Success of SLU Arena Depends Upon Coachless Basketball Team
Today Saint Louis University fired head coach Brad Soderberg. SLU’s review of the team and lack of qualifiying for a tournament cost Soderberg the head coach job he has held for the last five years. But the disturbing part is how this relates to their new costly arena project, here is from a SLU statement:
Because the success of the new Chaifetz Arena is largely contingent on the success of the men’s basketball team, it is imperative that the team be led by a coach who we believe can establish a program that consistently vies for conference championships and engages in postseason play.
Wait a minute! SLU is building an $80 million dollar arena, just a couple of miles from the Scottrade Center downtown, with the success hinging on the men’s basketball team? Furthermore, at least $8 million in public subsidies in the form of TIF Financing (Tax Increment Financing) is going into this project resting in the hands of the team and an as yet to be hired new head coach. Well, I’m confident our “leaders” made the right decision.
Oh boy, has anybody told the bond holders on this project the old coach was fired because the team isn’t good enough to make the arena a success? That is kinda like all of SLU’s largely vacant parking garages — the success of them depends upon students, faculty and staff paying huge fees for parking passes. Ever wonder why SLU doesn’t support transit passes the way Washington University does? Follow the money, or debt in this case.
Mark my words folks, we’ve got another St. Louis boondoggle in the making!
April 17, 2007 – SLU Statement on Soderberg
February 19, 2007 – Urban Review Post on Legal Issues on TIF Financing
August 28, 2006 – SLU Press Release on Arena Ground Breaking
Oh what an evil web we weave when we first start to deceive… By the way, WashU may be saving a bus load of money by handing out passes instead of continuing their shuttle bus service. Follow the money Steve, there’s more to it for both schools of higher “education”. Too funny…
Ummmm but it was mostly the away record that was problematic. Soderberg led them this season with 15-1 at home and 4-11 away. Sooo one would assume that the men’s bball team is quite talented but lacked the coaching finesse to perform out-of-town.
and really, what is up with comparing an on-site arena and one that is not anywhere near campus?? Sure there’s a space to play but if it doesn’t engage alums, students, faculty, and staff to walk over from other on-campus buildings then what’s the point? I cite the following abstract (Mike Kennedy, “Winning Ways,” American School & University, 78:4 (Dec 2005): 42-4.)
Whether it’s a modest facility in a suburban school district or a massive structure on a state university campus, a sports stadium can have a profound effect on an educational institution. and later in the article For a university, the quality of the athletic facilities can be the deciding factor for high school students picking a school….Schools looking to enhance their athletic facilities should begin, not by looking at their existing facilities, but by looking at the school’s philosophy. Some schools have an athletic tradition and instantly recognizable facilities that can be enhanced, and others are looking to build or renovate their facilities so they can establish an appealing identity that will raise the school’s profile.
And don’t lump parking garages in with a new arena. Haven’t you ever seen Hickory which is often completely filled with med, nursing, PT, OT, dietetics, etc students? Or how often is Laclede showing the “Lot Full” sign at mid-day. Let alone Olive which is full of Parks and commuter students. I can’t remember being an undergrad and not driving around for at least 15 minutes looking for parking.
Maybe we’ll get some better students who believe in investing in the institution and being open to extracurricular activity that will enhance SLU….
A succesfull athletic program can mean big money for universities, why should SLU completely disregard this potential revenue source?
As long as SLU was third fiddle at Scottrade, they would never have the scheduling flexibility to get on national games (obviously the A10s tv deal hurts this). As long as they played in a half full arena it would be tough to create a good atmosphere. Both hurting their recruiting. That’s one of the main reasons Soderberg was fired. NO good recruits for two years in a row. He landed Liddell and Lisch, but after that…..
As someone who went to SLU for undergrad and lived on campus for 4 years I can say that Soccer games had more student attendance than basketball, with the only reason being it was on campus.
Why are you surprised that the success of the arena depends on the basketball team? That wasn’t clear from the start?
Here’s the first problem: “Basketball coach Brad Soderberg was fired Tuesday after five seasons at Saint Louis despite the school’s first 20-win season since 1998.”
That’s the lead paragraph in the espn.com story about the firing. I’m an alum, but I didn’t give two shits about the team while I was at the school and I really don’t now that I’ve graduated. So, I can’t speak to the quality of the team- but I wouldn’t have guessed such a record for the team this year. What are they expecting from their coach? Better recruiting? More personality? A trip to the Big Dance?
If that’s the reason for the dismissal (not some untoward scandal/violation we’ve yet to hear about), I guess that makes sense. But then here’s the BIG problem: IT’S THE MIDDLE OF APRIL.
The annual collegiate coaching shuffle is over and done. Everyone’s picked their partner for the next dance. Hell, the ridiculousness that is Bob Huggins left K-State before Easter! Who is SLU gonna get that is better than Soderberg?
