|
Post by localfan on Jul 24, 2015 9:59:43 GMT -5
That doesn't help.....sounds like the child who didn't get his way. To be clear, he is selling the soul of the RC for $10,000 (the cost of the 15 seats in front of the student section). There is no mandate from the A10 to put those seats in (confirmed). And this decision was made after the A10 meetings in the end of May (confirmed). To be sure, this is just the beginning. Give an inch and he'll take a mile. When VIPs complain about the rowdy student section standing behind them, he relegate the students to the sections behind the basket, and probably to help justify the move, he'll speak about declining student attendance (which he helped manufacture). tkenney@sbu.edu (not sure this is the email; it's unlisted) 375-2282 gobonnies.sbu.edu/inside_athletics/staff-directory Dunga is correct that there is no current mandate from the A-10. I personally would prefer a Director of Athletics who had the spine to stand up to other A-10 teams complaining about our environment. Of course they're going to complain about our environment. It's hard to win in the RC. It's beyond troubling, especially without a specific conference mandate, that Kenney is more willing to placate the concerns of our rivals and opponents by upsetting the majority of our students, alumni and fans. Dunga is also correct that this was not a year-long decision as Kenney stated. Talk of this only began following his arrival. MOST TROUBLING is Kenney's constant contradiction of himself. This whole thing apparently is because of court access safety, but he's still willing to allow students to sit (or stand ahead of) the courtside seats as long as an alum or a GoFundMe pays for it. Kenney also told the BV that his entire department expected pushback on this decision. If that's the case, why did he say the following in the press release: "We are really excited to be able to offer these new seating options … we think these are extremely attractive seats which will appeal to our fans. Since I started (in April) we have looked at ways we can provide our fans the best possible experience when they come to the Reilly Center. This is just the start." So, to recap, Kenney expected everyone to be mad about it, but in the release he's touting the "appeal to our fans" with the seats? OK then. I was concerned about this decision from the moment it was released to the public. Since then, with the handling of the situation from the failed Q&A to some pretty ridiculous answers, I'm even more concerned and confused.
|
|
|
Post by gdub2009 on Jul 24, 2015 10:16:27 GMT -5
It's no wonder SBU has a tough time attracting talent ( both staff and players). The University hires a new AD who's got a game plan for increasing our exposure and who's well regarded by his peers. He makes a decision concerning seating and the few posters who frequent this site go off the rails - some have questioned his transparency; other have decided to take their ball and go home (as in deciding to no longer contribute to the BAF,for example). Give the guy a chance. I'm willing to bet that given the chance, the basketball and athletic programs will really prosper under his stewardship. Let's concentrate on winning the war. Deuce, I have a feeling Tim just totally killed his relationships with the students. I have no problem with the seats if the students STILL show up. I really hope Tim has a plan to reconnect with the students, if the students don't take too kindly with this decision. I am in wait and see mode. If the students don't show up anymore, I will be pulling my monthly BAF contribution. Tim won't see a another dime from me as long as he is the AD. I will redistribute my BAF funds to my Bonaventure Fund monthly contribution.
|
|
|
Post by West End Stench on Jul 24, 2015 10:21:33 GMT -5
To be clear, he is selling the soul of the RC for $10,000 (the cost of the 15 seats in front of the student section). There is no mandate from the A10 to put those seats in (confirmed). And this decision was made after the A10 meetings in the end of May (confirmed). To be sure, this is just the beginning. Give an inch and he'll take a mile. When VIPs complain about the rowdy student section standing behind them, he relegate the students to the sections behind the basket, and probably to help justify the move, he'll speak about declining student attendance (which he helped manufacture). tkenney@sbu.edu (not sure this is the email; it's unlisted) 375-2282 gobonnies.sbu.edu/inside_athletics/staff-directory Dunga is correct that there is no current mandate from the A-10. I personally would prefer a Director of Athletics who had the spine to stand up to other A-10 teams complaining about our environment. Of course they're going to complain about our environment. It's hard to win in the RC. It's beyond troubling, especially without a specific conference mandate, that Kenney is more willing to placate the concerns of our rivals and opponents by upsetting the majority of our students, alumni and fans. Dunga is also correct that this was not a year-long decision as Kenney stated. Talk of this only began following his arrival. MOST TROUBLING is Kenney's constant contradiction of himself. This whole thing apparently is because of court access safety, but he's still willing to allow students to sit (or stand ahead of) the courtside seats as long as an alum or a GoFundMe pays for it. Kenney also told the BV that his entire department expected pushback on this decision. If that's the case, why did he say the following in the press release: "We are really excited to be able to offer these new seating options … we think these are extremely attractive seats which will appeal to our fans. Since I started (in April) we have looked at ways we can provide our fans the best possible experience when they come to the Reilly Center. This is just the start." So, to recap, Kenney expected everyone to be mad about it, but in the release he's touting the "appeal to our fans" with the seats? OK then. I was concerned about this decision from the moment it was released to the public. Since then, with the handling of the situation from the failed Q&A to some pretty ridiculous answers, I'm even more concerned and confused. If you're going to criticize Kenney on his lack of source from the A-10's "mandate", then you have to provide a specific source of your own to refute two things: 1) How do you know court control and safety wasn't a point of emphasis from the league? 2) How do you know this wasn't a year-long decision? I'm not necessarily refuting your claims, and you could very well be correct, but when you say things like "(confirmed)" and speak in absolutes, then you come off looking like a little bit of a lunatic. This goes for both you and Dunga. Provide some factual information. Otherwise you're just a random guy on a message board playing he-said-she-said.
