7500 is more than enough for a BSC team. Take a look at the Dod Pound at Gonzaga, not even close to 7500, and it serves them just fine. Their program is national caliber, so I am not buying your arguement. Golden Grizzy donors are not down by the way.

But, if they kept the students where they were, there would have been fewer Golden Grizzlies donors. To keep the same number of Golden Grizzly level seats they had to move the students. By rotating the floor they wouldn't have had to. Of course, by rotating the floor, there would be fewer seats behind the basket and possibly not enough cheap seats.

Considering attendance really started to decline after the 1982 season, except for a bounce in 1990-92 because of winning a couple of championships, 7,500 hundred is all they really needed. the highest average attendance since 1982 was around 7,100+/- in 1992.

 

[Grizbacker1]

and this would matter because.........

Because most of the seats lost in the remodel of dahlberg were between the baskets. Those are the seats that earn the most bucks.

The remodel lost 1,500 seats. the north side never lost any seats. the south side really didn't lose too many seats considering that the upper level of the south side the seats were spread out with so much leg room before remodel. I would almost say the south level didn't lose any seats, and if it did, wasn't by that many.

So, where did most of the 1,500 seats get lost? the east and west sides between the baskets. Those seats were the students and the golden grizzly seating. The high priced seats. So, to not lose as much money, they moved the students. Because of the loss of all those seats, I can understand O'Days reluctance to move the students where they were before. Loss of revenue.

Now, if they rotated the floor, because of the way the fieldhouse is designed with rounded roof, it would have left more seats between the baskets. there would have been fewer seats behind baskets, though. But, with rotated floor, they would have still allowed students sit where they did before, between the baskets because that is where most of the seats would have been.

If I remember right, when they were considering the alternatives for remodel, rotating the floor would have cost at least $2 million more (possibly more than that).

Your point isn't too bad, until you know that they never intended to keep 9000 seats. 7500 is more than enough for a BSC team. Take a look at the Dod Pound at Gonzaga, not even close to 7500, and it serves them just fine. Their program is national caliber, so I am not buying your arguement. Golden Grizzy donors are not down by the way.

But, if they kept the students where they were, there would have been fewer Golden Grizzlies donors. To keep the same number of Golden Grizzly level seats they had to move the students. By rotating the floor they wouldn't have had to. Of course, by rotating the floor, there would be fewer seats behind the basket and possibly not enough cheap seats.

Considering attendance really started to decline after the 1982 season, except for a bounce in 1990-92 because of winning a couple of championships, 7,500 hundred is all they really needed. the highest average attendance since 1982 was around 7,100+/- in 1992.

And if anyone were in Dahlberg before the remodel you know that there were a lot of those seats with very obstructed views, which is not the case now. One more thing, attendance declined all across the country, with the exception of some of the big time programs. Lady Griz attendance peaked at around 5000 per game.

 

[grizpack]

Pretty sure the original floor in Dahlberg did run the other way.

And the design was to "return" it to that direction during the remodel, but they were way short on money, so had to leave the existing configuration the way it is.