There have been a couple recent discussions in various threads about Cassell Coliseum, but I thought it might be a good idea to consolidate some of those talking points into one place. I'll include some links for additional reading.
The two biggest issues that were recently batted around were gameday atmosphere and premium seating options. In some ways, these seem like completely separate issues. If the team wins, the students will come and the atmosphere along with them. My experience during Greenberg's tenure is proof that Cassell can be an intimidating place to play when it's full and loud. I had season tickets during the 06-07 season and attended nearly every home game that year when VT made the NCAA tournament. The next season, it was difficult to come by student season tickets because demand was so high.
But the lack of premium seating options doesn't change even if the Hokies start filling up Cassell, and they'd be missing out on the lucrative revenue streams provided by suites and VIP areas. And if the team is winning, premium seating options are worth more.
While many of us have fond memories of Cassell, it's behind the times in a number of ways. It's one of the oldest arenas in the ACC and the seating configuration has changed minimally since its construction. See for yourself, as this picture was taken in 1964:
With that said, Whit Babcock understands the need to increase revenue streams. To keep pace and provide premium seating options for wealthy donors, the sideline that has traditionally been home to courtside media seats was converted to make way for expensive seating: 'Courtside at Cassell' seating installed in coliseum
The media has been less than enthused by the change. See TKP's very own Brian Marcolini's take in this thread here:
MEDIA NO LONGER COURTSIDE IN CASSELL
But hey, while the media might be miffed about the change there's little argument that the increased revenue streams will help the program in the long run. In addition to making that change, naming rights to the court were sold over the summer:
VIRGINIA TECH CARILION COURT AT CASSELL COLISEUM
These changes highlight the fact that Virginia Tech is doing their best to maximize profits and revenue where they can, but it also shows that there is a lack of options at basketball games for big money donors. While some on TKP have pointed out that consistent winning will help fill up Cassell once again, it doesn't really change the economic realities of the arena's current seat offerings.
Unless VT is willing to build a brand new arena to address these issues (and there's been no indication that's the case), we'll need to upgrade Cassell in some way. I pointed out the University of Richmond's $17 million in upgrades to the Robins Center as a model that might fit for us. See here: Robins Center Upgrades
While that type of renovation would reduce the overall seating capacity of Cassell, it's likely that VIP tickets prices could offset the number of seats lost. Additionally, by moving VIP tickets to separate areas, you could move students closer to the floor on the sidelines to further improve the atmosphere. And as long as Cassell is standing, that should be the goal.
Share your thoughts on Cassell below, whether it be favorite memories, likes, dislikes, ideas for improvements, etc.
Comments
I think the first thing to do is to invest in the coach, and start winning, which is of course what Whit has done.
You have to give this time to work it's magic.
I'm open to ideas about the arena, but I guess the first thing to do is figure out what problem you're trying to solve. If it's getting butts in seats, I think it's more about attracting fans to the venue than about reconfiguring the seating.
I'm open to such a re-configuration, but think longer-term, and assume some basketball success when you're making recommendations. If VT basketball is successful, I think you'll be able to fill that arena for big games.
All of that said, I don't doubt if the arena can be improved, so I applaud your effort to generate some ideas.
All of these are valid points.
But as I've been swirling ideas in my head, I'm of the opinion that it may actually be smarter to make the upgrades now for a couple reasons:
1. You can sell an upgraded Cassell Coliseum as part of the whole transformation of the basketball program.
2. When the team starts winning (and I have faith that it will under Buzz), it may be much harder to convince the fanbase that removing seats is the best idea. I think it's an easier sell now and could be seen as a move to maximize the crowds we already get while increasing revenues.
You keep mentioning revenues. Are they a problem? I don't mind trying to maximize those, but for me the basketball re-boot and fan experience are the important things.
I think we can keep all of these in mind as we plan any upgrades.
I just think about some of the wild games that have taken place in Cassell, and that place rocks when it's at capacity. I wouldn't trade that away without a good reason, and I'd keep it in mind as I made these types of decisions.
It doesn't mean we can't make changes, but wouldn't remove 1/5th of the seating without some pretty careful consideration.
I don't have any specific figures to support any of this, but I recall some interviews with Whit where he was making it a priority - especially with the need to fund cost of attendance through the "Pylons of Promise" program.
And don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to lose the atmosphere you get during a big game in Cassell either. Careful consideration is always a good thing, and the prudent measure too.
But I don't want us to stand pat if upgrading Cassell will eventually help us against the competition. That's something the athletic department has to determine too - is upgrading Cassell worth it from a dollars & cents perspective? Because at the end of the day, that's really the determining factor.
someone posted pictures of Richmond's (maybe not richmond?) premium seats up in the corners. I thought those looked pretty sweet
That was me! I posted a link to that particular post, but it may have gotten lost in all the text.
I really really like what Richmond did with their arena. That seems like the most reasonable way to go. Seems to be a perfect fit too since no one ever sits in those high-up corner seats anyways. I just hope they eventually install new seating in the arena. I hate those seats. With all that in mind, I'm sure Whit has his own ideas for Cassell.
Love Cassell, wooden seats pinch my ass but I am fat. It all starts with winning and actually having a consistent fan base.
Place rocks better than most places in the ACC when the fans are there. It feels like fans are right on top of you and you play in a hole. Updates are needed it but I wouldn't do anything till the fan interactions get better.
Yeah I agree, more comfortable seats will help it be a more attractive event for townies. Since a lot of the Alum base is out of town, make it comfortable and easy to attend for locals.
Win.
No point in doing anything until there is demand for the tickets.
With that attitude VCU would never have left the Richmond Coliseum.
flip the benches to the nearside of the court on TV, put students across from benches in first X rows, insert a walkway/buffer behind students with a section of club seats behind them (so students can stand without bothering club seat holders behind them). build a concourse level club behind these sections for the club seat holders. those would be my "simple" quick fixes.
^^^^ This x 1000.
Almost every high level hoops school besides UNC has students at midcourt in TV view.
Buzz mentioned doing this at the Open Scrimmage last month. Joey wrote about it here.
I never have and never will be a large enough donor to enjoy "premium seating".
I enjoy Cassell the way it is now and think if the team was winning Cassell would be filled up with a great atmosphere all the time. Taking away seats from students and average fans to add a premium seating area that I'll never enjoy is not to my personal benefit, so I see no need to support it.
The problem with the atmosphere is the product, not the venue.