|
|
ka
Junior Member
Posts: 317
|
Post by ka on Jul 24, 2015 10:25:34 GMT -5
I sadly pulled my BAF recurring donation today. Make sure you send a note telling them you're pulling it, the reason for pulling it, and what is needed to be done in order to have the donation be given in the future. Just pulling it doesn't do much good if it is not communicated. Others can do the same, or they could send a check in the mail that is filled out then write VOIDED over top of it in big bold letters letting them know that the check would have been sent, and will be sent, if the issue is rectified. The students can also conduct a protest. Has anyone ever been to a game at the RC when students are not there? It is not a very great atmosphere. Though pulling donations is a good thing to elicit a response. I would advise to either (1) transfer the gift to academics and let the Administration know you're pulling the athletic support or (2) hold the funds to be given later when the issue is resolved. I pulled it via an e-mail conversation I had with folks in the athletic department. It was clear why it was pulled. Frankly I'd double my donation amount if they reversed this decision.
|
|
|
Post by localfan on Jul 24, 2015 10:25:57 GMT -5
Dunga is correct that there is no current mandate from the A-10. I personally would prefer a Director of Athletics who had the spine to stand up to other A-10 teams complaining about our environment. Of course they're going to complain about our environment. It's hard to win in the RC. It's beyond troubling, especially without a specific conference mandate, that Kenney is more willing to placate the concerns of our rivals and opponents by upsetting the majority of our students, alumni and fans. Dunga is also correct that this was not a year-long decision as Kenney stated. Talk of this only began following his arrival. MOST TROUBLING is Kenney's constant contradiction of himself. This whole thing apparently is because of court access safety, but he's still willing to allow students to sit (or stand ahead of) the courtside seats as long as an alum or a GoFundMe pays for it. Kenney also told the BV that his entire department expected pushback on this decision. If that's the case, why did he say the following in the press release: "We are really excited to be able to offer these new seating options … we think these are extremely attractive seats which will appeal to our fans. Since I started (in April) we have looked at ways we can provide our fans the best possible experience when they come to the Reilly Center. This is just the start." So, to recap, Kenney expected everyone to be mad about it, but in the release he's touting the "appeal to our fans" with the seats? OK then. I was concerned about this decision from the moment it was released to the public. Since then, with the handling of the situation from the failed Q&A to some pretty ridiculous answers, I'm even more concerned and confused. If you're going to criticize Kenney on his lack of source from the A-10's "mandate", then you have to provide a specific source of your own to refute two things: 1) How do you know court control and safety wasn't a point of emphasis from the league? 2) How do you know this wasn't a year-long decision? I'm not necessarily refuting your claims, and you could very well be correct, but when you say things like "(confirmed)" and speak in absolutes, then you come off looking like a little bit of a lunatic. This goes for both you and Dunga. Provide some factual information. Otherwise you're just a random guy on a message board playing he-said-she-said. Seeing that I never once used the word "confirmed," I can't speak to your question on that. In fact, in an earlier post on this very thread, I made a point of saying I could not say unequivocally that it wasn't a year in the making. But why am I fairly sure that this wasn't a year-long decision? 1.) Tim Kenney said himself this is a NEW point of emphasis from the league, and 2.) I've spoken enough to a former AD of ours about the importance of students and home-court advantage to understand this was never a thought when he was here. To answer your other questions: 1.) I'm not denying court control or safety wasn't a point of emphasis. You're totally missing the boat on my point. I think it IS a point of emphasis, and therefore my question is why would Kenney still allow students to sit in the seats if alums pay for them? Also, the definition of point of emphasis compared to "mandate" are two totally different things. If you go back and re-read what I have consistently said (and quoting Dunga isn't an endorsement of his entire post), maybe I'll come off looking less of a lunatic to you.
