Herb Kohl says it's time for a replacement for the BC

[Hoopaloop]

In some ways it is a bit of a reflection on society that a beautiful and functional building like the BC is not worthy enough anymore.  We waste so much and just throw it away.  The BC is still in great shape.  The Bucks suck and adding revenue streams for them isn't going to make them suck any less.  NBA guys don't want to stay in Milwaukee, they want New York, LA, Chicago and Miami for the most part. There are exceptions, but they are just that.

Whether the BC helps MU in recruiting is impossible to prove.  The top teams in America do not share an NBA arena and often don't even have a NBA team within several hour drive.  Shouldn't SMU be better for having the Mavericks in the same town?  University of Miami for the Heat?  Arizona State with the Suns?  USC for the Lakers or Clippers? 

If the Bucks left, MU would be the only basketball option in the city.  Has a nice ring to it.

[jsglow]

In some ways it is a bit of a reflection on society that a beautiful and functional building like the BC is not worthy enough anymore.  We waste so much and just throw it away.  The BC is still in great shape.  The Bucks suck and adding revenue streams for them isn't going to make them suck any less.  NBA guys don't want to stay in Milwaukee, they want New York, LA, Chicago and Miami for the most part. There are exceptions, but they are just that.

Whether the BC helps MU in recruiting is impossible to prove.  The top teams in America do not share an NBA arena and often don't even have a NBA team within several hour drive.  Shouldn't SMU be better for having the Mavericks in the same town?  University of Miami for the Heat?  Arizona State with the Suns?  USC for the Lakers or Clippers?  

If the Bucks left, MU would be the only basketball option in the city.  Has a nice ring to it.

That.

I'll add one thought.  Would Milwaukee be a better sports town if the Bucks were replaced by a NHL franchise?  I for one think the Preds (or another franchise) would be moved here in 10 seconds if the slot for the #1 winter pro sports team in town opened up.  The Bradley was built for NHL hockey and would probably still be in the top 1/2 of the league today in terms of facilities.  And it'll remain perfect for MU hoops for decades to come, prospectively as the #2 tenant rather than our current #3 position.

[Goose]

Playing at same facility as NBA team is big advantage recruiting wise. I do not get it, but just ask any of our coaches over past couple of decades. I am not 17 year old kid and never will understand what makes them tick. We do not want to lose the Bucks for many reasons and recruiting is not on top of the list for me.

[jsglow]

Playing at same facility as NBA team is big advantage recruiting wise. I do not get it, but just ask any of our coaches over past couple of decades. I am not 17 year old kid and never will understand what makes them tick. We do not want to lose the Bucks for many reasons and recruiting is not on top of the list for me.

I'm sure coaches say and believe that.  But the facts would suggest otherwise.  None of the nation's top 25 NCAA teams are in NY, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, etc.  They are in places like North Carolina, Kentucky, southern Indiana (cringe), and freakin' Syracuse, NY.

[Goose]

Jsglow
No doubt that is correct. Aside from MU who else plays in NBA arena every game? I do think it offsets the weather and other negatives.

[warthog-driver]

I'm sure coaches say and believe that.  But the facts would suggest otherwise.  None of the nation's top 25 NCAA teams are in NY, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, etc.  They are in places like North Carolina, Kentucky, southern Indiana (cringe), and freakin' Syracuse, NY.

I agree with you in that I don't think there is correlation but there have been great NCAA teams in NBA markets.

UCLA, DePaul, LIU, St John's, GA Tech, Maryland, G'Town, Villanova, Cincinnatti, USF, Houston, Memphis, etc

[Dr. Blackheart]

If I got the count right, Marquette, SJU, Gtown, Nova, SJU and Memphis are the only NCAA schools who will play in an NBA arena on a regular or semi regular basis. Only the Big East member schools hold this distinction. The BET is the jewel of hoops conference tournaments, played at the granddaddy MSG. Seton Hall just lost its co-leasee, the Brooklyn Nets.  Other conferences and the NCAA want to hold their post-season games at NBA arenas. The BC is the only arena that is within walking distance of the school.  Pretty sure having Dwade and Lebron at your games is a benefit. Also, am pretty sure that, due to proximity and excellent Al practice facilities on the same look floors as the BC, it is a plus to have NBA teams practice at MU.  So, yes, the NBA association helps the basketball only schools and its conference brand, and MU has the most unique distinction.

I also find it interesting that many of the football first schools mentioned play hoops on campus and play/plays football off campus at NFL sites.  Does the NFL association matter in recruiting?

