(03-30-2012 09:19 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-29-2012 10:54 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(03-29-2012 10:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-29-2012 09:57 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  If we ever get a favorable deal to use "The Stadium the Bengals Own, but Hamilton County Paid For" then we'll play more there. But, there needs to be 55-60K fannies in the seats before UC makes a nickel.

Mike Brown eventually needs to learn that making a few bucks is better than letting a stadium sit empty and unused.

I wish USF had a Nippert-like on campus stadium we could abandon RJS for.

Thanks for the compliment. But realistically it will never be "big-time" because expansion is all but impossible.

If we can use PBS for the Oklahoma-type games, it pays off. Using it for UL and WVU was a stretch, especially with the noon kickoffs.

PBS was perfect for the UC-WVU and UofL-UC games. Those were UC's 2 highest attended home games last year, and without those 2 games UC's home attendance figures would have sucked...

Perfect if you like empty seats, no home-field advantage, and no atmosphere for fans. I realize you aren't a UC fan, but for UC fans that was a disaster. Personally, I'm glad we lost money on it so that expirement doesn't happen again unless absolutely necessary to land OSU or someone. I know as a season ticket holder we got surveys after the year asking all about the PBS experience. I would guess that feedback has a lot to with Whit coming out publicly and saying that's not in the plans again.

For those who know Nippert - what is the maximum number of seats that you think Nippert can be expanded to. I have seen 40k and 50k numbers thrown out there so far. If the stadium is expanded could you fill it on a regular basis with the NBE line up. I think you would have to fill the stadium primarily with UC backers as the only close teams are Memphis and L'Ville in the current future BE line up. With the western expansion and teams like Pitt, Cuse, and WV leaving the BE is going to have a hard time filling their stadiums week in and week out. Rutgers didn't fill their stadium at 54k with those teams in the conference. I attended the Navy, Cinn, and Pitt games there last year and the upper decks had a lot of empty seats. I also went to the Army game at Yankee stadium that drew 40k +. The BE schools like Rutgers are now going to have a harder time filling their stadiums with teams as far away as San Diego, Boise, Texas (2), Kentucky, Cinn, and Florida (2). The BE FB schools will have to have extremely strong followings to fill their stadiums with the opposing schools so far away. A school like Rutgers will have to depend on Temple, UConn, Army, and Navy for local travel and hope to sell out when teams like Arkansas, Miami, and Penn St come to town. Strong OOC name games may be more important to BE schools now to fill their stadiums than ever before. The BE schools will also have to hope for end of the season conference games that will determine the conference champion between their school and the opposing traveling BE school too for sell outs.

(03-30-2012 11:31 AM)panite Wrote:  For those who know Nippert - what is the maximum number of seats that you think Nippert can be expanded to. I have seen 40k and 50k numbers thrown out there so far. If the stadium is expanded could you fill it on a regular basis with the NBE line up. I think you would have to fill the stadium primarily with UC backers as the only close teams are Memphis and L'Ville in the current future BE line up. With the western expansion and teams like Pitt, Cuse, and WV leaving the BE is going to have a hard time filling their stadiums week in and week out. Rutgers didn't fill their stadium at 54k with those teams in the conference. I attended the Navy, Cinn, and Pitt games there last year and the upper decks had a lot of empty seats. I also went to the Army game at Yankee stadium that drew 40k +. The BE schools like Rutgers are now going to have a harder time filling their stadiums with teams as far away as San Diego, Boise, Texas (2), Kentucky, Cinn, and Florida (2). The BE FB schools will have to have extremely strong followings to fill their stadiums with the opposing schools so far away. A school like Rutgers will have to depend on Temple, UConn, Army, and Navy for local travel and hope to sell out when teams like Arkansas, Miami, and Penn St come to town. Strong OOC name games may be more important to BE schools now to fill their stadiums than ever before. The BE schools will also have to hope for end of the season conference games that will determine the conference champion between their school and the opposing traveling BE school too for sell outs.

The most recent numbers, which were presented a couple of years ago, maxed Nippert out at about 45,000 seats with luxury boxes, loge boxes, club seats, etc. for a price tag of about $100 million. UC faces a challenging chicken-and-egg situation with the people of Cincinnati. In many respects, these citizens are very fickle fans who will support a consistent winner if it is convenient for them.