|
|
|
Post by West End Stench on Jul 24, 2015 10:52:51 GMT -5
Seeing that I never once used the word "confirmed," I can't speak to your question on that. In fact, in an earlier post on this very thread, I made a point of saying I could not say unequivocally that it wasn't a year in the making. But why am I fairly sure that this wasn't a year-long decision? 1.) Tim Kenney said himself this is a NEW point of emphasis from the league, and 2.) I've spoken enough to a former AD of ours about the importance of students and home-court advantage to understand this was never a thought when he was here. To answer your other questions: 1.) I'm not denying court control or safety wasn't a point of emphasis. You're totally missing the boat on my point. I think it IS a point of emphasis, and therefore my question is why would Kenney still allow students to sit in the seats if alums pay for them? Also, the definition of point of emphasis compared to "mandate" are two totally different things. If you go back and re-read what I have consistently said (and quoting Dunga isn't an endorsement of his entire post), maybe I'll come off looking less of a lunatic to you. Thanks for clarifying. I'd still classify speaking to the former AD and drawing your own conclusion as a flawed leap in faith in the (former) administration at SBU...unless it was about this very specific topic. Let's not forget, these were the same folks that performed a hasty, forced banner raising ceremony of one of the best Bonnies of all time (and I'm not talking about Dana Mitchell...that's a whole other thing). Regarding the students in the courtside seats, I think there's a very clear difference between 15 (or more) reserved seats pushed together and a 1-to-1 student to seat ratio, compared to something similar to this: Kenney would be fine putting students in these seats because the department gets their money and there's an organized line of humans in the front row preventing access from the mob in the above photo.
|
|
|
Post by localfan on Jul 24, 2015 11:16:16 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying. I'd still classify speaking to the former AD and drawing your own conclusion as a flawed leap in faith in the (former) administration at SBU...unless it was about this very specific topic. Let's not forget, these were the same folks that performed a hasty, forced banner raising ceremony of one of the best Bonnies of all time (and I'm not talking about Dana Mitchell...that's a whole other thing). Regarding the students in the courtside seats, I think there's a very clear difference between 15 (or more) reserved seats pushed together and a 1-to-1 student to seat ratio, compared to something similar to this: Kenney would be fine putting students in these seats because the department gets their money and there's an organized line of humans in the front row preventing access from the mob in the above photo. I think that photo is a perfect representation of the unique atmosphere at the RC, and the reason so many people are upset that it will be changing. Not one student is disrupting the playing surface in that photo. But they're making the environment one-of-a-kind. I'll be sad to see that go.
|
|
|
Post by thegambler on Jul 24, 2015 11:29:54 GMT -5
Just imagine some VCU or Umass fan sitting infront of the student section cheering for their team. It'd be the shame of the Reilly Center.
A revolt among the alumni can't be good for a school that is CASH STRAPPED. A few thousand for seats when you have a pissed off alumni base can't be good for the bottom line.
awful PR IMHO
|
|
|
Post by sneakers on Jul 24, 2015 13:34:41 GMT -5
It's no wonder SBU has a tough time attracting talent ( both staff and players). The University hires a new AD who's got a game plan for increasing our exposure and who's well regarded by his peers. He makes a decision concerning seating and the few posters who frequent this site go off the rails - some have questioned his transparency; other have decided to take their ball and go home (as in deciding to no longer contribute to the BAF,for example). Give the guy a chance. I'm willing to bet that given the chance, the basketball and athletic programs will really prosper under his stewardship. Let's concentrate on winning the war. I agree. The over-reaction to this move is crazy. Pulling financial support over this is only making the situation worse. Do we really want to blow up the program over a minor move like this? I don't. The truth is that the status quo of unfettered access to the court as it has been at the RC is not acceptable to the league (I confirmed through my discussions with athletic dept personnel, and don't know why that differs from claims by other posters). The league is requiring a restriction to access between the crowd and the court. They are not mandating a row of seats, but that is simply the best alternative available as it will solve the issue while also bringing in much needed revenue. It will only move the students back one or two feet. In fact, students could sit in these seats (and that is not a contradiction as a dozen students with access to the court is a lot different than the access shown on the picture above). Could SBU ignore the league's point of emphasis? Maybe. But there is also legal liability to think about. SBU cannot wait until someone is hurt before making this changes when they are aware of the risks and have been told to take action. The picture above, while it looks awesome to you and me, looks like a legal problem waiting to happen. BTW, this new row of seats will not keep students from storming if they want to do so, but it will give the players and officials a little more time to get off the court if it is stormed and allow the security team to get on the court as well, thus minimizing confrontations or potential injuries to players and fans. It will not prohibit students from standing and being rowdy. If those who buy the seats don't like it they won't buy those tickets next year. It is almost laughable that people seem to think that there is a master plan to try to have fewer students attend games. In fact the new AD has some ideas to promote the games in order to increase attendance of students. Everyone knows that we needs students at these games. It helps our home court advantage and is a major selling point to potential future students. The world is not ending due to this small change. Let's all take a deep breath and see how it turns out. If it is actually the disaster that many of you predict, it is easy for these seats to be removed for the following season (they are basically folding chairs hooked together), and some other barrier inserted (a railing?). I for one will give TK the benefit of the doubt on this one and am willing to wait and see how it turns out. In fact, I will increase my BAF donation to let him know that there are supporters out there willing to make some changes to improve the financial prospects of the program.
|
|
|
Post by dadster81 on Jul 24, 2015 14:15:34 GMT -5
Sneakers, I disagree with several of your above statements. As someone once said to me when I was entering a nursing home facility, "remember this is the residence's house. Treat it as such."
In my mind, that space belongs to the students, not some fan willing to shell out $. The first time the language gets saltier than the fans want to hear in the front row, the noise levels gets too loud, students maybe lean on the seats - there will be a response from the school. And I just don't see the school ruling in the students' favor.
While I am technically challenged, if someone was able to put up a survey of would they rather see a fence, or fan seating, in front of the student body, I bet the response will be overwhelmingly put in a fence.
I would rather give up the $, have a fence, and let the students have their "house". Their role in the BB games is one of the things that make Bonaventure special, and created so many memories for us alumni. I can see it now, some 70 year old grandmother will be turning around to tell students to watch their mouth, their granddaughter is sitting there. And then she complains to the school, . . . . For money. Make sure you send in extra money to cover my Bona Athletics contribution, too.
|
|
|
Post by tomgleason on Jul 24, 2015 14:29:24 GMT -5
Boycott the opening games, men's and women's NIT games
|
|
|
Post by commie21 on Jul 24, 2015 14:55:02 GMT -5
Boycott the opening games, men's and women's NIT games As far as dumb posts in the history of the Bannedwagon go, this is an all-timer.
|
|
|
Post by sneakers on Jul 24, 2015 14:57:39 GMT -5
And we wonder why the program seems to be mired in mediocrity. We have a very exciting recruiting class coming in to add depth to our emerging stars. We are for the first time in a long time not expected to finish toward the bottom of the league in the preseason polls. Our coach signed a contract extension. The school is working on a new modern video scoreboard. We have a new AD who is focused on closing the financial gap between us and the rest of the league. Wouldn't it be nice if these new seats in front of the student section could be occupied primarily by students? Yet on this "Bandwagon" we are so butt-hurt by a change in seating that the small minded among us are pulling financial support and call for a boycott of games. And yet all we could muster to raise as a group of irrate "super fans" in the "GoFundMe" efforts is enough to buy two freaking seats. We would rather just stamp our feet and take our ball home than to donate some money to address a change that we don't like? Pathetic. Is it any wonder that our program has gone backward for the past several decades?
BTW, I am buying two seats personally and donating them for use by students and/or prospective students (and no, I never had season tickets before so this purchase is not just moving from another area of the RC). So, now we are up to four seats for students. Anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by route16 on Jul 24, 2015 15:27:49 GMT -5
www.thebvnewspaper.com/2015/07/23/kenney-speaks-bonas-ad-gives-insights-into-new-seating-in-rc/Nice coverage from BV EIC Amelia Kibbe during her summer vacation. As I think about this, I'm more convinced that the A10 leadership and our A10 colleagues are the driving force and the status quo was not going to remain an option for long. I appreciate the department's efforts to try and make the best of the situation with revenue-generating seats rather than a worthless fence, which would add nothing to the experience or aesthetic of an outdated facility. As TK said in Ms. Kibbe's piece, "If [the seating] is not a right decision, we can make a change." Props to TK for owning the issue and putting himself out there for evisceration via online chat. That's more than we've gotten in the past.
|
|
|
Post by thesenator on Jul 24, 2015 16:00:00 GMT -5
And we wonder why the program has been mired in mediocrity. We have a very exciting recruiting class coming in to add depth to our emerging stars. We are for the first time in a long time not expected to finish toward the bottom of the league in the preseason polls. Our coach signed a contract extension. The school is working on a new modern video scoreboard. We have a new AD who is focused on closing the financial gap between us and the rest of the league. Yet on this "Bandwagon" we are so butt-hurt by a change in seating that the small minded among us are pulling financial support and call for a boycott of games. And yet all we could muster to raise as a group of irrate super fans in the "GoFundMe" efforts is enough to buy two freaking seats. We would rather just stamp our feet and take our ball home than to donate some money to address a change that we don't like? Pathetic. Is it any wonder that our program has gone backward for the past several decades? BTW, I am buying two seats personally and donating them for use by students and prospective students (and no, I never had season tickets before so this purchase is not just moving from another area of the RC). So, now we are up to four seats for students. Anyone else? way to go, sneakers...and i hope that your seats that go to prospective students will be the impetus for them to become full-time bona students...and when they do they (and us) will have you to thank...
|
|