Would it really though? How many fans live too far away to get to weeknight games?
I definitely agree with this.
For the people clamoring about UR's stadium: Richmond is a much bigger, more affluent population than Blacksburg (duh). Because they're no pro sports teams in the region, we're stuck with VCU & UR Basketball and UVa sports for those willing to drive an hour to Charlottesville. There are enough 1%-ers in the region that having premium seating makes sense in those stadiums. No offense to Roanoke and the rest of the NRV, but they're isn't enough rich people who are willing to make the trek to Blacksburg 2-3 times a week for several months, especially when we're not an elite program.
I'd like to see us model ourselves after Cameron Indoor. They're never had premium seating and it's worked out well for them because they put out a great product. We need to start winning games and everything else will work itself out.
This is true, but if local companies/ 1%-ers had the opportunity to snag a pavilion on a per game basis, I bet we could keep them paid for. I know my boss has had me scouring for tickets a couple times a season when we have customers in and want to take them to the game, but at that point, it's hard to get tickets together and the experience is rather underwhelming. He'd jump at the chance to rent out a whole deck a couple times a season. There have got to be more local companies that would be up for that.
I'm guilty of this too, but let's not forget that premium seating doesn't only apply to wealthy donors. Businesses often buy up a significant portion of these packages for things like client entertainment or employee rewards.
There's not a ton of useful information in this link (from September 2014), but it lists the top industries buying college premium seating:
WHO'S BUYING PREMIUM SEATING IN COLLEGE ATHLETICS?
For those who don't feel like clicking the link, here are industries that buy these types of ticket packages most often:
1. Attorneys/Legal Services
2. Insurance
3. Real Estate Agencies
4. General Contractors & Home Builders
5. Doctors' Offices
6. Banks, Bank Holding Companies & Credit Unions
7. Finance & Investments
8. Offices and Clinics of Dentists
9. Accounting, Auditing & Bookkeeping
So while the NRV isn't overflowing with 1%-ers, there are plenty of businesses that would fall into these categories.
Just like with football, providing amenities for the big time donors can fund improvements that would be otherwise out of reach for the program/athletic department. Not saying we shaft the every man experience for the benefit of big donors, but I think we could get rid of the corner seats in Cassell, put in something like Richmond's premium seats, and not affect the typical fan's experience.
Agree to disagree
Think of this way. Premium donors sitting in the corner (suites/clubs) opens up more seats for the average fan closer to the action.
If Frank Beamer can sit with the unwashed masses and enjoy a delicious milkshake, anyone can.
You can't conduct business while sitting in the general seats. This isn't about making everyone equal it's about supporting the teams with MONEY!!!
I was just joking, I have no real strong opinion on the matter
The biggest problem I see with selling lots of tickets to donors is basketball isn't conducive to people coming into town for Basketball games like Football. It's nice being able to come in Friday or Saturday morning and leave Saturday or Sunday for a Football game (with the possibility of 1 to 2 weekday games throughout the entire season).
I'd love to go down to Blacksburg as an '11 graduate and catch a few basketball games but so few are on a weekend, and late Sunday games don't give me enough time to make the 3.5 hr trek back to work for Monday.
I don't know how you fix it, but I think they have to encourage the locals, and even the Roanoke area fans to get tickets even more. Even in the Greenberg era (I was a season ticket holder for 4 years) when it was packed and rocking, the alumni section was never full, with the exception of a few games.
I think once we start winning students will start packing in more and more, but for some games I think it would be beneficial to expand the student section (when we can't sell all the alumni tickets) to fill up the stadium.
Did they do away with standby student tickets? When I was there my last year they would let in non-ticketed students just before the tip to take any available seats (not just in the student section). One game in '07 during a snow storm against Maryland, there were only students there because no one could drive to Blacksburg because of the weather (I think this was the start of the standby idea). The place was packed and very loud, and a fun win.
Unfortunately, this year they have done away with the stand by line. There has been a recent problem of people winning the lottery and not showing up, which is why Whit introduced the rule that if you win and don't show 3 times, you lose the opportunity to enter the lottery.
I should point out that my friend applied for the lottery for the VMI game and did not win. The student section was embarrassingly empty and he still couldn't get into the game. Doesn't seem to make sense.
Another friend forgot to sign up for the Northwestern game and once again, the student section was embarrassingly bare, and he was still denied entrance because of the lack of the standby line.
So long story short, yes, the standby line has been done away with.
That's a shame, they're losing literally zero by having it. Need this back. If students want to go and there are seats, let them in!
Yes, it is frustrating. The student section for the #9 Notre Dame game last year was pitiful because people who won the lottery didn't show up and people who wanted in couldn't get in.
Sounds like it's time to do away with the lottery, and make it first come first serve. Lottery wasn't a thing for basketball when I first got to Tech, but that was Ricky Stokes' last year, so it wasn't much worth watching, and the women drew about double the attendance. When we joined the ACC, they sold a student season ticket (which was just a scan card) that I bought while sitting with the Hollerin' Hokies. That got us front row seats that year. During Big East years you just showed up and got a ticket at game time (maybe earlier in the day for uva)
^^These are my exact thoughts. It saddens me that now that I am not a student I rarely get to any basketball games because of the schedule and the distance of 4 hours (near DC), which I think can be said for many alumni. IfI were any closer I would attend as much as possible. I even watched on the BigSouthSports.com website last night and haven't missed a game all season except for the UAB video stream fiasco.
I'm not sure if basketball will get the big time donors to open up their pocket books the way football does, no matter how much we win.
I was in college during the delaney/jeff allen years, and that place could ROCK. Field a top half of the ACC team and the place will be the loudest venue in the ACC like it used to be.
I could maybe see an upgrade to the concourses/concessions, but aside from a total renovation, which would likely require the team to play all home games at the roanoke civic center for a year, i don't see much you can do to the place. I also don't see the need to
Also, with every ACC game being online or on espn, fans would rather say home where it is warm and cozy, not hot as hell by half time and then drive home during the middle of winter to see a bottom tier team. I would wear a thick jacket to walk to game then wish I was wearing shorts and shirtless by halftime.
This. Cassell gets nasty hot.
This is true.
Needs more of those big ass fans.
I thought we already decided that the seats at Cassell aren't comfortable for big ass fans?
The solution for cooling all our big ass fans is clear: more big ass fans.
bigassfanception?
