again...I will donate if they put something together and let us know

(11-30-2012 02:58 PM)lazyeyep22 Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 02:52 PM)#41 Wrote:  I'd donate if there was any sort of plan in place.

Of course you would. Oh wait, there is a plan that was the entire reason for this thread. Just need the $170 mil.

And there are graphics for PBS that actually make it look quite like the Bearcats' stadium on gameday. I love Nippert, but the excuses against PBS, considering the circumstances, are tired.

The new field turf in PBS allows for the center of the field logo to be removed and put a CPaw there. The endzones can also be removed and put our graphics there. The side wall curtains have already been used in our games last year.

Get over the Mike Brown thing. The county needs the money too.

Do they advertise about donating to the AD at games?

With the realignment crap this would seem to be a perfect time to announce pursuing upgrades.

Also, the $160 million number seems extremely high to me. If they did renovate or rebuild US Bank maybe UC wouldn't have to shoulder the entire cost.

(11-30-2012 09:09 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  Do they advertise about donating to the AD at games?

With the realignment crap this would seem to be a perfect time to announce pursuing upgrades.

Also, the $160 million number seems extremely high to me. If they did renovate or rebuild US Bank maybe UC wouldn't have to shoulder the entire cost.

US Bank made a proposal to move all UC games down there with the promise to renovate and make UC a priority tenant a couple of years ago. The numbers didn't work out to make it profitable for either side.

Good luck at the winter meetings, sub. Land yourself a nice job.

Thanks. I hope I find someone who is willing to take a chance on me. Any organization that does will get a hard worker who has a true passion for sport communications and media relations. Hopefully I can convey that during an interview and sway someone to hire me.

I wonder how much of the 160M the university would be willing to take debt out on. Might leave the amount to raise down to only 100M, joking obviously. Also wonder if one project will get priority over the other. From a purely usefulness standpoint I think the basketball arena needs first priority.

Not sure where they will uncover the money. I imagine all the usual suspects were tapped recently for the proudly Cincinnati campaign.

(12-01-2012 08:06 AM)apoe Wrote:  I wonder how much of the 160M the university would be willing to take debt out on. Might leave the amount to raise down to only 100M, joking obviously. Also wonder if one project will get priority over the other. From a purely usefulness standpoint I think the basketball arena needs first priority.

Not sure where they will uncover the money. I imagine all the usual suspects were tapped recently for the proudly Cincinnati campaign.

it took everything we had just to raise enough money for the Sheakley Athletic Center...that was with Kelly leading the charge btw and that was piddly amounts of money vs what's being discussed now...I don't see this happening

(11-30-2012 04:21 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 03:53 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 03:39 PM)subflea Wrote:  You have to ensure you will actually be able to meet your goal before you announce a fundraising campaign.

You expect people to donate without knowing what they are donating for?

That is not what I said at all. What I am saying is you have to make sure your donors/corporate sponsors are capable of reaching your goal. The last thing you want to do is announce a huge fundraising plan and then not be able to actually meet that goal. So until you are confident that the number needed can be reached, you don't announce a capital campaign of this size.

I like that optimism Sub. We can use more of it.

I'm sure the lining up of prospective donors has been pretty high on Whit's list since he came aboard. Still, $160MM is a daunting task.

(12-01-2012 08:06 AM)apoe Wrote:  I wonder how much of the 160M the university would be willing to take debt out on. Might leave the amount to raise down to only 100M, joking obviously. Also wonder if one project will get priority over the other. From a purely usefulness standpoint I think the basketball arena needs first priority.

Not sure where they will uncover the money. I imagine all the usual suspects were tapped recently for the proudly Cincinnati campaign.

I'm pretty sure there is a rule on campus that no ground can be broken for new construction unless all monies required are committed. At least that was the rule 3-4 years ago while UC was addressing their financial issues.

(12-01-2012 11:05 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 04:21 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 03:53 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 03:39 PM)subflea Wrote:  You have to ensure you will actually be able to meet your goal before you announce a fundraising campaign.

You expect people to donate without knowing what they are donating for?

That is not what I said at all. What I am saying is you have to make sure your donors/corporate sponsors are capable of reaching your goal. The last thing you want to do is announce a huge fundraising plan and then not be able to actually meet that goal. So until you are confident that the number needed can be reached, you don't announce a capital campaign of this size.

I like that optimism Sub. We can use more of it.

I'm sure the lining up of prospective donors has been pretty high on Whit's list since he came aboard. Still, $160MM is a daunting task.

As it relates to new facilities, there are several issues that are unique to our situation.

Dominant school in state capitol. Never a good situation.

City and county in severe financial shape.

Inept (and corrupt?) city officials with objectives other than the local public university.

A university with overwhelming debt.

Basketball, which I assume was a healthy revenue sport, practically destroyed and still not back to former status.

An apathetic fan base, often with split allegiances.

And last, but most important. No super rich, first generation money with a strong interest in U.C. sports, and a willingness to spend the money, the money to fast-track us into the elite of football.

(12-01-2012 12:23 PM)OneUChoopsfan Wrote:  

(12-01-2012 11:05 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 04:21 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 03:53 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 03:39 PM)subflea Wrote:  You have to ensure you will actually be able to meet your goal before you announce a fundraising campaign.

You expect people to donate without knowing what they are donating for?

That is not what I said at all. What I am saying is you have to make sure your donors/corporate sponsors are capable of reaching your goal. The last thing you want to do is announce a huge fundraising plan and then not be able to actually meet that goal. So until you are confident that the number needed can be reached, you don't announce a capital campaign of this size.

I like that optimism Sub. We can use more of it.

I'm sure the lining up of prospective donors has been pretty high on Whit's list since he came aboard. Still, $160MM is a daunting task.

As it relates to new facilities, there are several issues that are unique to our situation.

Dominant school in state capitol. Never a good situation.

City and county in severe financial shape.

Inept (and corrupt?) city officials with objectives other than the local public university.

A university with overwhelming debt.

Basketball, which I assume was a healthy revenue sport, practically destroyed and still not back to former status.

An apathetic fan base, often with split allegiances.

And last, but most important. No super rich, first generation money with a strong interest in U.C. sports, and a willingness to spend the money, the money to fast-track us into the elite of football.

Of those things you listed that are true, they are hardly unique to UC. And corrupt city leaders? We're blaming our athletic facilities on corrupt city leaders? Jesus.

Hell, corrupt city leaders would be a real help if they were on UC's side. Just look at what they've done for the Brown family.

(12-01-2012 12:45 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Hell, corrupt city leaders would be a real help if they were on UC's side. Just look at what they've done for the Brown family.

That was the county, but your point is well taken.

(12-01-2012 12:45 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Hell, corrupt city leaders would be a real help if they were on UC's side. Just look at what they've done for the Brown family.

HAHA, I had the same thought. Corrupt leaders willing to do something fiscally irresponsible? Even better.

I'm having a hard time believing that the number for 5/3 is legit. How does a building, that cost $60 million to build with inflation, cost nearly twice as much to renovate? I get that utilities are an issue, but that type of money seems like it would be cheaper to tear the place down and start from scratch.

The Nippert Renovation is problematic. Nowhere in the article does it mention expansion. It simply says adding luxury suites and making it easier for concessions. I understand the need to address those two things, but eventually you have to build more seats in that place. UC will attract larger crowds if there are more seats in the stadium. The two games last year at PBS proved they can go above capacity. I love Nippert, but the last few thousands seats in that place are among the worst to view a sporting event anywhere. If UC is going to invest in Nippert renovation, expansion has to be apart of the plan.

I still don't see why they can't drop the field and add seats that way...I know their is apparently all the fiber optics and cable for the entire universe under the field but can't that just be dropped too?

(12-03-2012 07:39 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I still don't see why they can't drop the field and add seats that way...I know their is apparently all the fiber optics and cable for the entire universe under the field but can't that just be dropped too?

Whoa, I'm glad someone else said this, I was thinking it last night but I thought there must be some obvious reason this hasn't been suggested yet.

(12-03-2012 07:39 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I still don't see why they can't drop the field and add seats that way...I know their is apparently all the fiber optics and cable for the entire universe under the field but can't that just be dropped too?

Two reasons. First, the cost of doing that for a relatively small number of seats would be prohibitive. Second, going down naturally reduces the footprint of the field because of the slope of the seating bowl. Nippert's sidelines aren't huge as they are now, so I'm not sure the surface could go down much further and maintain adequate sidelines.

I saw on Twitter this morning that Decourcy went on a mini rant about the futility of renovating Nippert and President Ono acknowledged it and thanked him for the input. Nippert is an absolute gem and a wonderful place to watch a football game. But I have been converted to the crowd in favor of leveraging PBS. It makes too much financial sense.

I'm guessing just a demolition of 5/3 would be fairly expensive -- considering it sits tight to lots of other construction (difficulty getting demolition equipment into a confined space / care taken to avoid damaging other buildings), the utilities aspect, and the fact that UC basketball would homeless during any period of demolition and re-construction (a longer process than just renovation). You have to factor in lost revenue due to having to play games off-campus as well.