Therefore, the Nippert challenge for Whit Babcock becomes one of "build it and they will come" or "build it when they come"? In other words, should he spend the money on Nippert now by creating those luxury boxes, adding restrooms, expanding the concourses, and overall making Nippert a more fan-friendly experience that gets people to come back or should he wait to see if Nippert can be sold-out/near capacity before he invests money into it?

Attendance numbers are a thing of the past. Its all about making money and you can do that at a smaller venue by creating demand for your product. TV money is driving the sport not who has the biggest stadium.

Look if Ohio State, Notre Dame, Michigan, Texas, or Oklahoma were going to play Cincinnati the game would be downtown; however, until those school decide to come to Cincinnati there really isn't reason to move the game off campus.

Expanding Nippert doesn't make a lot sense either because the school be better off creating demand with higher ticket prices than add 5,000 extra seats that people can get on the cheap. At UC the baketball arena is the venue the needs the most work.

Even more of an issue with playing downtown was the sponsorship money. Each stadium has different sponsors so UC really lost a ton at PBS with no game sponsors etc.

(03-30-2012 11:45 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Attendance numbers are a thing of the past. Its all about making money and you can do that at a smaller venue by creating demand for your product. TV money is driving the sport not who has the biggest stadium.

Look if Ohio State, Notre Dame, Michigan, Texas, or Oklahoma were going to play Cincinnati the game would be downtown; however, until those school decide to come to Cincinnati there really isn't reason to move the game off campus.

Expanding Nippert doesn't make a lot sense either because the school be better off creating demand with higher ticket prices than add 5,000 extra seats that people can get on the cheap. At UC the baketball arena is the venue the needs the most work.

Correct, renovating 5/3 is on the to do list. Some renovations to the West Side of Nippert is on the to do list. We won't see 10,000 more seats @Nippert anytime soon.

Nippert is a great atmosphere to see a game at. I have been to the last two Pitt-Cinci games there and enjoyed myself both times.

Expansion and renovation have to be done with a final goal in mind and then accomplished in stages. There is room for expansion to 45,000. More could be done, but even 45k will cost a lot of money.

I disagree with those who say luxury boxes are more important that more overall seats. They are BOTH important for a variety of reasons.

One of the main reasons we can't sellout Nippert is not the lack of interest. We 58k for Oklahoma. There weren't even 10k Oklahoma fans there. The problem is that Nippert is a PITA when you get over 30k. And the closer you get to the magic 35k the worse it gets. It's TREMENDOUS to watch the game. As a fan you are so close to the action that you truly feel like you and your fellow fans can personally influence the outcome of the game. It's intoxicating. But you get to your seat and you stay in your seat if you have any sense.

Ideally, I think you've got to blow out the wall of restrooms and concessions on the west concourse that is such a bottleneck. But short of that drastic move I would change the orientation of the bathrooms and concessions so that they are accessed from OUTSIDE the stadium. Would take some money rearranging the doors and concessions windows but moving all of those people standing in line and blocking the concourse would be a big step.

(03-30-2012 11:44 AM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  Therefore, the Nippert challenge for Whit Babcock becomes one of "build it and they will come" or "build it when they come"? In other words, should he spend the money on Nippert now by creating those luxury boxes, adding restrooms, expanding the concourses, and overall making Nippert a more fan-friendly experience that gets people to come back or should he wait to see if Nippert can be sold-out/near capacity before he invests money into it?

While determining whether to expand before or after there is consistent demand is an important consideration, I don't think that it is the most important aspect surrounding Nippert expansion. Instead, I think the single biggest question is whether or not expansion should be undertaken given UC athletics current financial position.

Based on all the articles I've read over the past couple of years, it sounds like the finances in UC's athletic department are a mess. The athletics department has not been able to produce nearly enough revenues to cover its own expenses plus the large amount of debt service that is still owed on Varsity Village. Take this quote from USA Today:

But the university's support of athletics has risen from $10.7 million in 2007-08 to $14.7 million in 2010-11. Even with that subsidy, the program reported an annual deficit of nearly $1 million that increased its cumulative operating deficit to $33.9 million.

