So.Will Margel (18-1-3-4)--------Sr.Harrison Blaisdell-(25-2-6-8)------So.Robert Cronin (30-7-5-12)
So.Liam Devlin-(34-9-7-16)-----Fr.Stiven Sardarian--(NA)-------------Fr.Kristap Skrastins (NA)
Fr.Cy Leclerc-(NA)----------------Sr.Chase Stevenson-(33-4-1-5)------Fr.John Evans (NA)
Fr.Jake Dunlap-(NA)--------------Fr.Morgan Winters-(NA)---------------Jr.Nick Cafarelli (15-3-4-7)
Jr.Carsen Richels-(13-0-0-0)-----Jr.Cam Gendron-(19-1-1-2)-----------So.Conor Lovett
So.Connor Sweeney-(22-0-0-0)--Sr.Joe Hankinson (1-0-0-0)
Sr.Kalle Eriksson-(32-0-12-12)----So.Colton Huard (28-6-10-16)
So.Alex Gagne-(33-1-7-8)---------Jr.Luke Reid 34-3-5-8)
Fr.Nick Ardanaz-(NA)---------------Fr.Damien Carfagna (NA)
Jr.Nikolai Jenson-(30-1-5-6)-------Fr.Cade Penney
Fr.Tyler Muszelik----------Sr.David Fessenden------------Jr.Jeremy Forman
Just wondering if there's a place that lists those going into the transfer portal? I couldn't find one set up for this year.In the transfer portal, soI am assuming he'll not be back.
Here are my thoughts/observations about the report:Sean when you get a minute do share your insights
Here are my thoughts/observations about the report:
The report is brutal in its description of the existing refrigeration plant and further notes the HVAC system's airflow in the rink appears to be an issue. It reflect poorly on those who originally signed off on both systems. The report also notes that Olympic size ice sheets are not normal for college hockey, but here I give UNH a pass, as when the Whitt was designed and built the NCAA rules (from at least 1987 through 2004) called for 200' x 100' rinks.
...
The seating sight lines I find quite interesting, as I measured the Whitt's riser depth and height to compare with Agganis when it opened. Agganis and the Whitt have the same riser depth, 33”, but Agganis goes up 18?” each row, while the Whitt goes up just 15” (I measured 14?”) each row. I much prefer the elevation and sight lines I have at Agganis to most other Hockey East rinks because of the higher rise between rows. The optimal sight lines shown in the report would have a 21” rise between rows, even more than Agganis’ 18?”. As I like the elevation and sight lines at Agganis I am for this change.
Sean
Here are my thoughts/observations about the report:
The report is brutal in its description of the existing refrigeration plant and further notes the HVAC system’s airflow in the rink appears to be an issue. It reflect poorly on those who originally signed off on both systems. The report also notes that Olympic size ice sheets are not normal for college hockey, but here I give UNH a pass, as when the Whitt was designed and built the NCAA rules (from at least 1987 through 2004) called for 200' x 100' rinks.
In 2010 BU replaced the slab at Walter Brown Arena, upgraded the refrigeration plant, the HVAC system and installed A/C. I stopped by one day when the old slab was removed and the new slab wasn’t yet poured. It was something to see dirt/sand instead of concrete where the rink should be. I think the best option for UNH would be to replace the existing slab at the current elevation and then redo the stands to create optimal site lines.
The seating sight lines I find quite interesting, as I measured the Whitt’s riser depth and height to compare with Agganis when it opened. Agganis and the Whitt have the same riser depth, 33”, but Agganis goes up 18?” each row, while the Whitt goes up just 15” (I measured 14?”) each row. I much prefer the elevation and sight lines I have at Agganis to most other Hockey East rinks because of the higher rise between rows. The optimal sight lines shown in the report would have a 21” rise between rows, even more than Agganis’ 18?”. As I like the elevation and sight lines at Agganis I am for this change.
Agganis allows full size trucks and busses directly into the arena, so I’m a bit surprised the Whitt doesn’t. It makes a lot of sense to allow trucks and busses direct access into the building so I’m not sure why it wasn’t originally built to allow it.
Agganis has wasted space as well, but it was/is planned to be the women’s locker room and the athletic offices someday. BU built out the visitor side with a large visitor locker room, as well as additional locker rooms at the end so that you can currently have four teams in the building. It looks like the Whitt could handle four teams, but adding a visitor locker room on the visitor side does make sense.
The cost seems very reasonable at about $9 million for all the renovations. Then again, I'm basing that against the cost of Agganis, the new ASU multipurpose arena and the new SHU multipurpose arena.
Sean
Just a few points….
1. Darius was spot on in the other thread. Fixing the cooling system is a “time is of the essence” project. Tight timeframes to get ‘er done.
2. Norbert was spot-on as well. The two need to go hand-in-hand to maximize the economies of scope and minimize the investment to complete the project. Current hope is to complete the project by 9/1.
3. The decision to move to 90 (vs. 85) had nothing to do with sight lines, and everything to do with long-term trends as evidenced by a general move towards a 90-foot surface or the “hybridized” models (think 92.5) being considered worldwide. As one poster mentioned, Agganis built to 90, NU shrunk to 90, and I’ll add that Mariucci is either going to 92.5 or has already done so. Apparently, the IIHF is considering 90 or hybridized sheets, and there are even some in the NHL who’d like to see the sheet grow to meet to game (I think Brian Burke was trying to lead the charge there. Won’t happen anytime soon given the revenue hit, methinks).
4. Changing the bowl would double the price tag. Given the cost of the potential guts renovation, money is probably better directed toward that in order to help turn this program around.
5. I know that they are going to work with any STH who feels their experience is impacted by the 5’ change to get to an agreeable solution. It’s not lost that this will change the experience.
That’s what I know and can share.
What can you share as far as the projected timeframe for the new AD hire, 'dc?
So.Will Margel (18-1-3-4)--------Sr.Harrison Blaisdell-(25-2-6-8)------So.Robert Cronin (30-7-5-12)
So.Liam Devlin-(34-9-7-16)-----Fr.Stiven Sardarian--(NA)-------------Fr.Kristap Skrastins (NA)
Fr.Cy Leclerc-(NA)----------------Sr.Chase Stevenson-(33-4-1-5)------Fr.John Evans (NA)
Fr.Jake Dunlap-(NA)--------------Fr.Morgan Winters-(NA)---------------Jr.Nick Cafarelli (15-3-4-7)
Jr.Carsen Richels-(13-0-0-0)-----Jr.Cam Gendron-(19-1-1-2)-----------So.Conor Lovett
So.Connor Sweeney-(22-0-0-0)--Sr.Joe Hankinson (1-0-0-0)
Sr.Kalle Eriksson-(32-0-12-12)----So.Colton Huard (28-6-10-16)
So.Alex Gagne-(33-1-7-8)---------Jr.Luke Reid 34-3-5-8)
Fr.Nick Ardanaz-(NA)---------------Fr.Damien Carfagna (NA)
Jr.Nikolai Jenson-(30-1-5-6)-------Fr.Cade Penney
Fr.Tyler Muszelik----------Sr.David Fessenden------------Jr.Jeremy Forman
What about Lucas Hermann? Am I missing something?
Dancing carefully here - not nearly as fast as you'd like. Will be a short transition. That's best I can do for now.
FWIW my sources say mid-April, not sure how that matches up with your first-hand insight?
At first glance...
Is it me or does this roster look...young? Also abit crowded...no room for any portal players with experience (if that's even out there) Not to take away from these players and our freshmen this season got lots of experience.
Have been following with great interest incoming forwards...can they develop fast enough to bring in much needed offense?
Most interesting to me at least will be the goal tending...excited for Muszelik does he beat out Fess for top tender??? From what we saw of Fess albeit limited thought he did a good job but of course you need lights out most nights. Should be interesting between the two of them.
Alot can happen between now and October!
Thanks for the updated information. I expected that the costs would have gone up; waiting almost always increases the cost.Sean - appreciate the input and comparisons. Couple points of clarification…
1. The estimates you see in this report (for the ice replacement and rink shrink) have gone up materially since this report was put out, when all-in costs are considered. Additionally, the revisions to the bowl have gone up accordingly but still represent about a doubling of the cost if to be done in conjunction with the first part.
2. The “wasted space” component of this report is no longer relevant as it has been subsumed by the aspirational scope of the “guts” project.
I certainly hold out hope that after priority 1 (ice and rink) and priority 2 (guts) are “in the can”, they can get busy with the bowl!