That is currently the plan. The obvious point is these things take time and money, so 'Courtside at Cassell' was the first thing implemented. Suites are next as far the arena part goes (page 122 of this pdf is the concept for where they would go. http://www.bov.vt.edu/minutes/15-03-30minutes/attach_aa_03-30-15.pdf). Cassell, Merryman and Jamerson are getting a facelift (these concepts are in the pdf as well, but there are actual renderings in the hallways if you are in the area), which mostly just affects recruiting and day to day operations. The last part, which isn't in a pdf yet is renovating the seats to newer, cushioned seats. Time and money will dictate when that happens most likely, but it is at least being discussed. With all of that I could see capacity somewhere around 8500-8750 depending on how big the suites end up becoming.
I like UofR's corner club concept better, but there are some advantages to having suites instead of just club seating.
I forget where I saw it but I recall seeing that the concourse/concessions area and the seats would be redone in time for first basketball game next season
Already? They renovated the concourse in '03, it was bare bones concrete before.
Ummm so 12 years is still considered new?
no, I just don't want to be considered old!
I think that better lighting in the arena (not necessarily on court lighting) would help with the overall look of the atmosphere on tv. It always looks dark and dreary in the stands when Cassell is on TV.
They just put in new lighting last season. It is much improved from in the past.
It is. I have been to 3 games this year. It is improved,. However, still appears dark in the stands on TV IMO. May not be a way to improve it. But yes, the lighting on the court is drastically improved.
I have to say, the dark stands may be on purpose... because it looks cool? it seems like that could be something Whit is hoping to have happen.
I could be completely wrong on this as well.
The Lakers like to set the mood at the Staples Center during their games. In the next year or two Buzz will have the basketball team playing showcase worthy basketball! The future is bright!
I want some of this action
Cleveland Cavaliers PreGame Court Projection from Quince Imaging on Vimeo.
On a side note, thanks for all your input on this topic as I've enjoyed reading your comments. Premium seats are a must and I think the money generated from them will more than offset losing some seats. If the premium seats are in the corner or upper rim, then Tech would be losing revenue on $15 tickets. I think Tech can afford that trade off. I also think Cassell will look better attended on TV if you have less seats because it will move folks into more concentrated areas. Realistically, Tech won't be selling out every home game with a 10k capacity venue so why not try to find other revenue streams for those down games. I don't have the money for premium seats, but if my employer, friend, or whoever gave me the opportunity to sit in the premium seats for a game, you'd better believe my butt would be there even if we are playing the Arkansas Pine Bluffs of the world.
That intro is seriously wasted on the Cavs
And I'm not just saying that because they share a nickname with UVA.
..
or am I?
The stands are dark on purpose. The showcase is the court and the game, not the fans. I do see how it comes off almost dingy looking, but that may change when new seats are installed since it will most likely be a darker color cushion as opposed to natural wood.
Living in Roanoke, it is still hard to make games during the week. Though now with the smart-way bus... if they ran that to downtown Roanoke to Cassell, and back without worry of missing the "last bus". Plus It has WiFi!
Though it does look bad on TV, it is a great atmosphere inside the arena.
I am afraid we almost need to build something new - probably in the parking lot across lane now, tear down Cassell and use that as a new lot for students, basketball & football parking. Maybe even a parking garage.
I love Cassell for a lot of the reasons cited here but if Whit is really serious about increasing revenue, than eventually they need to build an all new multi purpose arena in my opinion. Right now Cassell is a revenue generating building about 30-40 days a year at most depending on how much crowd you get for basketball men and women plus maybe wrestling if its not being held over at the new performing arts building. A multi purpose arena could generate revenue somewhere between 120-140 days a year if done properly. It could allow for ultra premium (Boxes), premium, regular and student and still manage to focus on the student section front and center. It even better accounts for the media as well.
The biggest challenge here is of course making sure you keep the focus on basketball while making other events possible and location on campus (shut down Cassell and build a new over top while playing everything in Roanoke or build elsewhere on campus). It may be one of the few things that UVA has done right, but JPJ Arena is a great basketball environment that still allows the school to make money other ways when basketball isnt the focus.
This is another great point. As a multi-purpose venue, Cassell is pretty lousy.
For instance... Based on his experience on the Concert Committee in the mid-80s, Baltimore Hokie made some great points in a thread a couple years ago:
http://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/120716#comment-120716
The end goal definitely needs to be this! My in-laws live in Charlottesville and go to LOTS of broadway shows, concerts, and the like at JPJ. We took the family a few years back for some sort of Disney show and I've attended a few UVA basketball games (which could also be mistaken as a Disney show) cheering like crazy for the visiting team. I do want the record to show that I did NOT pay for said basketball tickets.
Most importantly, Whit will have an easier chance of actually getting Metallica on campus with a new arena. Stinkin' UVA has had Metallica on campus already which is just unacceptable. Now we just need someone to throw down some mega bucks to make it happen!
Cassell is paid for.
How long would it take to pay off a $100+ million building. Is it realistic to average an event every other day (30-40 baskteball + 120 more days). If I weren't lazy I guess I could look at Bryce Jordan at PSU.
Old buildings don't hurt Kansas or duke (the multiple national championships certainly help). Winning will make Cassell a great env.
I went to a Billy Joel concert at Bryce Jordan last year. It's used all the time for athletics, concerts, musicals, graduations, WWE, and THON (plus a circus on occasion). According to Wikipedia, it would cost about $80 million to build in 2015 dollars. It's a great spot.
I'd be all for this since it would force Whit to hire more full time facilities staff.
Right now the only other non-VT events held in Cassell are Special Olympics and the end of year Upward Basketball meeting. It gets pretty busy during camp season, but that is only a month or so of the summer. The Bowman room is the one thing that gets rented the most, but isn't really a money maker because most people don't know it's available and the price's are pretty reasonable for the space.
As someone who hasn't spent a lot of time in Blacksburg or surrounding area is there enough demand for an multi use arena in Blacksburg? I would think a smaller arena like the VCU Siegal Center or UoR Robbins would be a better fit, somewhere around 9,000 seats with luxury boxes/decks.
Blacksburg desperately needs a good Concert Hall for major touring acts. It would be a major draw for the region, especially during the school year.
Doesn't Roanoke already have that for the region?
The Berglund Center? I mean yeah it's there but it seems like only country artists go there and it's a dump. I think it'd be better to have a nice place in Blacksburg instead of all the way in Roanoke. The idea is to make it easier to get people there, no?
