My column from the Nippert renovation press conference. http://www.gobearcats.com/blog/2012/12/d...brown.html

(12-19-2012 08:31 AM)pauldehnerjr Wrote:  My column from the Nippert renovation press conference. http://www.gobearcats.com/blog/2012/12/d...brown.html

Thanks Paul. Whit did spell everything out clearly yesterday. Do you get the same feeling that Mike Decoursey does that the ACC just flat out doesn't want UC? I hear good things about UC from national writers then we get twitter posts from Decoursey, who is pretty connected and whom I respect, saying that the ACC doesn't want UC, especially at Nippert. Kind of confusing.

Not sure why the ACC wouldn't want UC....but trying to act like playing football at Nippert is the main reason is ridiculous. No way it is about Capacity...and if they update with these plans, the facility is fine for the ACC...look at these:

Wake Forest BB&T Field: 31,500

Duke-Wallace Wade Stadium: 33, 941

Add in the fact that "The U" plays in front of less than 15,000 at Sun Life Stadium most home games and Nippert isn't a problem.

I think DeCourcy believes UC basketball is getting the short end of the stick, which it may be currently, but playing games at PBS and giving and losing money to Mike Brown instead of keeping the money at UC to invest in projects such as 5/3 renovations, is not the way to go.

Decourcy also keeps comparing the UC situation to the PItt situation with Heinz field...and there is no comparisons.

I don't think DeCourcey has any inside whether the ACC wants UC or not. I think he , like a lot of UC fans is concerned about UC's current conference situation and only wants what he believes is best. Whether he is right or whether the university is right will be something that needs to be seen.


I do have to think Dr. Ono and Whit have had frank discussions with the ACC about what it will take to get them in the conference. IMO if the ACC told them that Nippert is a non-starter they would not be making the announcement they just made, particularly within weeks of being passed on by the conference.

I personally think it is a mistake to revamp Nippert. If Mike Brown wasn't such a douche we could probably work out a nice deal that would allow us to use it at a reasonable rate. Both options suck, but I do believe Ono and Whit have been told Nippert is fine by the ACC so I guess that is the best choice or they wouldn't be doing it. If they think this is the best option then I'm for it.

(12-19-2012 10:22 AM)Kco17 Wrote:  I personally think it is a mistake to revamp Nippert. If Mike Brown wasn't such a ****** we could probably work out a nice deal that would allow us to use it at a reasonable rate. Both options suck, but I do believe Ono and Whit have been told Nippert is fine by the ACC so I guess that is the best choice or they wouldn't be doing it. If they think this is the best option then I'm for it.

Impressive work, directly contradicting yourself over the span of four sentences.

I think the biggest drawback to UC getting into a big conference is our athletic budget. That is actually what Whit/Dr. Ono are trying to correct with the renovation of Nippert. Our financial situation is not a good one right now. As Whit said yesterday - our financial model is not sustainable. I was taken aback when I saw that UC has the 2nd lowest athletic budget among the big Universities other than Temple.

We may have good prgrams, we may have TV sets to add to the footprint, we may have sound academic programs, but what we don't have is a financial model that makes sense to compete with the big boys. Additional revenue from a conference won't fix that as we would still be behind the other programs in that conference as they would be getting the same conference money.

Whit perfectly laid out why PBS is not a good option yesterday and Paul summarized it well in this article. I didn't realize we lost that much money on the UL and WVU games there. I would like to see the county renegotiate the terms of the lease the next time the Bengals come and ask for us to sink more money into PBS. It still makes me angry that we built that stadium with our money and the county essentially handed complete ownership of it to Mike Brown.

(12-19-2012 10:25 AM)lazyeyep22 Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 10:22 AM)Kco17 Wrote:  I personally think it is a mistake to revamp Nippert. If Mike Brown wasn't such a ****** we could probably work out a nice deal that would allow us to use it at a reasonable rate. Both options suck, but I do believe Ono and Whit have been told Nippert is fine by the ACC so I guess that is the best choice or they wouldn't be doing it. If they think this is the best option then I'm for it.

Impressive work, directly contradicting yourself over the span of four sentences.

I realize I contradicted myself. I don't really have a say in the matter. I personally think the Nippert renovation is a mistake. Since I don't have a say I'm on board with what Ono and Whit think. I'm sorry I confused you. I didn't realize it was that complicated.

(12-19-2012 10:44 AM)Kco17 Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 10:25 AM)lazyeyep22 Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 10:22 AM)Kco17 Wrote:  I personally think it is a mistake to revamp Nippert. If Mike Brown wasn't such a ****** we could probably work out a nice deal that would allow us to use it at a reasonable rate. Both options suck, but I do believe Ono and Whit have been told Nippert is fine by the ACC so I guess that is the best choice or they wouldn't be doing it. If they think this is the best option then I'm for it.

Impressive work, directly contradicting yourself over the span of four sentences.

I realize I contradicted myself. I don't really have a say in the matter. I personally think the Nippert renovation is a mistake. Since I don't have a say I'm on board with what Ono and Whit think. I'm sorry I confused you. I didn't realize it was that complicated.

You're the one who contradicted yourself, chief. Must be more complicated than your original assessment indicated.

On the topic of this thread, Whit has gone above and beyond to support the reasons for renovating Nippert. Thanks to Paul for clearly documenting that support. This plan really appears to be soundly laying the groundwork for the long term solvency of the athletic department. Consider me sold.

(12-19-2012 10:31 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  Whit perfectly laid out why PBS is not a good option yesterday and Paul summarized it well in this article. I didn't realize we lost that much money on the UL and WVU games there. I would like to see the county renegotiate the terms of the lease the next time the Bengals come and ask for us to sink more money into PBS. It still makes me angry that we built that stadium with our money and the county essentially handed complete ownership of it to Mike Brown.

The Bengals asking the county to sink money into PBS is part of the lease. The lease is a terrible deal for the county and the taxpayers. I don't think the Bengals will renegotiate their sweetheart deal before the lease is up. They put something on the table a couple of years back that would require they pay more money to lease and it would have let them out of the lease early. The county didn't want any part of that. Unfortunately, those who negotiated this deal seemed to feel that the Bengals would leave if the county didn't give them everything they wanted. It's a bad deal.

(12-19-2012 09:48 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 08:31 AM)pauldehnerjr Wrote:  My column from the Nippert renovation press conference. http://www.gobearcats.com/blog/2012/12/d...brown.html

Thanks Paul. Whit did spell everything out clearly yesterday. Do you get the same feeling that Mike Decoursey does that the ACC just flat out doesn't want UC? I hear good things about UC from national writers then we get twitter posts from Decoursey, who is pretty connected and whom I respect, saying that the ACC doesn't want UC, especially at Nippert. Kind of confusing.

DId he really say the acc doesn't want UC? I saw some reports where they were happy with Ono's presentation and UC as a fit later down the road.

(12-19-2012 11:01 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  Unfortunately, those who negotiated this deal seemed to feel that the Bengals would leave if the county didn't give them everything they wanted. It's a bad deal.

It's worse than a bad deal, it's a corrupt deal. Of the people who voted for the tax I'm guessing that many of them would not have voted for it if they had known the county was going to give all the benefits of ownership away while keeping all the costs of ownership. I wish we had a legal recourse to sue the county for what they did to us.

(12-19-2012 11:21 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 09:48 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 08:31 AM)pauldehnerjr Wrote:  My column from the Nippert renovation press conference. http://www.gobearcats.com/blog/2012/12/d...brown.html

Thanks Paul. Whit did spell everything out clearly yesterday. Do you get the same feeling that Mike Decoursey does that the ACC just flat out doesn't want UC? I hear good things about UC from national writers then we get twitter posts from Decoursey, who is pretty connected and whom I respect, saying that the ACC doesn't want UC, especially at Nippert. Kind of confusing.

DId he really say the acc doesn't want UC? I saw some reports where they were happy with Ono's presentation and UC as a fit later down the road.

I think it basically comes down to this. If Santa, Whit, and UC's Board of Trustees with all of their extensive research and list of contacts truly believed the ACC or Big 12 wanted Cincinnati to move the football program to Paul Brown Stadium, they would have done that instead of moving quickly announcing renovation plans for Nippert Stadium.

Even if UC has nowhere to go but the reconfigured big whatever it will be conference, they cannot stand pat on Nippert - or - they need to say they will move to PBS.

As Babcock pointed out - 71 of 76 FBS schools have renovated or expanded their football stadium since the last time Nippert had a facelift.

Their decision is to renovate Nippert.

Its not like UC can't plan an a game or two downtown each season if Ohio State, Oklahoma, Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, USC, Bama, or company want to play Cincinnati. Heck maybe even Kentucky in a neutral site game would work. Outside of those special made for TV games, Nippert is UC's home.

Whit pretty much said that PBS is an option if a big name team wanted to come down like Ohio State or Oklahoma.

The basketball arena is next on the agenda but football is where the money is in today college sports. You take of football first so you can pay for everything else. The current basketball arena isn't awful, there are still 9,000 to 10,000 solid seats in there. Selling those bleachers up top is tricky plus there are a few corner seats in the lower and upper bowl that are not great either.

At the end of the day, Nippert is the University of Cincinnati football's brand. It is the best thing UC football has going for them at this point. From the band running down the steps to the location in the heart of campus you can't replicate that downtown on the river.

I'm all for the Nippert renovation also...and Whit's explanation yesterday should clear it up for everybody, including Decoursey. I was just wondering why he was so adamant with his opinion on Nippert's renovation.

(12-19-2012 11:26 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 11:01 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  Unfortunately, those who negotiated this deal seemed to feel that the Bengals would leave if the county didn't give them everything they wanted. It's a bad deal.

It's worse than a bad deal, it's a corrupt deal. Of the people who voted for the tax I'm guessing that many of them would not have voted for it if they had known the county was going to give all the benefits of ownership away while keeping all the costs of ownership. I wish we had a legal recourse to sue the county for what they did to us.

While nothing can be proven, I think it sure stinks that Bob Bedinghaus, who got kicked out of office by the voters after "negotiating" this crappy lease which socialized the costs and privatized the profits basically got a job for life with the Brown family.

(12-19-2012 10:27 AM)ruffles Wrote:  I think the biggest drawback to UC getting into a big conference is our athletic budget. That is actually what Whit/Dr. Ono are trying to correct with the renovation of Nippert. Our financial situation is not a good one right now. As Whit said yesterday - our financial model is not sustainable. I was taken aback when I saw that UC has the 2nd lowest athletic budget among the big Universities other than Temple.

This is because of the big universities, UC has a media deal that is $15-20 million lower than most of them. If you add that in, then you'll see that we're above more than 1/3 of schools in bigger conferences.

Also, if you figure that most other universities would have forgiven that athletic department's debt on structures that benefit the university as a whole, we'd be even higher.

(12-19-2012 11:58 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  This is because of the big universities, UC has a media deal that is $15-20 million lower than most of them. If you add that in, then you'll see that we're above more than 1/3 of schools in bigger conferences.

Also, if you figure that most other universities would have forgiven that athletic department's debt on structures that benefit the university as a whole, we'd be even higher.

Whit also said there's some flexibility with the Varsity Village debt that he and the university are discussing.