in DC. guarantee sellouts

as some seem to be advocating. ** Edited by Vippie1 at 3/4/2026, 4:20:11 PM

found out Cassell is fine. An old alum went to a bball game for the first time in a long time and it looked good to him so I need to shut up and color...

I think the 7-8k range would be fine.

likely face similar issues with a Cassell 2.0 that size because it won't select a design that could be easily expandable to meet future needs. Particularly when you compare the design JMU opted to go with for its Convo Center 2.0 in terms of both potential expansion in capacity and/or amenities. If VT is determined to continue competing at the P2/P4 level in the "new NCAA" (once the re-org is officially announce), then could VT find itself quickly "outgrowing" a 7-8K Cassell 2.0 because the P2/P4 requirements have changed? ** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 3/5/2026, 10:27:56 AM

Nor do I think we are getting any major concerts. I know the Metallica concert planted that bug in some people's heads, but I don't think that's likely. If/when we build a new one, our focus should be making it the best basketball homecourt advantage we can while increasing revenue from suites/club seats, etc. Our focus should not be on concerts, because that's not likely IMO.

entertain as an easy way for an arena to earn extra money in the gaps of the primary tenant's events. It is fine if VT opts not to pursue it even though it could be extra money left on the table. However, I was thinking more in terms of "new requirements" in the NCAA 2.0 which could force VT to renovate Cassell 2.0 so soon after construction. It could some as simple as attendance like you currently see in football or the P2/P4s agree to sponsor certain sports because the P4s, the Big East, and maybe 1 or 2 other non-football conferences formed a new DI within the NCAA 2.0. If the P4s want to limit how much money is shared with the rest of DI schools and the DII/DIII schools that compete at DI level in certain non-revenue sports, then requiring the existing P4 schools to sponsor a core group of sports could be a solution to the number of participating schools problem. If men's and women's ice hockey makes the core sports list (because it is important to the Big Ten) and VT wants to continue as a P4 school, then it has 3 options; renovate Cassell 2.0 so hockey can play there, build a hockey arena, or find an existing arena that would satisfy the requirement. The usage of an arena in Roanoke or Salem may only be a temporary solution until VT figures out whether it wants to build a new one or renovate Cassell 2.0. One reason I picked ice hockey is because it is one of the few sports that is heavily depended upon non-P4 schools to satisfy the participation requirement. Water polo is the other sport that immediately comes to mind. Even if the P4s aren't necessarily looking to form their own division level within the NCAA, it may have gotten to a point where things aren't really that much different than how they were in 1971 when the schools formed the 3 division levels. Because of Title IX, what does that mean for the non-revenue sports? Do the P4s allow the non-P4s to compete at the new DI level in those sports, but not in the 2 revenue sports? Or are the P4s forced to make a clean break altogether? The clean break could force schools to sponsor sports they normally wouldn't consider because they want to remain a P4 school. If VT already decided its plans for Cassell 2.0 before this change occurred and it gave itself no wiggle room, then VT could have screwed itself to some degree.

And they should. But they shouldn't design the arena thinking that they'll get them. Design it for basketball. Anything beyond that is gravy. Harlem Globetrotters would be cool. They come to Roanoke.

nice to see VT become one of their regular stops too. It is too bad they no longer appear on TV like they did in '80s.

The Pinnacle Bank Arena was a joint project between the city of Lincoln and the University of Nebraska. It is set up for basketball, volleyball, ice hockey, boxing, and concerts. It seats 15,500 for basketball, but you wouldn't need to go that big. It includes luxury suites and some convention meeting rooms, etc. Btw, although near the campus (it's at least a mile away from dorms - which is a cold walk for January), it is not on campus. I'm not convinced that Cassell 2.0 would need to be on campus. I believe it is jointly owned and managed by a third party.