It does, but I think that artists would rather play in Blacksburg if given the choice. I think you'd probably end up selling a few more tickets if students could walk to the venue. Just a guess though.
Now would the Roanoke politicians be happy if Blacksburg started stealing the bigger names & higher revenue generators? Probably not, and that's a point that isn't given enough thought sometimes. Universities often rely on the goodwill of neighboring municipalities, so I don't know if angering Roanoke officials is the best idea for VT in the long run. VT does a lot for the NRV region already, so the administration would have to do their homework if such a venue is ever considered.
What is the Moss Center then???
There are lots of performances at the Moss Center and it is having trouble making ends meet.
No major tour is coming to Southwest VA, unless their coming to perform specifically for our university. If that's the case, they'll set up outside or in Burruss.
But it's such a weird setting to have 2 Chainzz, OCMS, and Kendrick Lamar concerts in Burruss. If we had a multi-purpose arena, we could attract country musicians, rock bands, and rappers to campus which would be a boon for the university.
2Chainz and Kendrick both came to VT before they blew up. I just think VT is so far out of the way, no artist who is going to attract more than the capacity of Burruss is going to come this way. Even if an artist was touring, they'd probably go up/down 95, not 81.
I saw Chiddy Band, Lupe, third eye, and a few other artists/bands in Burruss. It's definitely an unusual venue, but I just don't think a 'concert hall' is a good investment.
I was just going to say to cut some vents in the roof to keep the place from being a sauna and add some better scoreboard banners. Otherwise the usual stuff of move the students closer to the court. I think they should look at a way to hold concerts and other events that typically are held in Burrus or have to be Roanoke. Otherwise, I think the rounded shape reverbs the noise and keeps the place loud so no need to build a new stadium.
I'd like a statue of David Wilson in full sprint halfway up one of the columns. Really was my favorite highlight of that basketball season.
Students on the floor. Revenue and premium seating can wait. Build the atmosphere from the ground up and then worry about everything else later.
It all comes back to winning games. Enough students have to show up for it to be worth moving them to the floor.
There won't be any changes to Cassell that have a major cost for a number of years. The next major priority in the athletics department is the renovation of the English Field (the baseball stadium) and the practice facility for baseball/softball.
Air Conditioning (especially for crowded events like graduation)
That is all.
1. Move the band and students to better seating and find more ways to get them involved.
2. Seating price tiers. Allow the general public to get in for $10-$20 for games that would otherwise have low attendance.
3. Provide an easy way for season ticket holders to resell their ticket at a price they are comfortable with.
through VT.
4.???
5. Profit!!!
More students have to actually show up for games for them to get better seats. They also already implemented tiered seating prices this season.
It's sort of a catch 22. Treat the students better and more will show up, but you don't want to treat the students better until more show up. It's not just a matter of better seating apparently either, I didn't realize they took away standby seating for students this year, that's a big mistake and has been addressed on this thread. Also, I didn't realize they'd implemented tiered seating prices, $15 to get into the Grambling state game seems reasonable good job there Whit. However, I didn't know about it. Seems like VT should advertise that sort of thing better to the locals, which I effectively am now that I'm no longer a student.
Seating is not the problem. Would improving seating for students increase average student attendance? Yes, but that's not why the student section isn't full. The reason why the student section isn't full is apathy because no one wants to watch the team lose. Fix that problem and you will have much better attendance from students.
Likes: Buzzketball
Dislikes: Absence of National Championship Banner
Wants: National Championship Banner
Now for the more technical post on the topic of premium seating:
There are a lot of great ideas here and good conversation. First my nondisclosure. I have worked on 5 large sports stadiums/arenas and am currently working on one in Europe at the moment. I would not call myself an expert but I have sat in at minimum 100 hours listening to those that are "experts" in stadium/sports venue economics.
Good or Bad: There are a lot of studies that go back and forth on the value of premium seating. As noted by others above premium seating is important to those with money, however empty box seats means venues are losing money and aesthetically demoralizing if always empty. But what every study does say is without them the opportunity lost is too great a risk than not having at least some. From there it is a matter of economics and metrics. what you want is to have premium seats but not have too many. they must be in good locations with good line of sight. they have to be more than just a box. service is important. maximize the value add to maximize the attraction.
Some Key Points:
Courtside seating is obviously the other option but I am of the opinion that in college students should be on the floor.
There is a lot to be said about Cassell good and bad in terms of its use as a venue. From a design perspective the option of a brand new arena is cool because its a new toy. From a planning point of view it maybe is not the best option due to the cost of such a large ticket item. That is something we would need to get state funding for as well as school and donor dollars. Alternatively, keeping Cassell as only a basketball arena and building an entertainment venue would be much less costly as it could be a relatively light structure built specifically for concerts etc. This is the route I would go if I was writing the checks (ie. Dr Sands)
In regards to Cassell itself, I think the exterior is quaint enough to be somewhat iconic but it needs some work in my opinion. I would like to see some modernization on the outside to make it more of a feature building that works with sports today. The interior needs a lot of work but I don't see any reason why it cannot be renovated to support both premium seating. Again the opportunity cost here is key.
Does Cassell need suites? that's a good question. One that I can only speculate on without seeing the actual returns. My personal opinion is that it does need suites. I like what Richmond has done by putting them up in the corners. It looks good there, but at Cassell likely wouldn't be as successful given our sloping rooflines. Plus corner suites are inherently less desirable than those that have direct line of sight to the floor.
I have marked where I would suggest some level of premium seating for Cassell.
RED is Suite: Centered but elevated above the rest of the seating. Loss of normal seating minimal given the nose bleed area and that we rarely sell out. If we are winning and selling out donors will buy these suites every game. Worth it to me. 1 - 3 only
Orange is Loge Box: Open-Air gated box seats midway up the seating with premiere sight lines. Great for small and mid-size business to host and allows easy access for premiere food and beverage service.
Green is Color Seats: A 2 - 4 row swatch right in the middle of the lower level seats running parallel to the court. These seats should have better leg room, better seats and perhaps some food service as a perk, and maybe some swag.
Note: This is just based on economics of maximizing premium seating, not necessarily what would be the exact location. I have not been to a VT bball game since I was a student and the dynamics of where different groups sit I know have changed.
Great ideas but the only thing I seemed to notice was that this photo has to be at least 5 years old. VT hasn't been that packed in a long time.