Can't wait though when the Bucks move out like the Hawks did in St. Louis to become the next SLU. That will have a nice ring to it, but not a nice ring out.

[silverback]

Would you want MU to have the Bradley Center? As the so only basketball tenants of the venue – sharing with the Admirals?

I know it might get knocked down, but...

[jsglow]

If I got the count right, Marquette, SJU, Gtown, Nova, SJU and Memphis are the only NCAA schools who will play in an NBA arena on a regular or semi regular basis. Only the Big East member schools hold this distinction. The BET is the jewel of hoops conference tournaments, played at the granddaddy MSG. Seton Hall just lost its co-leasee, the Brooklyn Nets.  Other conferences and the NCAA want to hold their post-season games at NBA arenas. The BC is the only arena that is within walking distance of the school.  Pretty sure having Dwade and Lebron at your games is a benefit. Also, am pretty sure that, due to proximity and excellent Al practice facilities on the same look floors as the BC, it is a plus to have NBA teams practice at MU.  So, yes, the NBA association helps the basketball only schools and its conference brand, and MU has the most unique distinction.

I also find it interesting that many of the football first schools mentioned play hoops on campus and play/plays football off campus at NFL sites.  Does the NFL association matter in recruiting?

Can't wait though when the Bucks move out like the Hawks did in St. Louis to become the next SLU. That will have a nice ring to it, but not a nice ring out.

I have no doubt that playing in the same building as an NBA team has its advantages.  That said, the only justification for building a new arena is Bucks related.  Just not sure Milwaukee is prepared to pony up the hundreds of millions for that purpose.  And if the rent became exorbitant or if the new arena were somehow not within walking distance for the MU student body . . .
 

[reinko]

Let's talk real numbers here folks.  If it's similar to the Miller Park tax, it's a dime for every hundred dollars you spend.  If having a professional basketball team, AND a state of the art arena for Marquette, is too much, honestly, get unnatural carnal knowledgein bent.

[jsglow]

Let's talk real numbers here folks.  If it's similar to the Miller Park tax, it's a dime for every hundred dollars you spend.  If having a professional basketball team, AND a state of the art arena for Marquette, is too much, honestly, get frackin bent.

I supported Miller Park back in the day.  But County Stadium was 50 years old at the time.  I'm certainly open to a new NBA stadium for Milwaukee but the situation is really apples to oranges different for many of the reasons discussed in this thread.

[Hards Alumni]

Let's talk real numbers here folks.  If it's similar to the Miller Park tax, it's a dime for every hundred dollars you spend.  If having a professional basketball team, AND a state of the art arena for Marquette, is too much, honestly, get frackin bent.

This.

[4everwarriors]

Let's talk real numbers here folks.  If it's similar to the Miller Park tax, it's a dime for every hundred dollars you spend.  If having a professional basketball team, AND a state of the art arena for Marquette, is too much, honestly, get frackin bent.

Profoundly eloquent

[brewcity77]

Let's talk real numbers here folks.  If it's similar to the Miller Park tax, it's a dime for every hundred dollars you spend.  If having a professional basketball team, AND a state of the art arena for Marquette, is too much, honestly, get frackin bent.

Well-stated. Honestly, I'd pay a dollar for every hundred I spend and be fine with that. Of course, most likely not every SEW citizen is as dedicated to Marquette having a state of the art arena as I am.

[lab_warrior]

Let's talk real numbers here folks.  If it's similar to the Miller Park tax, it's a dime for every hundred dollars you spend.  If having a professional basketball team, AND a state of the art arena for Marquette, is too much, honestly, get frackin bent.

Keep your grubby government hands off my Medicare!

[martyconlonontherun]

I supported Miller Park back in the day.  But County Stadium was 50 years old at the time.  I'm certainly open to a new NBA stadium for Milwaukee but the situation is really apples to oranges different for many of the reasons discussed in this thread.

Good point, but Milwaukee also didn't pay for the BC. It was a donation and built for hockey. Milwaukee hasn't built a real basketball arena since the Mecca. Not saying it would change many minds, but is it important to recognize those points.

[warriorchick]

Good point, but Milwaukee also didn't pay for the BC. It was a donation and built for hockey. Milwaukee hasn't built a real basketball arena since the Mecca. Not saying it would change many minds, but is it important to recognize those points.

So getting a free one before justifies paying for a new one that may not be needed?

And it was not 100% free.  Milwaukee had to pay for much of the incidental expenses that came with building the arena, such as street rerouting, etc.