That means that about one-third of UC's athletic department funding come from the university. University support (student fee, direct or indirect funding, state support, etc) isn't necessarily a bad thing as pretty much every athletic department in the country relies on it in some form or fashion. But needing the university to cover one third of the athletic departments budget is at the larger end of the scale.

Now consider the feasibility study UC completed a few years ago. Due to the buildings situated around Nippert, UC would only be able to increase seating capacity by about 10,000 seats for a price tag of $100 million dollars. The report also indicated that even with new income from suites, the project's return on investment was too low to justify expanding the stadium.

When you take everything all together (high cost of the project, low ROI, lingering debt service on varsity village, lack of revenues, etc), I don't see how Nippert expansion is financially possible. Until UC pays down its debt service and increases revenues, I think any expansion is likely to stay on the drawing board. That is especially true if the demand (particular for suites and premium seating isn't there.

(04-01-2012 10:06 PM)Bearcat 1984 Wrote:  I disagree with those who say luxury boxes are more important that more overall seats. They are BOTH important for a variety of reasons.

Luxury boxes are much more important to expansion projects that ordinary seating. Why? Because it is premium seats and luxury boxes that pay for the cost of expanding the stadium. Let's give a concrete example of what I mean using UofL as an example.

Each suite at Papa John's Cardinal stadium holds 18 seats (plus standing room for 8 more). Each suite requires individuals to either sign a 4 year lease at $50K per year or a 7 year lease at $45K for the first three years and $50K for the last 4 years. The lease does not include the cost of season tickets ($322 per person). Let's assume that I have 18 guests in my suite and I sign a four year lease agreement. Each year, I would be required to pay $55,796.

Now, let's say that instead of a suite, I want to buy 18 front row, 50 yard line seats. Each of those seats costs $1022 ($700 annual donation + $322 season ticket price). Each year I would be required to pay $18,396.

When you consider that expansion seats aren't going to be front row, 50 yard line seats, but some of the worst in the stadium (e.g. expansion seats in PJCS are $154 per ticket with no donation), suites become even more valuable. Suites generate huge amounts of money which is needed to maximize ROI and help pay for very expensive expansion projects.

I would have thought that when they played UofL they could use Paul Brown. Maybe they have to use the stadium for more than one game and that's the hangup?

(04-02-2012 12:19 PM)LaBradfordsTWill Wrote:  I would have thought that when they played UofL they could use Paul Brown. Maybe they have to use the stadium for more than one game and that's the hangup?

UC doesn't make a profit from playing at Paul Brown Stadium unless they get 50K+ attendance. Cincinnati doesn't have a great schedule next year to even remotely get close to that number. I also think that Cincinnati is trying to get a more favorable deal to play in the stadium including parking fees and concessions in the future.

(04-02-2012 11:30 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(03-30-2012 11:44 AM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  Therefore, the Nippert challenge for Whit Babcock becomes one of "build it and they will come" or "build it when they come"? In other words, should he spend the money on Nippert now by creating those luxury boxes, adding restrooms, expanding the concourses, and overall making Nippert a more fan-friendly experience that gets people to come back or should he wait to see if Nippert can be sold-out/near capacity before he invests money into it?

While determining whether to expand before or after there is consistent demand is an important consideration, I don't think that it is the most important aspect surrounding Nippert expansion. Instead, I think the single biggest question is whether or not expansion should be undertaken given UC athletics current financial position.

Based on all the articles I've read over the past couple of years, it sounds like the finances in UC's athletic department are a mess. The athletics department has not been able to produce nearly enough revenues to cover its own expenses plus the large amount of debt service that is still owed on Varsity Village. Take this quote from USA Today:

But the university's support of athletics has risen from $10.7 million in 2007-08 to $14.7 million in 2010-11. Even with that subsidy, the program reported an annual deficit of nearly $1 million that increased its cumulative operating deficit to $33.9 million.

That means that about one-third of UC's athletic department funding come from the university. University support (student fee, direct or indirect funding, state support, etc) isn't necessarily a bad thing as pretty much every athletic department in the country relies on it in some form or fashion. But needing the university to cover one third of the athletic departments budget is at the larger end of the scale.

Now consider the feasibility study UC completed a few years ago. Due to the buildings situated around Nippert, UC would only be able to increase seating capacity by about 10,000 seats for a price tag of $100 million dollars. The report also indicated that even with new income from suites, the project's return on investment was too low to justify expanding the stadium.

When you take everything all together (high cost of the project, low ROI, lingering debt service on varsity village, lack of revenues, etc), I don't see how Nippert expansion is financially possible. Until UC pays down its debt service and increases revenues, I think any expansion is likely to stay on the drawing board. That is especially true if the demand (particular for suites and premium seating isn't there.

Yep most Bearcat fans have that number 10,000 = $100 million engrained in their head and that's why Nippert Stadium is probably 4th or 5th on the list of projects Whit Babcock has on his to-do list. UC's financial situation from the Varsity Village project put loads of debt on the athletic department. Unfortunately the major revenue generators for the AD (Nippert Stadium/Fifth-Third Arena) are pretty much maxed out.

So Whit's first priority is to renovate Fifth-Third Arena to add more high value seats and in general bring the arena into the 21st century (it was built in 1989). The cost for this would be SIGNIFICANTLY less than renovating Nippert and would pumped $$$ into the athletic department for a expansion/renovation sometime down the road.

Bottomline, Nippert will NOT have major changes done to it until 5/3rd Arena is renovated.

(04-02-2012 01:33 PM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  

(04-02-2012 11:30 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(03-30-2012 11:44 AM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  Therefore, the Nippert challenge for Whit Babcock becomes one of "build it and they will come" or "build it when they come"? In other words, should he spend the money on Nippert now by creating those luxury boxes, adding restrooms, expanding the concourses, and overall making Nippert a more fan-friendly experience that gets people to come back or should he wait to see if Nippert can be sold-out/near capacity before he invests money into it?

While determining whether to expand before or after there is consistent demand is an important consideration, I don't think that it is the most important aspect surrounding Nippert expansion. Instead, I think the single biggest question is whether or not expansion should be undertaken given UC athletics current financial position.

Based on all the articles I've read over the past couple of years, it sounds like the finances in UC's athletic department are a mess. The athletics department has not been able to produce nearly enough revenues to cover its own expenses plus the large amount of debt service that is still owed on Varsity Village. Take this quote from USA Today:

But the university's support of athletics has risen from $10.7 million in 2007-08 to $14.7 million in 2010-11. Even with that subsidy, the program reported an annual deficit of nearly $1 million that increased its cumulative operating deficit to $33.9 million.

That means that about one-third of UC's athletic department funding come from the university. University support (student fee, direct or indirect funding, state support, etc) isn't necessarily a bad thing as pretty much every athletic department in the country relies on it in some form or fashion. But needing the university to cover one third of the athletic departments budget is at the larger end of the scale.

Now consider the feasibility study UC completed a few years ago. Due to the buildings situated around Nippert, UC would only be able to increase seating capacity by about 10,000 seats for a price tag of $100 million dollars. The report also indicated that even with new income from suites, the project's return on investment was too low to justify expanding the stadium.

When you take everything all together (high cost of the project, low ROI, lingering debt service on varsity village, lack of revenues, etc), I don't see how Nippert expansion is financially possible. Until UC pays down its debt service and increases revenues, I think any expansion is likely to stay on the drawing board. That is especially true if the demand (particular for suites and premium seating isn't there.

Yep most Bearcat fans have that number 10,000 = $100 million engrained in their head and that's why Nippert Stadium is probably 4th or 5th on the list of projects Whit Babcock has on his to-do list. UC's financial situation from the Varsity Village project put loads of debt on the athletic department. Unfortunately the major revenue generators for the AD (Nippert Stadium/Fifth-Third Arena) are pretty much maxed out.

So Whit's first priority is to renovate Fifth-Third Arena to add more high value seats and in general bring the arena into the 21st century (it was built in 1989). The cost for this would be SIGNIFICANTLY less than renovating Nippert and would pumped $$$ into the athletic department for a expansion/renovation sometime down the road.