Do you have any examples of the Loge Box seating? I can't recall seeing this kind of thing before. I like the idea, just not sure I follow exactly haha.
simple open air but boxed in seats. also, the below are pretty poor examples. Really Loge Boxes come from old style theaters or in sports from Horse Racing. If you watch the Kentucky Derby or whatever you will see a bunch of small boxes in the stands where the people are someone usually watch the race. They are small venues of 5 to 10 people. This is applying that concept to modern sports, but it could be 4 seats with a rope around them and be a Loge Box. Does not need to be overly costly or grand, just something that offers "privacy" in a public venue.
.
I like the ideas in general, but what's the rough estimated cost, in both dollars and seating?
If I were Whit, I'd be considering this kind of thing, but I'd likely wait until I thought it could actually bring in revenue, and I'd also be weighing it against the number of seats they'll lose.
It's not just about revenue, as I'm guessing Cassell is paid for at this point. It's about fan experience. If you cut the number of seats, you'll be excluding fans from some of the more exciting games that I anticipate will be coming in the next few years. So you have to weigh that against the fans who will be using the premium seating. I agree that they could use some premium seating, but how much is needed, and what's the real cost and break-even point?
Also, what is the opportunity cost in terms of the raucous atmosphere we want in Lane for those Duke and UNC games?
In other words, I think we need to think of this in terms of "What problem are we trying to solve?" While I want a nice arena, I'm hesitant to give up a significant number of seats in one of the smaller basketball arenas in the ACC.
This article, from 2009, rates the venues in the ACC. It rates Cassell at number 2, behind Duke. While not scientific in the least, it considers how hostile a forum is to opposing teams.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/d1scourse/2009/jan/13/arena-rundown-ranking-the-accs-homecourts/
I think it has the reputation of being pretty austere, but hostile to visiting teams. So I think there's room for improvement, but I'm hesitant to remove 1/5 of the seats for some luxury boxes, if that's what we're talking about. I'm a little on the fence about it, though, if they want to put in some boxes and they can do that without significantly cutting the seating.
This was already mentioned by hokiejoe11 a little further up, but I think it's worth highlighting:
So the athletics department is already planning on replacing the seats at some point down the road and that will likely reduce capacity anyway. I've been poking around the internet and found an article that highlights a few different venues that have been renovated in recent years, including the Robins Center:
Spectator Venues Are Realizing the Benefits of Downsizing Seating Capacity
Here's a section of the article where they interviewed Scott Radecic, senior principal at Populous (an architecture firm that focuses on sports facilities):
So, more comfortable seating, less of it, need donations to do it, will cost more to attend games.
And the problem that we're trying to solve is game attendance.
So I guess it depends on if you think you'll raise attendance if you charge more but provide more comfortable seating.
this is backwards. premium seats do bring revenue. Not having premium seats is loss of revenue and opportunity. What you should be considering is doing the Color Seats and Loge Boxes before the Suite if you wanted to be conservative about it.
things are always better when you are winning. I see this being said a lot. We just need to win and it will be better. But when you plan for these large facilities the economics are not based on the highs when the team is winning, it is based on the lows when the team is not winning consistently. This is how the economics are planned worldwide. As such, having premium seating isn't just a good idea, it's necessary because when the team is on the down the hard core donors and fans will pay a little bit extra for those color seats and loge boxes and that will cover shortfall. yes, you will lose seats but the venue will look more full and attract more donor dollars which in opportunity cost exceed what you get from tickets. From the marketing stand point this is about basic supply and demand. Less seats mean a) higher demand and b) the appearance of being more full when we are not a good team, which brings you back to the economics whereby you plan for the low side economics not the upside economics.
It's an enclosed basketball arena. There won't be any loss to raucousness. Also by doing as I indicated above you give those that want and are willing to pay for premium seating options, whilst clearing the entire courtside for raucous students to lose their shit.
I don't think it would be that much, at least not in what I have in mind.
this is backwards. premium seats do bring revenue. Not having premium seats is loss of revenue and opportunity.
Well if they'll pay for themselves, we shouldn't need millions in donor money to make the changes, right?
I remember Maryland making the same arguments when they added luxury boxes for football. A few years later, they used the fact that they were losing money in football to justify the elimination of several varsity sports. Part of the reason they were losing money is because they were in debt for the luxury boxes. Thanks, Debbie Yow.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-11-14/sports/bs-sp-terps-cuts-sidebar-1115-20111114_1_new-suites-tower-project-debbie-yow
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/10/AR2009091003834.html
We need to be a bit careful when we use the "everybody is doing it worldwide" argument. We need to look at actual numbers, in Blacksburg, and what we actually think is happening with our basketball program.
I think the program is on an upswing, and I'd be willing to bet money on that. I'd also be more focused on getting more people to the games. If that means increasing the comfort, I'm all for that. But let's be honest about it whether we're also increasing the price.
Let's figure out the actual problem we're trying to solve. I'm all for optimizing revenue, but the athletic department has actual numbers, and that's what they need to use to make these kinds of decisions. There are lots of good options being thrown out here, and they all have different price points and effects.
As far as noise, 1,500 to 2,000 fans make a lot of it. So if you're looking at eliminating that many seats in order to add boxes, it certainly will have an effect.
I don't think adding luxury seating is a bad idea. I think it may in fact be a good one, but let's take into account what we're actually trying to achieve.
EDIT: I believe this discussion actually started because people noticed that the venue looked empty on TV. If that's the problem, it seems like higher attendance should be the focus of the discussion, and you may not need luxury boxes for that.
My take, as someone who has NEVER been to any sporting event but football in Blacksburg, is this. People are concerned about losing seats for a finite number of games a year 2-4, why? Better product on the court will NEVER result in consecutive sellouts of Cassell becaus of location, weeknight basketball schedules and sheer number of games. Better to get money in hand for fewer seats with upgrades than hope 2-4 times a year to get sellouts.
I'm not thinking of it from a pure revenue standpoint. I'm thinking of it from a "big game atmosphere" standpoint.
We don't have any revenue data in this discussion at all.
I realize you have to consider revenues, and luxury seating should be a part of that, but this discussion started because people noticed empty seats during a weeknight game at Cassell. How do we fill those seats? I guess we can reduce them, but are there other ways to get them filled instead?
It's impossible to fill every seat in Cassell, too many factors working against that being a realistic goal.
No, you're not going to fill it for every game, but if VT is ranked and playing Duke, Syracuse, UNC, or Louisville, I wonder if you might get some record crowds for those type games.