[martyconlonontherun]

So getting a free one before justifies paying for a new one that may not be needed?

And it was not 100% free.  Milwaukee had to pay for much of the incidental expenses that came with building the arena, such as street rerouting, etc.

It doesn't justify it but it helps not that Milwaukee hasn't funded an arena downtown since 1950 when it comes to tax payers complaining about the bill. I was also pointing out that the BC was made for hockey, which many people don't realize the drawbacks to a NBA team. I wasn't arguing the original point, just providing more information. This isn't a black/white issue.

[warthog-driver]

So getting a free one before justifies paying for a new one that may not be needed?

Well said. What is wrong with the BC? The fact it lacks daily access retail/dining and luxury boxes? That's hardly sufficient for tearing down a good facility. Or, more to the point, tearing down a good facility so the taxpayers can build a replacement that will improve earnings performance for the Bucks.

[dgies9156]

I'm glad everything is so simple in your mind.

Ad hominum fallacies are no basis for building a $400 million replacement arena.

Sorry folks, I just don't see the need. The notion that we can build it and they will come is the only basis I'm reading for why a new arena should be built. Talk about simplistic, that's about as simplistic as it gets!!!

With all of the issues facing Wisconsin and Milwaukee County, this is VERY low on the priority list. Or it should be!

Besides, based on what I have seen, there's two ways to build more suites into a new arena. Out them in the rafters, like they are at the United Center in Chicago, or stack them. The most likely scenario is a two level stack that puts the 400 level seats further away from the floor.

As a frequent 400 level ticket holder, that stinks!

[dgies9156]

One other thought -- where are the Bucks going to go? Here's a rundown of why they are staying put:

1) Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Kansas City -- Varying degrees of quality arenas, all of which are used by NHL or College Basketball teams. There is no way any of these markets are better than Milwaukee. None of them have a better television market and Herb would move from one small market to another.

2) Nashville, TN -- A growing city with a relatively new, skyboxes to the hilt arena. But Nashville barely kept the Predators and if you have a bad team in Nashville, you won't draw period. Plus it's a long commute from the core area of support in Williamson County to downtown.

3) Seattle -- This is the ace in the hole. However, their arena situation was the reason the Supersonics moved to Oklahoma City. It's far worse than anything in Milwaukee. Until Seattle builds a replacement for the Key Arena, nothing is possible here.

4) San Diego -- See Seattle, only worse. There's a good reason why the Clippers left town to be Second Banana to the Lakers!

So there you have it -- Herbie Math 101 subtitled, "We aint going anywhere!"

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I supported Miller Park back in the day.  But County Stadium was 50 years old at the time.  I'm certainly open to a new NBA stadium for Milwaukee but the situation is really apples to oranges different for many of the reasons discussed in this thread.

This.

I like the Bucks and all, but I'm not in love with public funding of these facilities.

[martyconlonontherun]

Well said. What is wrong with the BC? The fact it lacks daily access retail/dining and luxury boxes? That's hardly sufficient for tearing down a good facility. Or, more to the point, tearing down a good facility so the taxpayers can build a replacement that will improve earnings performance for the Bucks.

The problem is that the building has reached economic obsolescence. The team is constantly losing money, even if it had a good product. The bottom line is that it is pointless to put millions of dollars into renovations that do not serve the means of the main tenant. A outdated computer may be useful for some people and shouldn't be thrown away, but many businesses get new ones because of the usefulness and economics of their business.

Milwaukee has 2 options: Lose the Bucks or Pay for a new arena.

The fact that the BC is in good shape does not mean it is enough for the Bucks to say.If a new stadium is not in the works over the next 5 years they will be in Las Vegas. I support a stadium tax but understand why those that don't want to fund the project. Both options suck but it is the reality of the situation.

[seakm4]

Is the Bradley Center really that bad to make the Bucks a non-viable franchise? 

The Bucks make the Bucks a non-viable franchise

I think the monta ellis trade could make them an exciting team for a while, but IMO their talent level and style of play is pretty boring.

[warthog-driver]

One other thought -- where are the Bucks going to go? Here's a rundown of why they are staying put:

3) Seattle -- This is the ace in the hole. However, their arena situation was the reason the Supersonics moved to Oklahoma City. It's far worse than anything in Milwaukee. Until Seattle builds a replacement for the Key Arena, nothing is possible here.

Seattle has a plan in place to bring NBA & NHL. Hedge Fund dude is building a BB/Hockey arena in SoDo, just south of Century Link Field & The Safe. Great example of an entrepreneuer taking risk. Milwaukee should take notes.