However, there may be times where VT has a temporary need at various times. If VT goes with a design that includes the built in space for a max capacity of 15,500, then VT can bring in temporary seating when it needs to bump the capacity up beyond the 7-8K and still use the space for other things on a daily basis. It could be similar to how Syracuse utilizes the space within the Jiffy Pop Dome differently depending on if it is football or basketball season. At the very least it should give VT a lot of flexibility to adapt to any future changes that come down the pike without being forced to dip into the checkbook because VT already has space to play with.

extra space is placed on edge or corners using Cassell's configuration, then it could be used for extra temporary concession stands. JMU opted to add a wall that could be easily torn down to permanently expand the capacity when it built the Atlantic Union Bank Center (aka Convo Center 2.0). Right now JMU is using the wall to hang its banners, but their AD said that space could be used for other things too (ads?). If JMU did replace the wall with seats, then it would have minimal impact to the open area underneath the wall. I think the article in the DN-R said the ceiling for the open space might have to be slightly adjusted to align with the slope of the support section for the seats. My point is that VT could design a Cassell 2.0 that gives itself options in the future just like what JMU has done with the Convo Center 2.0. Instead of building a new arena that only addresses the immediate needs with no planning for the future and end up in the same situation VT is in right now with Cassell. Even you would agree the only reason the Jiffy Pop Dome has that much more extra space is because the same venue is used for football. Whereas JMU's extra space is really that wall and maybe a few areas in the concourse part of the arena.

People who say "Cassell is just fine as is" remind me of Babcock's infamous quote that "weights weigh the same". Cassell is severely outdated, from the lighting to the sound system to the scoreboards to the concessions to the concourses to the gates to the ticket windows to the restrooms. It looks and feels exactly like what it is, which is a building that was designed and constructed based on the aesthetics and fan expectations of six decades ago. Unless there are plans to completely gut and rebuild the interior, a newer coliseum is very much needed. BUT BUT BUT CAMERON. Please. If VT had even 1/100th of Duke's basketball history and brand, then maybe it could afford to continue clinging to the past when it comes to facilities. Duke could play home games in a large shipping container and it wouldn't affect their recruiting or their attendance. At VT, the lack of a modern arena definitely has an impact on both those things. Other than Duke, not one of our ACC peers, heck even our in-state A10 or Sun Belt peers, plays in such an old, cramped, and outmoded facility. It speaks volumes as to VT's lack of interest or will to support a hoops program at the level of the conference it lobbied so hard to join.

"Cassell is fine as is" is one extreme end of the spectrum just like "15k ultramodern arena" is the other. I don't think there are many (any?) people who think "as is" is the answer for the future. For one thing, it's our current facility and deserves to be maintained in a way that represents VT and the basketball program well, not to mention the other sports that play there. Even if we were building the mythical perfect new bells and whistles club seats and lounges and personal beer taps at every seat with an enormous hanging video screen so that you can watch another screen and not be distracted by the live action on the floor while a concierge meets your every need for two hours-style arena, Cassell would still be where we play while that is being built (and likely would remain beyond that). Cassell can be a lot nicer than it currently is - and frankly, it deserves that no matter what the future holds. And though I know you disagree, there is a very valid argument for renovating in a way that maintains what makes it great while also modernizing it to meet current/future needs - that may be the sweet spot that makes the most sense in a landscape that doesn't work the way it once did and will require a lot of non-facility funds going forward.