So 2-4 games at most a year, how many home games does VT get a year?
I'm going to suggest that the ACC has some pretty good basketball teams, so if VT improves to where I think they will, it will be often enough to warrant consideration in this discussion.
Yes, I'm on the hype train.
Home games usually tally up to around 20 games a season, 9 from ACC play and 11 from OOC.
It's been about 18 for the men (36 with women's) the last couple seasons. Not that we have countdowns or anything.
I understand that you have never been to a basketball game at tech but I can assure you that when the program is winning, attendance is not lacking and is full for weekends/big games. This is the story of the 70's, 80's 90's and 2000's.
Hell, if the women are good, they do not have an attendance problem.
Yes weekends and 2-4 games a year what about all the weeknight games?
During the good Greenberg years it was full for the marquee games and 70-75% full for the others (and sold out for all games).
So losing 100-300 seats won't effect the atmosphere when even during the peak years there were still plenty of games with empty seats. Adding in luxury boxes/decks only helps the overall program and doesn't hurt it in any way.
I'll go out on a limb and say that if you want to add some premium seating, and it only costs 100-300 seats, that you have my blessing without even a lot of angst over it.
At least one the proposals here would cost more like 1500 seats.
The details do matter.
you talking about the highlights in my picture below?
No.
I haven't noticed you proposing any actual numbers.
yeah I did a number count on the Cassell seating plan.
Without the Luxury Suites I am taking out roughly 240 seats but gaining around 100 premium seats. So loss of 140 there.
With Luxury Suites, an additional 200 seats roughly with a gain of 40 - 50, so loss of 150 there.
In total looks like I would be losing around 300 seats on high side, but not verified without designs.
whose comment are you referring to? I missed the comment about something that radical
I'm referring to the post that opened the thread. The one that proposed a remake similar to that done at the Robins Center.
I wouldn't really be opposed to adding some premium seating that only cost a net of 300 seats. I didn't think your diagram was bad, and if it didn't cost too much in seating it somewhat makes sense to me.
EDIT: Moved to a new comment for sizing reasons.
Duke does it.
This is the difference between us and Duke though. They have basketball history and a fanbase built around their passion for Duke Hoops and Coach K. Yet when their football team starts to become successful again, that doesn't translate to the stands there. Same goes for us in Hoops.
Give it some time. I like both, and I'm sure some other fans well as well.
It wasn't all that long ago VT was a bubble team.
IfWhen Buzz makes it to the dance, I think attendance will improve.The argument though is that a better on-court product won't sell out games do to logistical reasons and that just doesn't hold up to other successful teams. You're completely right though.
Left axis - Average Attendance
Right axis - Win Percentage for the Season
8 out of the past 11 seasons saw average attendance (tickets sold) greater than 80%. The past 3 seasons were losing teams and there was a major decline in attendance. If there is excitement, fans will buy tickets.
Win Loss Results - Hokiesports.com
Attendance Records - http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2015.pdf
This is why I'd be hesitant to overreact to the current attendance.
I'm anticipating even more success with Buzz at the helm.
Then again, I admit that I have a seat on the hype train regarding basketball.
I am right there with you Vtkey. The only thing that needs to occur to make Cassell fun is NIT level basketball. I can not imagine if a real top 15 team calls Cassell home!!!
I will still be there either way but really hope for the more fun option.
Are you familiar with the metro area that is around Duke compared to the one around Virginia Tech?
No, what does it do differently that gets people in the stands?
Have over 2 million people in the metro vs 162,000 in the Blacksburg metro area.
By that logic they should sellout football games too. Look, my point is it's dumb to say that weeknight games and logistics will prevent a constant sellout when other teams do it. Kansas does it and their metro area is less than 100,000 and Allen Fieldhouse holds 16,000 people. It can be done. Will it be done at VT? Maybe.
Yes when VT is an 80 year powerhouse it should be able to sellout also. Not to mention Lawernce is less than a half hour from Topeka and only 45 minutes from Kansas City. Plenty of population to support the team for every game. Find a team that hasn't been a powerhouse since the 1940's and isn't within an hour of a million plus people and then we can talk about true comparisons.
No it shouldn't because of week day games. That's what you said...
http://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/372445#comment-372445
I said it was among several factors. The biggest three being location of Blacksburg, meaning its remoteness to large population areas and distance from Alumni fans, weeknight games, because out of town fans are not going to drive 2-3 hours for a basketball game on Tuesday.
No they're not, but there are still plenty of people in Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Roanoke that would likely go if the on-court product was good enough.
read what I said. I am not saying VT Basketball equates to worldwide. I said the manner in which you plan for sports venue economics is standard worldwide. You may not be familiar with that, but that is how it is done. It's an industry standard.
Luxury Boxes: Maryland made a bad move, but VT updated their football stadium with new boxes and did just fine. Well planned, well designed product will work.
what problem are you trying to solve?
Premium seats are used to solve issues with economics, donor opportunity and seating plans. That's about it. It's one part marketing ploy, one part donor ploy, one part money take and if you're lucky you get to move students to better seats.
I believe this discussion actually started because people noticed that the venue looked empty on TV. If that's the problem, it seems like higher attendance should be the focus of the discussion.
Luxury boxes were then mentioned, and revenues became the focus. I think it's a great topic for planning, but we're all just shooting from the hip with no data and no specifics.
well then, I think this should be seen as a two-fold approach. On the one hand, improve the product on the court and get more people interested in coming. On the other, improve the product off the court (in this case, luxury seating) and get more people interested in coming (and donating) for that aspect of things.
Cassell has seating for, what, 10K? We're seeing maybe half that right now. So even if luxury seats eliminate 1500 current seats, we're looking at being 60% capacity instead of 50% capacity. Current attendees are not driven off. I'd argue that empty premium boxes look better than empty seats now by virtue of the fact that they break up the large swaths of empty seating. BUT, I think if we had luxury boxes, we could draw more people to them for the experience rather than the on the court product so we're less likely to have them be empty. I mean, the browns have luxury boxes, right?
What you're saying makes sense, and I guess the economics might support it.
I think you have to be driven by actual data, though.
For me, Cassell isn't losing money, so I'd go for atmosphere and fan experience. I don't mind adding some luxury boxes, but I really hate giving up 1,500 seats for it, in addition to one seat per row for more luxurious seating.