I guess the desire to improve is admirable, but from where I’m typing, this is the same half-assed bullshit that has always characterized SLU. A hair-brained idea nudged along by self denial and doe-eyes. Like the bands that were always picked by SAB for Spring Fever… frickin’ idiots.
First I must say….WHO CARES? Who really cares if Brad Soderberg was fired? I am failing to see how his dissmissal is related to any development issue in St. Louis. The reality is SLU is building an arena and it doesn’t matter who is coaching the teams that play inside of it. SLU making a statement linking the success of the arena to a mediocre coach is simply a scapegoated public reason for Soderberg’s termination.
As for the arena itself, I don’t think it is needed. However I do think it is a positive develoment. In an audience filled with pro-city people don’t you all see this as postivie investment in the city? The more SLU invests in its campus, the more is invested in the city. Certain amenities (arena, new research building) may attract better students, teachers, researchers etc. The higher the caliber of people SLU attracts means those people are living in this city. Many may even choose to make St. Louis their permenant home. This is positive growth.
On a side note: During my undergrad at SLU I never once attended a basketball game. I attribute this two things: 1) i never really cared about college basketball, and 2)the fact that the games weren’t held on campus. Even though I was apathetic towards basketball I know I would have at least attended a game or two had they been on campus.
How is this different than any big company opening an office in a new town and firing the manager when that site’s production is below standard?
It is long-term wise financial stewardship. I have met Brad a few times, and I like and respect him. I’m sorry he has to carry the brunt of it.
Give it rest, Steve. You are being histrionic. The arena is needed because SLU wants it. What major university doesn’t have its own arena?
Linking the firing to a stadium that isn’t even completed, as well as calling it a “boondoogle” is premature and ridiculous.
No doubt another arena isn’t the best answer for St. Louis nor should anybody buy into stadium economies or that SLU was in need of a TIF. SLU was going to find a way to build an arena on campus. SLU, like any other private institutions including Wash U, is going to does things to improve what they think is their chances of attracting more money. They are the only campus with a Division I team in St. Louis if I’m correct, connect the dots. The arena in return it got SLU a 12 million donation from a young up and coming Chicago business man. How much more money will he direct to SLU in the future? or any other alumni?
The discussions that I think are relevent to the city and SLU at this point is what’s going to happen with the empty 4.5 acres that SLU owns in Grand Center? What is SLU’s input on replacing the Grand Ave bridge, will it push for a bridge that does a better job connecting the campus and metrolink? Will it help with this chance at improving the infrastructure? What other real estate plans do they have in works? Like Wash U, I’m sure their investments extend significantly into the surrounding neighborhoods. Time for the city to look for something in return.
As far as basketball, they should have stayed close to home instead of going out east to join a conference! They should have fired the athletic director!!
Have you seen the old arena they play in…booo. It’s awful. I played there in grade school circa 1994 for the 8th grade city county basketball championship. I don’t go to school at SLU, but I did grow up there. I am now living in Springfield going to Missouri State University where they are building a $67 million new arena a huge giant chunk from private donations/gifts and then they somehow changed the name of the student fees, so now instead to technology,$2 of student fees are going to this arena…what a story. Besides that, I don’t argee that public dollars should be going to build a private school arena b/c the public is not going to be able to use it. On top of that, SLU tuition is high enough, why don’t they just use that? I do think they do need a arena on campus to boost morale, to adhere to the esthetics and, truthfully reputation, of the campus not necessarily of the team, and and to use it as a recruiting tool. I’m for it, just not for their means of funding.
In response to Tim’s post..there are a lot of actions going on in Mid-town. In either the paper of the Post or the University news, I have read about the following potential issues:
Target going in at the Flagstaf brewery (across street from Aquians theology college)
New grand bridge with metro access and terraced down to the tracks…all very pedestrian friendly.
The univeristy is taking bids on redevopling the lot at grand and lindell…i think i read a possible 150 room hotel.
And Steve, if the arena fails, get ready for a tuition jump LOL
“What major university doesn’t have its own arena?”
Washington University.
I wonder if they’re sticking their students with an 8% increase next year.
WashU, of course, is not a Division I school… and nobody would claim it has such aspirations.
However, they are applying to host the 2008 Presidential debates, a one-night event that costs the university $1.3 million, not to mention the inconvenience experienced by students, faculty, and neighbors due to Secret Service restrictions on campus access during the debates.
Tuition will increase about 5.5% there — but of course it’s MUCH higher than SLU’s to begin with!
From the student paper there:
“The 2007-2008 academic year will see a 5.5 percent increase over last year, now standing at $34,500. Room-and-board will increase by $456, or 4.1 percent.”