Anything off campus and you lose the students. I understand Cassell needs renovation but to me, it is a lower priority than spending money on players and coaches for both football and basketball. If someone could show me how we can stay competitive in the revenue sports with NIL/revenue sharing AND find the $$$ to do the Cassell renovation, then I am all ears. Not hearing much from VT. You are correct in that our BB history vs. Duke's - but that is a limiting condition. Right now, we win more than we lose most years but even when we are above average, we simply do not put a lot of butts in seats. I remember sellouts that were true sellouts in the 70s and early 80s. The two major reasons that I can think of for why we don't have more fans in the house are 1) we aren't close to being basketball powerhouse and 2) there are SO many more entertainment choices compared to the decades where a sellout wasn't uncommon. Also throw in the fact that the almost all of our games are televised in some form or fashion - that's what keeps me from making the 3.5 hour drive from the Asheville, NC area. I think the juice to renovate Cassell is not there for the major donors and IMHO, it will not be there until we are successful at football while maintaining a competitive basketball team. I just don't think the arena condition is a major reason we do not draw better. I also don't think the arena condition has squat to do with recruiting because that equation has completely changed - what matters most to the players is how much they will get paid. This isn't a chicken or the egg scenario - we have to be successful on the field/court before the environment is conducive to reno Cassell. Again, all that being said, I am completely for renovating Cassell as long as we don't end up in financial trouble like Florida State. IMHO, the biggest problem we have with VT athletics is there is no singular head of the Hokie Club, we have a guy in there now who wears multiple hats - surprised Coach Franklin hasn't changed that. We have to get fundraising right if we want to fund capital projects.

Cassell needs that it doesn't seem worth trying to renovate.

However, if VT plans to use Cassell 2.0 as a multi-purpose facility, then the capacity could come in handy. I'm think in terms of the arena being used to host a NCAA region in a postseason tournament, HS state tournament venue, concerts, guest speakers, or political debates off the top of my head. Even though Roanoke is larger and should take the lead for the region, VT has the opportunity to step up and fill the void which could help the school grow its overall brand and enrollment.

Even if you could cut that to $500M, there is a 0% chance VT would ever be able to service the debt on a 15k arena on MBB revenues and the types of events you believe it would draw. ** Edited by marcbvtgm at 3/4/2026, 7:12:40 PM

way VT can afford to build a new bball arena. If you just cut the UNC numbers in half, 8k'ish at $350M with yearly $10M revenue generation. Ain't happening.

capacity on Day1 either. Just the ability to expand up to that capacity, even if on a temporary basis, may be sufficient to satisfy VT's needs on multiple levels. For example, JMU's Convo Center 2.0 was designed with the ability to easily expand the permanent capacity in the future. Then you have arenas such as the Verizon Center which hosts a wide array of sporting events such as basketball, ice hockey, arena football, indoor soccer, indoor lacrosse, and boxing with different "capacities." Sometimes even on the say day. All I am suggesting is that if VT is going to invest in a brand new arena, then it may be in VT's best interest if the new arena has some built in flexibility to potentially satisfy future demands instead of only satisfying the immediate demands. The last thing anyone wants to see happen is VT build a 7-9K arena and then be faced with the reality in 10 to 15 to 20 years that VT is starting to "outgrow" the new arena and there is no easy way to expand the new arena to satisfy the additional needs.

** Edited by marcbvtgm at 3/5/2026, 10:33:53 AM

in order to remain a P4 school. Remember the schools are still meeting to discuss what the re-org will look like for the NCAA 2.0. I am anticipating a lot of those decisions to be at the same level as when the schools announced the creation of the 3 division levels in 1971 and when the DI schools announced the creation of the 2 subdivisions for football in 1978. It should be that significant.

Why would it? The size of the arena is meaningless. In-person audiences are shrinking, not growing. If you build it, they won't come. A big, half empty arenas contributes nothing to the bottom line for the conference, but hurts the bottom line for many programs - even P4 programs. If anything, TV will prefer a small, full arena over a large, half-empty arena. I'll repeat, there is no reality where VT will significantly outgrow a 7-10he bottom line for

schools made it a requirement in order to join DI-FBS in football. Also, a larger arena could make it easier for schools to use the same venue for a wider array of sports (i.e. basketball, ice hockey, wrestling, volleyball, etc.) which may prevent the sport from achieving the arena's maximum capacity because of how much space the playing surface needs for a the sport. I disagree I have been moving the goal post because I have never viewed this issue as a strictly basketball issue. All my posts have factored in the NCAA re-org meetings that are currently going on now because the representatives involve schools from all three division levels. The decisions the schools make at these meetings will have a direct impact of some kind on all three division levels. It has been these meetings which has led people to float the idea of creating a fourth division level of some kind within the NCAA. Even after the P4s have recently gained more authority within DI, the fourth division level may not be off the table as the gap between the P4 and the rest of DI continues to widen. Since the situation is still very fluid, I believe the schools are leaving all options still on the table as they try to figure out how to re-organize themselves into whatever the NCAA 2.0 is going to look like. At least I wouldn't assume they always continue with the status quo because they all agree the structure needs to be revamped in some way. It will just take time to work out some of these details that exist in the gray.

You rationalized - incorrectly - that other events would justify a 15k arena. Then you rationalized - incorrectly - arena capacity could become a requirement. Now you're shifting to game attendance being a requirement - again incorrectly - without any facts to support it. The facts are that avg home attendance for SEC/BIG is ~10.5k. Avg for B1G/ACC/BigEast is about 9.5k. So P5 avg home attendance is under 10k...not even remotely close to 15k. The current capacity of Cassell is large enough to basically put it at slightly above the avg attendance for P5 teams and just slightly below average for SEC/B1G - if people show up. Given the population and geographic isolation of the Blacksburg area, VT can't possibly aspire to being much better than avg given the inherent advantage schools in metropolitan areas have in filling seats. And even if it Cassell were to become a smaller, say, 8,000 seat arena, it would still be able to seat more than avg attendance for 13 SEC/B1G schools. So there's no way an 8,000 seat arena would not meet a capacity requirement. VT's problem is an attendance problem, not a capacity problem - the avg attendance this season is ~4,500. Building a 15k enormodome is not going to solve that and would probably make it worse because $$ would be diverted from improving the basketball program (and other programs including football) to servicing the debt on 5k+ empty seats.

I think the example of JPJ is instructive. Although it is located in Charlottesville, not Richmond, it has become the de facto indoor concert arena for both cities. Richmond, like Roanoke, lacks the finances and the political will to build a new, modern, arena, so JPJ stepped into that void and ended up capturing many shows that used to end up at the Richmond Coliseum. While Roanoke isn't as large as Richmond, it's closer to Blacksburg than Richmond is to Charlottesville. I do think a new coliseum at VT would be able to draw enough interest from Roanoke/Salem to make it plausible to attract concerts and other events that would help to fill seats other than for basketball games.

other, I have often thought they could potential work together to fill that void. Particularly when you think about the various activities that Roanoke (and even Salem if you want to include them in the discussion) used to offer the region and now don't for a variety of reasons. Plus, NC State men's basketball team shares the Lenovo Center with the Carolina Hurricanes. Could Cassell 2.0 have a similar function? The high wall at the one end of the arena reminds me so much of a hockey rink shape especially after I attended a VT vs. UVA men's club game when the team used to play in the Civic Center. Given that the women's club team was formed a few years ago, I started to wonder if VT may be ripe to start a grassroots campaign to increase interest in the sport on campus. If VT's ultimate goal is to potentially join the Big Ten some day, then I do wonder if VT at some point may need to consider sponsoring sports that the Big Ten currently sponsors and the SEC currently does not to improve its chances for future membership. I think men's ice hockey, women's ice hockey, men's volleyball, and men's lacrosse might be the only sports the Big Ten currently sponsors which aren't currently sponsored by the SEC. Title IX may eliminate volleyball and lacrosse from consideration because VT would have to find another sport to sponsor to offset the addition. Hence why I thought ice hockey might be the perfect Title IX sport to add. Plus, it would help VT achieve its goal of becoming a top global university because the recruits would likely come from Canada and Europe.

But there have been some crazy unrealistic posts lately and just needed to needle a little. But updating fixing maintaing Cassell is more a necessity then discretionary.