I think it's a discussion worth having, though.
has that been confirmed? It certainly isn't making money if it's only half full.
And again you plan for low side economics. If VT's low side is 50%, then adding premium seats vastly improves atmosphere and fan experience.
short of pre-ordering space in the premium seats, I think everyone understands that "paying for themselves" means the ROI is reasonable. I'm gonna go ahead and say that Yow was using luxury boxes as a scapegoat to cover other missteps.
Like it or not, the time to make these sort of improvements is before you have a packed stadium. It's tricky, if you do it in a down year that's the beginning of a slump, you risk not having the revenue to cover the debt. On the other side of things, if you do it when you're selling out the stadium, you lose out on ticket sales and the experience (yay watching basketball in a construction zone!!). Right now seems ideal. We are likely on the upswing so demand will soon be what it needs to sell these types of seats to people besides the hardest core donors, but we aren't packing the stadium so much that we are going to immediately feel the loss of the ticket sales. I say we have a plan in place to start construction at the end of this season and finish, if possible, before we get too far into the '16/'17 season. If this season goes well, we can drum up interest in pre-selling the premium seating to help offset the cost.
I like your approach.
I think the implementations that fernley is suggesting could be installed during an offseason and the areas marked in green & orange in his diagram wouldn't be a huge expense. Yeah, there's some retrofitting needed, but the endline renovations for the media & ADA access were completed between basketball seasons. The suites near the top would be a more significant addition though.
Adding these also wouldn't require a complete overhaul of the existing seating arrangement and wouldn't drastically change the arena capacity in the short term. Yes, if & when the old wooden seats are removed, capacity will be reduced just by conforming to modern standards.
If I had decision making power, I would leave the wooden seats in the first few rows on each sideline and between entry points 4 & 5 (see the seating chart below). Put the students in these areas, since they will hopefully be standing the entire time anyway and won't care whether the seats are comfortable or not.
you are correct sir, and I like your plan about the wooden seats in the lower rows.
replies to your edits:
Not sure where you are getting these numbers. A bit premature to say how many seats may be lost without doing a design for it.
luxury boxes are not going to solve attendance. It helps revenue and opportunity. What premium seating does though is helps the venue appear packed when it is not. That is why the metrics of how much premium seating is extremely important. You want only what you can sell out. And if the Administration is smart you offer a seat upgrade at the door if have empty premium seats or they move students into the Color Seats and Loge Boxes through a lottery if they go unsold, so that they appear full. In this way, premium seating helps the appearance of a attendance A LOT.
I'd rather fill the seats than give the appearance of attendance.
I'm not opposed to luxury seating, but I think we actually need numbers for these kinds of things. VT has had some success in basketball before. It wasn't even that long ago, so I'm sure they've got some pretty good data. Like I've said, I'm hesitant to give up seating unless there's a pretty good rationale, and I think the program is currently in a major upswing.
All of that said, I completely trust Whit on these sorts of things.
You're still not understanding how the economics of sports venues work.
EVERY stadium and Arena has a low side economic. Every single one. So wanting to fill more seats is irrelevant. When the team is not winning there will be empty seats. Whether that is 20%, 30%, 50% or more below full capacity there is always a low side. Right now it would appear that VT's is around 50%.
Empty seats are a given. How you deal with that shortfall is the issue. Premium seats is one measure to cover that shortfall if done correctly and smartly, but there is always a shortfall.
I'm not claiming any expertise on the economics of sporting venues, but it's not exactly rocket science.
I'm just saying that VT basketball is improving, and that this improvement should be accommodated in the future plans for the venue. I'm also saying that plans for a college athletic venue is about more than just optimized revenues. That's an important consideration, but it's one among several.
Thanks for chiming in fernley, I was hoping you'd make an appearance in this thread.
And your point about the corner suites not fitting Cassell is a good one - I like the ideas you're highlighting in that photo as well. The endline loge boxes would fit nicely in front of the media & expanded ADA sections they installed last year (seen in the background below):
That way the opposite end can be a wall of students. Speaking of the students, I like the suggestions others have made to get them closer to the court on the sidelines as well. In your diagram, the green rows of color seats could be constructed to have the front rows slightly elevated and then students could be standing in the rows below. That way you could get the atmosphere of having rowdy crowds on the sidelines but not interfere with the sightlines of premium seat holders.
Happy to oblige. It's a great topic and personally I think Cassell should be retained. There is a design solution to all problems.
More legs for this.
I have been to almost every game since my days as a student in the 90's and understand lots of the problems but think solutions are available which will allow VT basketball to remain @ Cassell.
Great post.
FYI- Virginia does not permit use of state funds for athletic facility construction. Would have to be privately funded unless Whit can convince them the large majority of use will be for general student use, but think that would have little chance.
I think I remember reading that before, but thanks for the reminder. This would make it even more difficult to do an entirely new arena, and again I don't think it's necessary.
It would be awesome to see Cassell turned into a multi-purpose facility in the near future. I'm certainly biased, but Cassell has the feel of an old college hockey barn (i.e. Ingalls Rink @ Yale U.).
maybe someone with actual expertise could correct me here, but I thought the acoustics necessary for a non-sporting event are the opposite of what you'd want for a performance event. So, a design that traps noise and funnels it to the court would result in spectators hearing garbled noise from a performer on the court. I could have this completely wrong, but I would be curious how multi-purpose facilities deal with this (or do they just resign themselves to less than ideal acoustics for every event in order to strike a compromise).
This is a great argument for having dedicated facilities.
You're right, those are opposite goals.
Correct. Sports venues and entertainment venues do not go hand in hand. However, most modern indoor sports venues are designed and built for secondary income streams and will accommodate entertainment just fine.
I'm not sure if this has been posted yet (if it has, I apologize) but I recently stumbled upon the Hokie Roundball Club. It's basically a booster specifically for VT Men's Basketball and the perks are pretty cool (exclusive events with the team, official Roundball Club gear, and for the $5000 membership, traveling with the team to an away game). I'm not sure why this doesn't get any publicity because it's a really cool idea. Below is the membership application that details the membership levels, prices, and perks. More information can be found at the Hokie Roundball Club website which, quite frankly, could use a facelift...
Wow. They really do need to get the word out.
This is worth a refresh, I'd think.
That's awesome and I can't imagine why they aren't marketing this. Unless they are trying to keep the membership down so they can still give those benefits away without overcrowding.
Count me in for the Tommy Bahama shirt.
