http://www.hokiesports.com/football/reca...16aaa.html

Bearcats give away a home game and will serve as the home team here. Wonder what type of guarantee they got for that. As I read the article, VT was supposed to open at UC this year and pushed this game to 2012 so VT could play a neutral site game against Alabama. Now UC doesn't get them at home at all.

Sounds like they want to make the FedEx field deal a yearly game. Dont they play Boise there next year?

VT is getting more than $2 million for their game at Fed Ex next year with Boise St. I am guessing we will recieve about that much as well.

I'm not happy about this... UC has some explaining to do. How much are they getting paid, where is the money going to go? Has Brian Kelly signed off on it? Is this just a money grab?

UC should have gone to Paul Brown Stadium and metioned the offer and seen what they would do.

Why did UC do this? FedEx Field will be a home game for VT I don't care what the scoreboard says. Doesn't make alot of sense.
CJ

Pretty good discussion about this over on the UC boards: http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=400097

No question, this will be a VT home game. Plenty of VT grads in the DC metro area. As a fan, I love it, because that's one less trip I have to make from DC to Cincy for a game. It's right in my backyard. But from a football standpoint I agree that it sucks.

It depends on the financial details, but I don't think its a bad idea for cincy.

It isn't at Lane Stadium, so if UC gets 2.35 Million that is fine. Mike Brown, Bengals owner, will never give UC a deal like this for playing at PBS.

Losing a home game isn't great, but I'll take the money. I view it as something like an early season bowl game where the other team brings a lot of fans.

The TV exposure will make up for the loss of home field, especially if Kelly remains in town and y'all stomp 'em like Bama did this year...

I'm a UC season ticket holder because I want to see my team play in person. I may or may not be able to go to DC in 2012, and even if I do make it then it will be an extra cost to me.

Sorry guys, I'm not happy about this in any way, shape, or form. I'll deal with it IF Brian Kelly hangs around... if he is gone, then all they did was sell out the fans in Cincinnati for a pay day that does nothing to keep the coach.

(11-16-2009 01:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The TV exposure will make up for the loss of home field, especially if Kelly remains in town and y'all stomp 'em like Bama did this year...

Yes, it sucks to give up a home game, but the TV exposure and the depiction of Cincy as a national program will make up for it and then some. Good move.

(11-16-2009 02:17 PM)mlb Wrote:  I'm a UC season ticket holder because I want to see my team play in person. I may or may not be able to go to DC in 2012, and even if I do make it then it will be an extra cost to me.

Sorry guys, I'm not happy about this in any way, shape, or form. I'll deal with it IF Brian Kelly hangs around... if he is gone, then all they did was sell out the fans in Cincinnati for a pay day that does nothing to keep the coach.

the cats did it for the exposure and money of cource, i wouldn't take it personal.

It isn't personal to me... it is personal to the fans in Cincinnati that won't be able to make it to a marquee game that the fans have been excited about for years.

Hopefully when Nippert expands, UC won't have to do this anymore. It is frustrating to see a one of our schools give up home games for cash like a MAC school would

Jackson

(11-16-2009 02:21 PM)Stookey57 Wrote:  

(11-16-2009 02:17 PM)mlb Wrote:  I'm a UC season ticket holder because I want to see my team play in person. I may or may not be able to go to DC in 2012, and even if I do make it then it will be an extra cost to me.

Sorry guys, I'm not happy about this in any way, shape, or form. I'll deal with it IF Brian Kelly hangs around... if he is gone, then all they did was sell out the fans in Cincinnati for a pay day that does nothing to keep the coach.

the cats did it for the exposure and money of cource, i wouldn't take it personal.

Exposure? I'm pretty sure UC/Va Tech would have been on TV anyway. UC did it for the money.

Jackson

Virginia Tech has been trying to play more games in the DC area for years. They played Temple at RFK while they were in the Big East in front of 50,000 plus. They played USC several years ago at FedEx - sold out - and will play Boise next year at FedEx. Looks like they are trying to schedule a game against East Carolina and Wisconsin for future games at FedEx as well. If this was a UC home game, this really does not make much sense. There will probably be a 15:1 difference in VT fans vs UC fans, it becomes basically a VT home game unless UC can bring 20,000 to 30,000 to create a more neutral environment. I would think that you would want the big games on campus unless VT plays to play at Nippert or Paul Brown the following year.

If UC rolls over VT, it won't matter much which team has more fans to start the game. The Bearcats would have more at the end, when it really counts...

Interesting move on the part of Cincy. I can certainly see the benefit of such a move, particularly from a financial/recruiting/exposure standpoint. But as a BCS program, it would seem that UC would be above such a need...especially when you are talking about moving a home game THAT far away. I wouldn't guess that FedEx Field is that much cheaper to rent than the Browns stadium...but VT would more than likely guarantee a sellout in DC...don't know if the Bearcats could in Cincy.

The fans have a right to be a little upset...ECU faced a similar situation last year when our VT home opener was moved to Charlotte as part of a new multi-game package. We had a few fans that were a little perturbed to be paying for a home game ticket over 250 miles away. However, after winning that game, I doubt you could've found one upset booster. Winning cures everything.

Marshall said no to this deal a few months ago. Made sure to make it a real home game. They were guaranteeing $2 mill. for that game as well.