Joe Frank,
My point, poorly inferred in my post, was that an arena is not required to be a highly respected major university. If by “major” we mean “division 1-level sports” then it’s likely true – most major universities probably have their own arena. I’ve just never bought the idea that to be a major university which draws top faculty and students, a school must have cutting edge athletic venues. Wash U & SLU (until construction) are cases on point.
BTW, tuition difference isn’t as dramatic as you’d think. WU Law ’07-’08: $37,460; SLU Law ’06-’07: $30,040 or $32,443.20 after an 8% hike. A difference of about $5K – or peanuts in private school tuition terms.
Is a new arena “needed”? No, it’s an ego statement, “keeping up with the Jones”. Will it help the SLU basketball program? Probably. Is it a “good” development project? I don’t know, but that part of town seemed pretty barren before the project started. Will the loss of the coach have an impact? Doubtful. The life of a college basketball coach is less than that of a good dog. Any investor betting on the success of any one coach is a fool. The bigger question is what will the new coach be paid? Probably more than anyone else on campus! Now, that’s a topic worth discussing . . .
Once you jump into the arena of top tier college sports, paying enormous salaries is a given. Should public funds be used to finance these “ego” games? The Grand plan is coming into focus with one hand available for public money and the other hand around someone’s neck.
By the way, the Mo Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the City on its use of TIF for the SLU Arena.
I’m a little confused by your Wash U/SLU parking analogy. Are you saying that SLU employees and students are less willing to pay for parking, or that they have a glut of parking? Wash U keeps building more parking on its campuses, and you should also note that each of the campuses has a Metrolink stop that is ON campus. However, all of the Wash U facilities are also in neighborhoods where parking during the workday is next to impossible close to campus, while SLU’s campuses are readily accessible to free street parking.
Regardless, I am pissed that the city will be spending my tax dollars on the SLU arena, rather than say, improving city infrastructure in any meaningful way.
WashU also has a third stop next to its western campus on Forsyth. Virtually the whole south side of the main campus is a parking lot at WashU running from Skinker to the stadium… definitely eco-friendly! The dominance the institution had over the design and layout of the MetroLink extension was self-serving and was in conflict with what could have been done to serve the general public. As such, the MetroLink will be hampered financially for years to come until these design failures are remedied.
Clearly SLU relative to WashU is underserved by MetroLink. The power behind closed doors favored one institution over the other. WashU got its public handout and now SLU wants its share…touche!
John – interesting perspective. It may also be the case that Wash U grew up along the old Clayton streetcar line while SLU grew up along the one on Lindell. I do agree that someone managed to extract a whole bunch of enhancements for the line between Clayton and Forest Park. It either creates an unsustainable precedent or, more likely, will continue the (perceived?) class warfare between the haves and the have nots, with the haves continuing to get stuff the have nots can only dream about. I also agree that the “institutional dominance” was self-serving (when isn’t it?), but I place blame at the feet of the Metro Board, not the institution – they’re the ones that had the power to say, “No, not so extravagant”, but chose instead to say yes . . .
Sorry, I should have clarified that I meant WashU actually has Metrolink stops at all campuses (Medical, Danforth, and West campuses, with easy access by North Campus to the Delmar station), while SLU’s campuses are all a lovely walk across that Grand bridge from the Metrolink stop on Grand.
Also, in addition to John’s observation, remember that Wash U JUST extended a garage on the medical campus, and is in the process of building another on the Danforth campus. A huge portion of the medical campus (as evidenced by the Metrolink ride between the Grand and CWE stops) is made up of surface lots and parking garages. FYI, a medical campus parking pass is $480/year MINIMUM (surface lots, $900/year maximum.
JimZ, I perhaps mistakenly thought this was common knowledge about certain leaders at WashU defining the future to a mayor. I’ll avoid mentioning names as this was a common topic between a number of well-connected… Well anyway, the old streetcar lines in Clayton were on both Wydown and Forsythe. The Lindell-Forsythe line served both universities, and the Lindell line was on the north side of the homes, in the alley.
The only rational reason to spend the enormous sums on putting the MetroLink extension under FP Expressway is because some powerful institution wanted it that way. It would have been much cheaper and efficient to have limos run from DeBaliviere to Shaw Park on FPE than an expensive subway. In addition, Clayton did not want the light rail through the middle of downtown. They wanted to have a trolley system but MetroLink killed that idea with the west campus station (Forsythe). A north-south line between Shrewsbury and Lambert would have been a cheaper alternative. It also would have allowed an in-the-middle of 40 line serving SLU, Forest Park, Galleria, etc at a much lower cost. Certain options were kept out of the realm of debate, typical StL-style governance.
Of course I expect an institution to be self-serving but also concerned with long term issues that impact the whole region. The dominance of WashU in city politics is well known and continues in numerous ways… As I said before, the parkland deal is unfortunate in the way it was handled but predictable given the realities. Enough said?
I think so . . . thanks!