(You're welcome Whit)
Here's a mockup I did incorporating some of mine & fernley's ideas. The color coding is as follows:
Orange - Student Section
Maroon - General Seating, prices vary
Green - Media Row (existing)
Blue - ADA (existing)
Red - Luxury Suites
Yellow - Loge Box
Black - Expanded Rows (more legroom)
Using my best guesses, the luxury suites knock out 300, the net loss from loge boxes is about 150, and the net loss from the rows with more legroom is about 150 as well (you'd lose one row on each side entirely, and the seats would likely be a little larger).
So overall, this arrangement would be a net loss of about 600, but it would give a few different options to interested parties. When I have more time, I'll do a mockup of Cassell with corner suites and figure out the numbers in that configuration.
Would the lodge boxes need to be behind the student section as they would sit higher up,thus providing a view over the students whereas expanded seating would have a blocked view by standing students
two things about student seating on the sideline
1) it cannot be on the team bench side
2) there will need to be a dead row or two (or elevated loges?) behind the sideline student sections to allow contributors with weary knees to sit down and still see the court over the heads of the students who will be standing much of the time.
1) Why can't it be on the team bench side? There's lots of schools that seem to do it. If there's a logistical reason at VT, then that's understandable but I've not heard that before.
2) As far as the rows behind the students, the idea is that by going from 5 rows of regular seats to 4 rows of seating with more legroom, you can elevate the front row of that section because you have to make up the riser difference somewhere.
I think there's some ACC rule that there has to be a buffer of a few rows between any student seating and the visiting team bench.
And perhaps more importantly, the TV broadcasts have their primary cameras on the bench side, meaning the students wont be in in the background during most of the broadcast.
I've been looking around to verify this, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. In fact, there's a couple examples around the ACC that have students behind the team benches. So as usual with college athletics, who really knows what the rules are...
NC State:
Virginia:
They might be behind the home bench, but typically there is a 2-3 (minimum) row buffer behind the visitor's bench for family and boosters of the visitors.
Yeah, and it looks like that's the case in both of those photos.
I was just double-checking because I could have sworn I've seen student sections on the sidelines in view of TV cameras, as DBU mentioned. Mainly just making sure I've not gone completely crazy yet...
Seems there's a bigger variation in "the formula" for basketball seating than I thought. I'd still prefer students in camera-friendly areas!
For what it's worth, Clemson's Littlejohn Coliseum is currently undergoing renovations. It will take the capacity of the arena from approximately 10,000 to approximately 8,500, and the construction also includes adjacent facilities for the men's and women's basketball teams.
In my opinion, Clemson is a fairly decent comparison for Virginia Tech. The town of Clemson itself, like Blacksburg, is very much focused around the university. Additionally, the closest metro area to Clemson is Greenville, SC which is a reasonable comparison to Roanoke (though Roanoke is slightly bigger in area/population).
Littlejohn Coliseum will go from looking like this:
To this:
Georgia Tech and Illinois did something similar to this when they renovated their arenas. This is the route I hope VT goes with when they renovate Cassell, which is going to need serious renovation in the next 10-15 years. I have a concept exterior drawing somewhere that I'll upload this evening.
Looking forward to it. Since you specifically mentioned Georgia Tech, here are before and after pictures for their arena. Might as well make this a place to show the upgrades ACC competitors are making...
Georgia Tech (before - capacity 9,200):
Georgia Tech (after - capacity 8,600):
And here's a link that describes the renovations and some of the choices GT made regarding premium seating that I found particular interesting:
Club seats sub for suites at Georgia Tech arena
My concept revolves around making Cassell more usable for concerts, other events, etc. Cassell can't hold a big name concert currently due to the laminated wood beams not be able to hold additional weight. To solve this problem, I'm proposing the removal of the existing roof and flying buttresses and expanding the concourse/footprint of the building to where the buttresses end now. The extra space will allow for more bathrooms, an actual permanent HokieShop, etc.
Add the turrets to mimic Burruss, Lane and make Cassell look like a damn castle. I'm thinking a lot of the exterior can be prefabbed concrete panels, similar to the Indoor Practice Facility. Cover it in Hokie Stone, since it's one of the few buildings on campus with out it.
For the interior, gut it and start over. Madison Square Garden, Georgia Tech, and Illinois have all done this. The new trusses will finally allow for a center hung scoreboard. For seating, mimic the Pavilion at Ole Miss or other new college arena.
As I continue to look at college arena renovations around the country, I found another ACC basketball foe that has upgraded their digs relatively recently.
Notre Dame's renovations were completed in 2009 while they still a part of the Big East, for reference. It went from this:
To this (photo colors were edited, but allows a good look at the changes):
It's nice, but their upgrade cost $24 million, and removed 2,200 seats.
So I ask again, what problem are we trying to solve? How long does it take that kind of upgrade to pay for itself? What are the financing costs in the mean time? It looks comfortable with the padded seats, but how much did the price of tickets go up? If VT raises ticket prices, what does that do to attendance?
For me, the priority needs to be the basketball team itself. I'm not against an upgrade, I just think one needs to look at the big picture from all the angles.
So far, I'm pretty impressed with all of the changes Whit and Buzz have made to the program, so I'd probably go with their recommendations.
But since we're not actually signing any checks over here, why don't we continue the conversation for kicks? I personally find these listed renovations fascinating and think something along these lines could be accomplished in conjunction with producing better on the court. I don't see why it has to be one or the other. In fact, adding some high-dollar seating options just as our team seems to be sprouting some wings might be a great idea.
I'm OK with it as long as we don't lose our perspective! I gotta say, those are some awfully nice arenas!
Questions like these are the reason why you will see any upgrades to seats being done on a trial basis. Don't be surprised if you see cushioned seats in 1 to 3 sections in the lower part of the bowl next season.
Just because I've gone down the rabbit hole and found these arena renovations so fascinating, here's a couple outside of the ACC this time, and of varying sizes. I'll post more as I find them!
Stony Brook (before):
Stony Brook (after):
SMU (before):
SMU (after):
GW (before):
GW (after):
Love what GW did with their floor. That's an often overlooked component of an arena remodel.
Here's another arena renovation, this time at TCU. They replaced the seats in 2012 and it looked like this:
And then more recently, added seats that were closer to the court, apparently upgraded the center-hung scoreboard, and redesigned the court graphics:
However, most of the renovations were to the concourse areas. From Sports Business Daily: