NU falls to Vermont, 67-65
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Joined
·
36 Posts
WOW. What a fun game; I don't know how NU was able to keep Coppenrath in check in the first half, OR why they came out so flat to start the second half, and ESPECIALLY HOW IN THE NAME OF JEBUS they came back to tie it late, but it made for the most exciting game of the year.
I'm not sure how the game came across on TV, but that was the loudest I have EVER heard Cabot Gym. It's games like this that are the reason I hope they keep games in there; it may "look" like a high school gym, but it packs a punch when the fans come and are into it.
With that said, it's deflating for a fan who's waiting for this university to not just get to the verge of reaching the next level, but winning the defining game to get there. Football's been able to do it, but it's either hockey falling to Lowell and ending the season or hoops dropping momentum games to Vermont and BU. It especially hurts as a home loss; when was the last time NU won an important home game? Can't remember any myself over the last 3 or four years.
I don't want to take away from the team's performance; and this was a great game not just for the teams, but for the fans and for the conference. But it's a game where NU lost its momentum once the second half started.
I'm not sure how the game came across on TV, but that was the loudest I have EVER heard Cabot Gym. It's games like this that are the reason I hope they keep games in there; it may "look" like a high school gym, but it packs a punch when the fans come and are into it.
With that said, it's deflating for a fan who's waiting for this university to not just get to the verge of reaching the next level, but winning the defining game to get there. Football's been able to do it, but it's either hockey falling to Lowell and ending the season or hoops dropping momentum games to Vermont and BU. It especially hurts as a home loss; when was the last time NU won an important home game? Can't remember any myself over the last 3 or four years.
I don't want to take away from the team's performance; and this was a great game not just for the teams, but for the fans and for the conference. But it's a game where NU lost its momentum once the second half started.
I agree with you guys about the crowd ... it was terrific and definitely bothered Vermont down the stretch when the Cats made some careless turnovers under pressure. But I disagree about Cabot. The place is second rate and that crowd in Matthews would have been nice alongside the BU game a couple of weeks ago. The BU game was a great atmosphere and the crowd seemed to enjoy. Today we sat on top of each other and there were a couple of hundred people forced to stand because there was nowhere to sit. And I wouldn't be surprised if some people saw the mess outside and decided not to stay at all.
Now for the game, I couldn't agree more with Satchmo. I like how you referred to this and the BU game as "momentum games." That's a perfect way of putting it. NU has to find a way to win some of these games if it truly wants to be considered a legitimate threat for the title.
I have a friend I go to the games with and as we were walking out he said it really isn't all that bad because you have to win the tournament anyway and NU can definitely beat UVM and BU. That's true, I said, but until NU starts winning some of these close games against these teams, I don't have much confidence that the tournament is the place everything all of sudden clicks. Aside from beating Vermont at home last year, they haven't been able to capitalize on a growing fanbase that seems to be dying to jump aboard a bandwagon.
It was a terrific game, both teams played very hard and even though there was a definite edge to both teams' play, there was very little in the way of overly physical (chippy) play. That said, I have to comment of the shoddy officiating. And before the UVMers start attacking me, I thought it stunk both ways. There were two offensive fouls on Vermont in the first half that a high school ref wouldn't have called. (The one that Cornellius Wright drew was worthy of making a "what not to do" tape for officials seminars.)
The foul underneath the NU basket with 10 seconds left with the teams battling for possession in a 1-point game was laughable. The moron with the army crewcut (the one who smiles at whichever coach happens to have the audacity to question one of his calls) calls a ticky tack foul on that play to give Vermont free throws, then they swallow their whistles on the final possession and let Barea get bumped twice. I have no problem with Barea not getting a foul called (there probably wasn't one, as there wasn't at the other end) provided they hadn't called a highly questionable one on NU just seconds before. Overall, I'd say these officials had a hard time keeping up with two teams that treated every possession like the last one of the season. Too bad Chris Monasch can't seemed to get this obvious weakness in an otherwise improving league straightened out. Again, not pro or con either side ... just bad overall.