Bottomline, Nippert will NOT have major changes done to it until 5/3rd Arena is renovated.

That's not completely true. Whit has stated that both Nippert and Fifth Third will be renovated along the same time period. Also it will be a combined project in terms of campaigning and financing. They will raise one large sum of $ for both Nippert and Fifth Third. Renovations might be completed on the basketball side first, but only because it will be a potentially easier construction than Nippert Stadium. It won't be one with out the other.

(04-02-2012 02:55 PM)CrazyCronies Wrote:  

(04-02-2012 01:33 PM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  

(04-02-2012 11:30 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(03-30-2012 11:44 AM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  Therefore, the Nippert challenge for Whit Babcock becomes one of "build it and they will come" or "build it when they come"? In other words, should he spend the money on Nippert now by creating those luxury boxes, adding restrooms, expanding the concourses, and overall making Nippert a more fan-friendly experience that gets people to come back or should he wait to see if Nippert can be sold-out/near capacity before he invests money into it?

While determining whether to expand before or after there is consistent demand is an important consideration, I don't think that it is the most important aspect surrounding Nippert expansion. Instead, I think the single biggest question is whether or not expansion should be undertaken given UC athletics current financial position.

Based on all the articles I've read over the past couple of years, it sounds like the finances in UC's athletic department are a mess. The athletics department has not been able to produce nearly enough revenues to cover its own expenses plus the large amount of debt service that is still owed on Varsity Village. Take this quote from USA Today:

But the university's support of athletics has risen from $10.7 million in 2007-08 to $14.7 million in 2010-11. Even with that subsidy, the program reported an annual deficit of nearly $1 million that increased its cumulative operating deficit to $33.9 million.

That means that about one-third of UC's athletic department funding come from the university. University support (student fee, direct or indirect funding, state support, etc) isn't necessarily a bad thing as pretty much every athletic department in the country relies on it in some form or fashion. But needing the university to cover one third of the athletic departments budget is at the larger end of the scale.

Now consider the feasibility study UC completed a few years ago. Due to the buildings situated around Nippert, UC would only be able to increase seating capacity by about 10,000 seats for a price tag of $100 million dollars. The report also indicated that even with new income from suites, the project's return on investment was too low to justify expanding the stadium.

When you take everything all together (high cost of the project, low ROI, lingering debt service on varsity village, lack of revenues, etc), I don't see how Nippert expansion is financially possible. Until UC pays down its debt service and increases revenues, I think any expansion is likely to stay on the drawing board. That is especially true if the demand (particular for suites and premium seating isn't there.

Yep most Bearcat fans have that number 10,000 = $100 million engrained in their head and that's why Nippert Stadium is probably 4th or 5th on the list of projects Whit Babcock has on his to-do list. UC's financial situation from the Varsity Village project put loads of debt on the athletic department. Unfortunately the major revenue generators for the AD (Nippert Stadium/Fifth-Third Arena) are pretty much maxed out.

So Whit's first priority is to renovate Fifth-Third Arena to add more high value seats and in general bring the arena into the 21st century (it was built in 1989). The cost for this would be SIGNIFICANTLY less than renovating Nippert and would pumped $$$ into the athletic department for a expansion/renovation sometime down the road.

Bottomline, Nippert will NOT have major changes done to it until 5/3rd Arena is renovated.

That's not completely true. Whit has stated that both Nippert and Fifth Third will be renovated along the same time period. Also it will be a combined project in terms of campaigning and financing. They will raise one large sum of $ for both Nippert and Fifth Third. Renovations might be completed on the basketball side first, but only because it will be a potentially easier construction than Nippert Stadium. It won't be one with out the other.

Where did he state this? Just curious.

On campus games are better. I dislike driving up to the stadium in the Meadowlands to play Army or whomever. Let the Giants and Jets play there. Rutgers on campus stadium is a better atmosphere for a college football game.

(03-30-2012 12:28 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  I like Nippert. The way that it seems carved into the UC campus really adds to the atmosphere (or so it seems in photos).

Agreed. The Nip is a great old site with character many new stadiums can't replicate.

U. of Cincinnati is a beautiful campus and the stadium is right in the middle of it.