Now for the game, I couldn't agree more with Satchmo. I like how you referred to this and the BU game as "momentum games." That's a perfect way of putting it. NU has to find a way to win some of these games if it truly wants to be considered a legitimate threat for the title.
I have a friend I go to the games with and as we were walking out he said it really isn't all that bad because you have to win the tournament anyway and NU can definitely beat UVM and BU. That's true, I said, but until NU starts winning some of these close games against these teams, I don't have much confidence that the tournament is the place everything all of sudden clicks. Aside from beating Vermont at home last year, they haven't been able to capitalize on a growing fanbase that seems to be dying to jump aboard a bandwagon.
It was a terrific game, both teams played very hard and even though there was a definite edge to both teams' play, there was very little in the way of overly physical (chippy) play. That said, I have to comment of the shoddy officiating. And before the UVMers start attacking me, I thought it stunk both ways. There were two offensive fouls on Vermont in the first half that a high school ref wouldn't have called. (The one that Cornellius Wright drew was worthy of making a "what not to do" tape for officials seminars.)
The foul underneath the NU basket with 10 seconds left with the teams battling for possession in a 1-point game was laughable. The moron with the army crewcut (the one who smiles at whichever coach happens to have the audacity to question one of his calls) calls a ticky tack foul on that play to give Vermont free throws, then they swallow their whistles on the final possession and let Barea get bumped twice. I have no problem with Barea not getting a foul called (there probably wasn't one, as there wasn't at the other end) provided they hadn't called a highly questionable one on NU just seconds before. Overall, I'd say these officials had a hard time keeping up with two teams that treated every possession like the last one of the season. Too bad Chris Monasch can't seemed to get this obvious weakness in an otherwise improving league straightened out. Again, not pro or con either side ... just bad overall.
Joined
·
3,525 Posts
I tried to listen to the game while working. Even the UVM anouncers said that UVM and NU both had the benefit of some bad calls. The announcers also said the crowd was aproaching 50% for NU and 50% for UVM, any truth to that? From the crowd noise on the radio it sounded pretty accurate. One of the announcers got pissed off in the first when NU was on offense and while Barnes had the ball he threw an elbow at Njila, it sounded like a not so obvious dirty play, just wondering what some one who saw the game thinks about it? I believe there was an offensive foul called on Barnes because of it or just after it if I remember correctly.
I have to hand it to UVM. They played Basketball today and didn't let the game at Patrick Gym effect them. It sounded like they were a class act.
I guess Scotty Jones has messed up knees so that's why he didn't play much. All I have to say is good thing Klimes is playing well and Sheftic is back.
Did anybody see how Sorrentine got a bloody lip? It happened really early. Radio guys didn't see anything.
I have to hand it to UVM. They played Basketball today and didn't let the game at Patrick Gym effect them. It sounded like they were a class act.
I guess Scotty Jones has messed up knees so that's why he didn't play much. All I have to say is good thing Klimes is playing well and Sheftic is back.
Did anybody see how Sorrentine got a bloody lip? It happened really early. Radio guys didn't see anything.
Joined
·
5,210 Posts
Saw the game on TV, couldn't make it to the game as the wife had the audacity to schedule her sister's 40th Birthday party for 3:30 on Sunday. Not technically grounds for divorce but..
In answer to your questions, from the view in my living room, the crowd looked to be 50/50, but the cameas were focused behind the benches, so it was hard to see what was on the other side of the court.
The Barnes/Nijila play was a case of Nijila was playing in your face D in front of the UVM bench and Barnes raised his arms over his head with the ball to try to get some distance between him and Nijila, and moved his arms back and forth to try to create space the refs properly called an offensive foul. Wasn't dirty at all, and I don't think even the announcers thought it was a dirty play. He didn't "throw an elbow" as you indicate, or would imply, it was a play during the game and the proper foul was called.
From the view on TV, Sorrentine got bumped, and got a bloody lip, again, the announcers didn't make a comment as to the nature other than "He got bumped."
NU needs to win an America East defining game, no doubt, and I know the coaching staff realizes it as well. I think the BC and WVU games were defining games for the program, but to this point the team hasn't really won a game it needed to when it matters.
The refereeing early on was ticky tack, and close, and I think the refs did it to send a message. I think you'd have to be smoking something if you didn't think that they'd call it close early on. However, some of those offensive fouls on both ends were questionable at best.
In case you didn't notice, these weren't the "Typical" AE Refs. Gotta give the AE some credit here in bringing in pretty good refs who were - consistent, until the last NU possession.
Watch the replay again, and if you read the Boston Globe article this morning, both the game report and Dan Shaughnessy's column indicate Kelly was held and Barea was bumped.
There was also a breakaway Youmans had in the first half where it was clear he was grabbed by the UVM defender and because the refs were trailing the play by such a long distance, they didn't see it.
I'm thinking we'll see NU-UVM, Part III.
In answer to your questions, from the view in my living room, the crowd looked to be 50/50, but the cameas were focused behind the benches, so it was hard to see what was on the other side of the court.
The Barnes/Nijila play was a case of Nijila was playing in your face D in front of the UVM bench and Barnes raised his arms over his head with the ball to try to get some distance between him and Nijila, and moved his arms back and forth to try to create space the refs properly called an offensive foul. Wasn't dirty at all, and I don't think even the announcers thought it was a dirty play. He didn't "throw an elbow" as you indicate, or would imply, it was a play during the game and the proper foul was called.
From the view on TV, Sorrentine got bumped, and got a bloody lip, again, the announcers didn't make a comment as to the nature other than "He got bumped."
NU needs to win an America East defining game, no doubt, and I know the coaching staff realizes it as well. I think the BC and WVU games were defining games for the program, but to this point the team hasn't really won a game it needed to when it matters.
The refereeing early on was ticky tack, and close, and I think the refs did it to send a message. I think you'd have to be smoking something if you didn't think that they'd call it close early on. However, some of those offensive fouls on both ends were questionable at best.
In case you didn't notice, these weren't the "Typical" AE Refs. Gotta give the AE some credit here in bringing in pretty good refs who were - consistent, until the last NU possession.
Watch the replay again, and if you read the Boston Globe article this morning, both the game report and Dan Shaughnessy's column indicate Kelly was held and Barea was bumped.
There was also a breakaway Youmans had in the first half where it was clear he was grabbed by the UVM defender and because the refs were trailing the play by such a long distance, they didn't see it.
I'm thinking we'll see NU-UVM, Part III.
I agree about the obvious foul on Kelly that wasn't called...why aren't these types of fouls being called at the end of tight games? this is a question that has bothered me for a while.
I'm curious about what posters think of the way a lot (I'm specifically speaking of this game and the most recent 2 BU/UVM games that were decided by a basket...I'm sure there are other AE games where this has happened as well) of close games are called in the last 5-10 seconds. (It seems it's just in this league but maybe I'm wrong).
The secenario is: one team is up by a point or two with a few seconds left when the trailing team gets the ball for the last shot. The defending team (who is ahead) makes an obvious foul (that was not intentional but never the less a foul) that would have been called (and has been called) at any other point in the game. But it's not called, and the team that was ahead wins. Sometimes more than one foul occurs, but none are called.
If the team that fouled was behind (and fouled to stop the clock to give them a chance to get the ball back), you know that foul would be called, no matter how few seconds were left. It's still the same obvious but not "intentional" foul (because if the foul was deemed "intentional" there'd be a different result)...but in one case it's called (giving neither side an advantage but both sides a chance to win the game) and in the other scenario the non call favors (unfairly) the team that is a head.
Is this condoned in the reffing rule book? Is it an unwritten law? Or is it just bad reffing? What you said about them not being typical AE refs makes me wonder. I used to think it was just bad reffing and fear of taking a stand.
The crowd was about 25% VT and 75% NU. Almost all of the section behind the Vermont bench was Vermont...but thats less than 20% of capacity. There were another fifty or so vermont fans sprinkled around the arena. Near the end of the game when one of the big shots were made you could see who the Vt fans were and who the NU fans were because they were ALL on their feet cheering. Someone commented that it was amazing that it looked like 75 to 80 per cent NU. It was a GREAT atmosphere. This was a terrific opportunity to create some new NU fans. There were lots of students there and a win would have brought them back for the next game but we blew it. I'm getting a little tired of relying on our athleticism. Someone should show these guys how to block out. There's no way we should give them 12 offensive rebounds. They did a great job of blocking out.....which is why we got only three.
I agree with NUGrad that it was closer to 75-25 NU to UVM as far as fans were concerned. The area behind the Vermont bench was entirely made up of Vermont people, but with very few exceptions that was about it. The TV rarely showed the areas behind the baskets, and the hundreds that were standing by the entrance, that was entirely NU people. A great crowd, Vermont always travels well and they were into it from the start, and for once the Huskies' supporters responded.
As for the game, I'm glad to see some agreed with my post about the officiating. Something needs to be done here. I'm not sure what the "not typical AE refs" remark from NU Hoops Fan means. I've seen those guys before, especially the older one with the Army buzzcut. He in particular irks me because of his on court demeanor, which always appears pompous and arrogant. He's always smirking at the coaches when they question a call -- he did it to both Everhart and Brennan on Sunday. In my mind, a ref should either take the time to explain a call (my preferred course of action) or simply ignore a coach's pleas. But to condescendingly dismiss any questions is wrong.
I also agree with the assessments of the elbows. Barnes didn't "throw an elbow" as a dirty play. The defender was in tight on him, maybe even too tight, and Barnes hit him with his elbow in an effort to create space. It was definitely a foul on Barnes and was called correctly. However, a couple of possessions later Barnes was called for an offensive foul where he was dribbling about 40 feet from the basket from side to side when a Vermont player (I think it was Coppenrath) jumped out on him. Barnes stopped as he barely made contact with him and started back the other way. The player barely moved backward let alone got knocked over and the officials called a charge. Dreadful call. And the Youmans non-call was also an obvious miss ... he was off to the races when he got banged into at midcourt, which caused the defense to catch up and prevented an easy basket.
As for the Kelly non-call at the end ... like I said earlier, I'd be fine with that if they hadn't called a foul on NU at the other end to give Vermont free throws. It was a held ball situation and they somehow came out of that with a foul. Ticky tack at best, then the game is on the line at the other end and anything short of murder was going to be allowed. It's not right.
As for the game, I'm glad to see some agreed with my post about the officiating. Something needs to be done here. I'm not sure what the "not typical AE refs" remark from NU Hoops Fan means. I've seen those guys before, especially the older one with the Army buzzcut. He in particular irks me because of his on court demeanor, which always appears pompous and arrogant. He's always smirking at the coaches when they question a call -- he did it to both Everhart and Brennan on Sunday. In my mind, a ref should either take the time to explain a call (my preferred course of action) or simply ignore a coach's pleas. But to condescendingly dismiss any questions is wrong.
I also agree with the assessments of the elbows. Barnes didn't "throw an elbow" as a dirty play. The defender was in tight on him, maybe even too tight, and Barnes hit him with his elbow in an effort to create space. It was definitely a foul on Barnes and was called correctly. However, a couple of possessions later Barnes was called for an offensive foul where he was dribbling about 40 feet from the basket from side to side when a Vermont player (I think it was Coppenrath) jumped out on him. Barnes stopped as he barely made contact with him and started back the other way. The player barely moved backward let alone got knocked over and the officials called a charge. Dreadful call. And the Youmans non-call was also an obvious miss ... he was off to the races when he got banged into at midcourt, which caused the defense to catch up and prevented an easy basket.
As for the Kelly non-call at the end ... like I said earlier, I'd be fine with that if they hadn't called a foul on NU at the other end to give Vermont free throws. It was a held ball situation and they somehow came out of that with a foul. Ticky tack at best, then the game is on the line at the other end and anything short of murder was going to be allowed. It's not right.
Joined
·
1,811 Posts
I'd like to think that I'm an objective observer and I'm going to give my humble opinion. I saw the Vermont player get tripled teamed and get thrown to the floor. Hardly what I'd call "ticky tack". I didn't watch the replay to see if UVM fouled on that last play, but they probably did because virtually every play has a foul with all the grabbing, hand checking, shirt holding, bumping, etc., involved with today's game.
BTW, I think one of the refs also did the recent UNH at NU game. And my memory isn't that he was excellent during that game. Maybe, they brought in two other guys to go with one of the usual AE refs.
Sheftic looked like hadn't played in awhile. He'll be fine by tourney time.
On the Kelly foul.....I couldn't see it from where I was but the Globe reporter, Dan Shaughnessy, was at a table not ten feet from where the play took place. Personally, I can't blame the loss on one missed foul.
On the Kelly foul.....I couldn't see it from where I was but the Globe reporter, Dan Shaughnessy, was at a table not ten feet from where the play took place. Personally, I can't blame the loss on one missed foul.
Drew
As an NU supporter let me say I thought it was great to see Sheftic even out on the floor. I gave him a hand when he checked in during the first half (although I wasn't screaming like schoolgirls would if Tom Brady walked into the room like the UVM crowd did). It's too bad he wasn't rightfully granted another year of eligibilty.
As for his play, he looked a little overweight and slow. I'm sure it's just rust from all the inactivity, but as far as him giving Vermont any really meaningful minutes, it looked to me (granted not an informed opinion as an NU backer) he's still a few weeks away. But just the fact that he was out there had to have given the Cats a lift.
To UNH ... I have to disagree with your assessment of "getting thrown to the floor." Before there was any contact, there was a held ball that wasn't called. Two players were holding the ball and that momentum caused the UVM player to fall, not any "throwing to the floor." But as I said in the earlier post, if that foul was called, then one had to be called at the other end. A Vermont player first bump[ed Barea on his drive then another pulled down on Kelly's arm as he was going to shoot. I'm OK with either non-call if not for the play at the other end. Either both were fouls or neither was. But not one without the other. A clear inconsistency and that's what coaches hate most.
As an NU supporter let me say I thought it was great to see Sheftic even out on the floor. I gave him a hand when he checked in during the first half (although I wasn't screaming like schoolgirls would if Tom Brady walked into the room like the UVM crowd did). It's too bad he wasn't rightfully granted another year of eligibilty.
As for his play, he looked a little overweight and slow. I'm sure it's just rust from all the inactivity, but as far as him giving Vermont any really meaningful minutes, it looked to me (granted not an informed opinion as an NU backer) he's still a few weeks away. But just the fact that he was out there had to have given the Cats a lift.
To UNH ... I have to disagree with your assessment of "getting thrown to the floor." Before there was any contact, there was a held ball that wasn't called. Two players were holding the ball and that momentum caused the UVM player to fall, not any "throwing to the floor." But as I said in the earlier post, if that foul was called, then one had to be called at the other end. A Vermont player first bump[ed Barea on his drive then another pulled down on Kelly's arm as he was going to shoot. I'm OK with either non-call if not for the play at the other end. Either both were fouls or neither was. But not one without the other. A clear inconsistency and that's what coaches hate most.
Correction on Sheftic
He was actually granted a 6th year by the NCAA, but he has chosen to enlist in the Army after the end of this year, which had been his post-college plan all along. There was some speculation on this board that his turning down the 6th year had to do with enrollment issues in graduate school, which may or may not be true, but either way the NCAA actually did a *good* thing for once, but Sheftic declined.
He was actually granted a 6th year by the NCAA, but he has chosen to enlist in the Army after the end of this year, which had been his post-college plan all along. There was some speculation on this board that his turning down the 6th year had to do with enrollment issues in graduate school, which may or may not be true, but either way the NCAA actually did a *good* thing for once, but Sheftic declined.
Joined
·
1,811 Posts
Pip,
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one because I didn't see momentum causing the UVM player to fall. I admit that I was watching on TV which isn't always the best view, but I still say that out of that triple team somebody fouled the UVM player and IMHO looked like he was thrown to the floor.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one because I didn't see momentum causing the UVM player to fall. I admit that I was watching on TV which isn't always the best view, but I still say that out of that triple team somebody fouled the UVM player and IMHO looked like he was thrown to the floor.
Joined
·
5,210 Posts
I watched the replay of the held ball again (gotta love having a conference room in the office with a frame by frame VCR), and here's what I saw..
There was a held ball, and when it wasn't called the UVM kid got dumped on the floor when the 2 other NU kids converged. Now, does that constitute a foul, I guess in the ref's minds it was, but if anything, they were slow to call the held ball, and then were quick to call the foul when Klimes (I think that's who it was) tried to wrestle the ball free.
I just showed the tape to a guy in my office who's a BC alum and he said to me... "Foul, yep. Should they have called a held ball before the foul, yep."
There was a held ball, and when it wasn't called the UVM kid got dumped on the floor when the 2 other NU kids converged. Now, does that constitute a foul, I guess in the ref's minds it was, but if anything, they were slow to call the held ball, and then were quick to call the foul when Klimes (I think that's who it was) tried to wrestle the ball free.
I just showed the tape to a guy in my office who's a BC alum and he said to me... "Foul, yep. Should they have called a held ball before the foul, yep."
Fair enough UNH ... and thanks for the info GoCatsGo, I thought he wasn't granted the sixth year. I know that happened to a backup guard at NU maned Derrell Keys. He transferred to NU a few years back, ripped us his knee and player last season. He hoped to be granted a sixth year because of several knee injuries but was denied. I thought I heard the same about Sheftic but I guess I heard wrong.
Attendance ?
I didn't see the game on TV, but if the place was packed (as it sounds like it was) how were there 2,089 people there? The "listed" capacity of Cabot is 2,000 and it probably only actually seats 1,000-1,200 people.
Anyone close to the NU program, has there ever been talk of adding a second ring of seats above the floor and having a stairway up to them? I think that place would be awesome if they did something like that.
I didn't see the game on TV, but if the place was packed (as it sounds like it was) how were there 2,089 people there? The "listed" capacity of Cabot is 2,000 and it probably only actually seats 1,000-1,200 people.
Anyone close to the NU program, has there ever been talk of adding a second ring of seats above the floor and having a stairway up to them? I think that place would be awesome if they did something like that.
I'm told by someone who actually went around and counted each and every seat at Cabot that it holds 1,500 and change. If that's accurate, the 2,089 is very plausible given the number of people standing around the court. Is that number padded??? Probably, but not by much, as if often intimated by many on this board. The place was jam packed and unless the 1,500 number is way off, the 2,089 sounds about right.
As far as adding seats ... the real solution for NU is to somehow find a way to make 2,089 and 2,800-plus for BU earlier the norm and not the exception. Play the games at Matthews, which is a terrific place to watch any game. It's a great building with available parking much closer than Cabot. It's certainly a hockey-first building, but watching basketball there is pretty enjoyable too. If they keep getting 500 for everyone else, then play BU and UVM at Matthews (plus any attractive non-conference opponents like URI last year). My opinion is every time they've played a game at Matthews recently the crowds have been bigger than Cabot could have accommodated. They should play at Matthews.
As far as adding seats ... the real solution for NU is to somehow find a way to make 2,089 and 2,800-plus for BU earlier the norm and not the exception. Play the games at Matthews, which is a terrific place to watch any game. It's a great building with available parking much closer than Cabot. It's certainly a hockey-first building, but watching basketball there is pretty enjoyable too. If they keep getting 500 for everyone else, then play BU and UVM at Matthews (plus any attractive non-conference opponents like URI last year). My opinion is every time they've played a game at Matthews recently the crowds have been bigger than Cabot could have accommodated. They should play at Matthews.
Joined
·
5,210 Posts
Cabot
When NU "renovated" Cabot prior to the 1999-2000 season, the talk was to put a viewing box behind one of the baskets (kind of like they have at Hartford along the sidelines with VIP seating, etc. This would have added a few hundred "luxury" seats and some private boxes. However, when they tore open the guts of Cabot, they had to upgrade all of the wiring, plumbing, etc. from what was code in 1956 to 2000 building code, and that's where the extra cash that was supposed to be spent on the additional seating was used. The cost to put the viewing box, etc behind that one basket is mid to high six figures, and I'm sure if some alum wanted to donate the money, it could be done.
A renovated Cabot was supposed to have 2,500-3,000 seats (at least that's what the blueprint I have says), but once they gutted the buidling the new building codes wouldn't allow them to have bleachers at such a steep angle as they have now (for example, if UNH redid Lundholm or UVM redid Patrick, chances are you wouldn't have such large, steep roll away bleachers as they're not up to most buidling codes). That cost NU about 1,000 seats.
As for putting a second ring around Cabot, I don't think it can be done on the side of the gym behind the benches because that's the outer wall. You conceptually could do it behind the other sideline, but with the angles of seats required, you couldn't do more than 200-300 seats, at a very steep price.
I've always been a proponent of playing games in the Solomon Cage. You could get about 3,500 seats in there, if done properly, but that would cost the indoor track and baseball teams a place to practice.
I was told last night that the actual "seating" in Cabot is 1,450 and there were about 500 standees, to give NU the 2,000 number. The original building certificate was 1,200, then they added the short bleachers under the basket near the visiting team's bench.
NU will play about 4-5 games a year at the Arena starting next year. I know the thoughts are to play BU, UVM, and at least 2 non-conference games at the rink.
The Arena actually is a GREAT place to watch a game if you sit in the first 2-3 rows of the balcony. It is reminiscent of watching a game in the old Boston Garden.
When NU "renovated" Cabot prior to the 1999-2000 season, the talk was to put a viewing box behind one of the baskets (kind of like they have at Hartford along the sidelines with VIP seating, etc. This would have added a few hundred "luxury" seats and some private boxes. However, when they tore open the guts of Cabot, they had to upgrade all of the wiring, plumbing, etc. from what was code in 1956 to 2000 building code, and that's where the extra cash that was supposed to be spent on the additional seating was used. The cost to put the viewing box, etc behind that one basket is mid to high six figures, and I'm sure if some alum wanted to donate the money, it could be done.
A renovated Cabot was supposed to have 2,500-3,000 seats (at least that's what the blueprint I have says), but once they gutted the buidling the new building codes wouldn't allow them to have bleachers at such a steep angle as they have now (for example, if UNH redid Lundholm or UVM redid Patrick, chances are you wouldn't have such large, steep roll away bleachers as they're not up to most buidling codes). That cost NU about 1,000 seats.
As for putting a second ring around Cabot, I don't think it can be done on the side of the gym behind the benches because that's the outer wall. You conceptually could do it behind the other sideline, but with the angles of seats required, you couldn't do more than 200-300 seats, at a very steep price.
I've always been a proponent of playing games in the Solomon Cage. You could get about 3,500 seats in there, if done properly, but that would cost the indoor track and baseball teams a place to practice.
I was told last night that the actual "seating" in Cabot is 1,450 and there were about 500 standees, to give NU the 2,000 number. The original building certificate was 1,200, then they added the short bleachers under the basket near the visiting team's bench.
NU will play about 4-5 games a year at the Arena starting next year. I know the thoughts are to play BU, UVM, and at least 2 non-conference games at the rink.
The Arena actually is a GREAT place to watch a game if you sit in the first 2-3 rows of the balcony. It is reminiscent of watching a game in the old Boston Garden.
I've heard many of the same details NU Hoop Fan just recounted. The original plan was for many more seats and in fact the old Cabot fit much more than the new configuration does. But with the limitations placed on Cabot with codes and other factors, it makes no sense to play anywhere other than the Arena. Cabot represents an outstanding practice facility for the program that was badly needed with great locker rooms, training areas and film rooms. It had to be done, but playing home games there borders on embarrassing. It's a high school gym ... in fact it holds less than my high school's gym.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!