Wednesday’s crowd was 3rd highest in series history
12/20/12 at 3:09pm by bkoch

Wednesday’s Crosstown Classic crowd of 14,528 was 1,736 short of U.S. Bank Arena’s capacity of 16,264. Although it was not a sellout, the crowd was larger than it could have been at either UC’s 13,176-seat Fifth Third Arena or XU’s 10,250-seat Cintas Center.

According to UC’s records, it was the third-largest crowd in the history of the series, surpassed only by the 16,342 that showed up at Riverfront Coliseum on Jan. 30, 1985 to watch XU beat UC, 55-52, and the 14,678 who watched UC beat XU, 75-73 at Riverfront Coliseum on Jan. 29, 1987.

Despite the apparent success of the game, neither UC athletic director White Babcock nor XU’s Mike Bobinski was willing to make a long-term commitment to playing the game downtown, with both preferring to wait until after next year’s game to fully evaluate it.

“I think it’s too early to say,” Babcock said. “The way we originally positioned it was that we would play for two years down there and then re-evaluate it. ”

“I’ve been a campus guy from the get-go,” Bobinski said. “I personally would rather wait and play next year’s event and then sort of regroup and evaluate it at that point. I will say that last night was a good start.

“I would think like to think it certainly should sell out. That to me would be an indicator. That’s one of the reasons I’d like to see how this thing progresses a year from now. To me, the game deserves a full building.”

http://news.cincinnati.com/ucblog

(12-20-2012 09:01 PM)ctipton Wrote:  “I’ve been a campus guy from the get-go,” Bobinski said. “I personally would rather wait and play next year’s event and then sort of regroup and evaluate it at that point. I will say that last night was a good start.

“I would think like to think it certainly should sell out. That to me would be an indicator. That’s one of the reasons I’d like to see how this thing progresses a year from now. To me, the game deserves a full building.”

So according to Bobinski selling out a 10,050 seat stadium is better than having 14,500 at a 16,000 seat stadium???

Seems like an excuse to try and keep from playing this game downtown full-time where UC will most likely always have the crowd advantage.

Bobinski's fan base was responsible for it not being a sellout.

I like that Xavier's desire to have it returned to campus (meaning solely that they get it in their gym in front of their crummy fans half the time) is so out there already, and I should think their motives are transparent. I realize that we have learned not to trust liberal-minded administrations to do anything other than turn the other cheek and sing Kumbaya, but I like what I'm hearing from Mick, and he's putting his administration in a position where they will clearly have to defy his wishes if they want to return to the campuses.

We have the opportunity right now to never have to set foot in Cintas Center again, and shame on us if we fumble it. We have shown ourselves to be overly generous where the UC-Miami football series is concerned -- let's not make the same mistake with this basketball series, if it is to be played at all. (I never liked the idea of associating with hypocrites like Xavier in the first place.)

(12-21-2012 07:50 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(12-20-2012 09:01 PM)ctipton Wrote:  “I’ve been a campus guy from the get-go,” Bobinski said. “I personally would rather wait and play next year’s event and then sort of regroup and evaluate it at that point. I will say that last night was a good start.

“I would think like to think it certainly should sell out. That to me would be an indicator. That’s one of the reasons I’d like to see how this thing progresses a year from now. To me, the game deserves a full building.”

So according to Bobinski selling out a 10,050 seat stadium is better than having 14,500 at a 16,000 seat stadium???

Seems like an excuse to try and keep from playing this game downtown full-time where UC will most likely always have the crowd advantage.

I think it's the loss of revenue that's driving Bobinski. The XU athletic department has only one cash positive sport in their program -- basketball. The Crosstown game is among the biggest contributors to that cash flow. Whatever he says about the location of the game has to be calibrated against his desire for cash. He'd rather have the entire gate every other year than the meager proceeds of US Bank every year.

We have football with a new stadium financial model coming up. We need this game waaayyyy less than XU does looking into the future.

Just like Mick said in his press conf (http://www.gobearcats.com/allaccess/?media=355195), things may be calm for the moment, but in a few years, we'd be right back to the hate spewing crowds just like before.

If we need this game at all, let's keep it downtown.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if Mick had the brand new arena he wanted, they'd be asking for a home-home 2 game per year series with X to get a guaranteed rivalry game in Clifton to help move premium seats.

I would love to see the financials on this game. Will selling roughly 9,000 tickets every year and paying US Bank a fee to use the arena result in more money for UC than 13,000+ tickets every 2 years, plus all the parking revenue.

(12-21-2012 10:21 AM)Overrated Wrote:  I would love to see the financials on this game. Will selling roughly 9,000 tickets every year and paying US Bank a fee to use the arena result in more money for UC than 13,000+ tickets every 2 years, plus all the parking revenue.

Parking revenue and ticket revenue on campus go two different places.

The revenue is still UC's either way even if different department etc....also ask the Clifton area businesses where they want the game played. We still have not got back all the sponsors that we lost when we moved the football games downtown last year!

Xavier has no one else to blame if they wanted it to be a home and home. The brawl happened in their arena, because of their players, and because of their fans.

Deal with it.

It really doesn't matter what Bobinski wants. The game will be played wherever UC wants to play it.

Basketball isn't football. UC will have 18-20 other home games. Adding a key non-conference or two each season at home would help. I am believer that when Louisville moves to the ACC that Cincinnati should schedule them as a non-conference game. I also would like to see a home and home with Dayton and a continuation of the two for one deals with Miami and Wright State.

I think its important to allow UC fans a chance to travel to the Dayton area to support their Cats.

(12-21-2012 08:19 AM)George Kaplan Wrote:  Bobinski's fan base was responsible for it not being a sellout.

I like that Xavier's desire to have it returned to campus (meaning solely that they get it in their gym in front of their crummy fans half the time) is so out there already, and I should think their motives are transparent. I realize that we have learned not to trust liberal-minded administrations to do anything other than turn the other cheek and sing Kumbaya, but I like what I'm hearing from Mick, and he's putting his administration in a position where they will clearly have to defy his wishes if they want to return to the campuses.

We have the opportunity right now to never have to set foot in Cintas Center again, and shame on us if we fumble it. We have shown ourselves to be overly generous where the UC-Miami football series is concerned -- let's not make the same mistake with this basketball series, if it is to be played at all. (I never liked the idea of associating with hypocrites like Xavier in the first place.)

Well said--never, ever go back to Cintas. I disagree somewhat on UC-Miami football only because Miami has so many seats available it can become a de facto home game for UC. Tickets are cheap and the drive and tailgating are both easy. And it's a potential drawing card for UC folks in the Hamilton/Middletown/Dayton corridor.

(12-21-2012 01:44 PM)indycat Wrote:  

(12-21-2012 08:19 AM)George Kaplan Wrote:  Bobinski's fan base was responsible for it not being a sellout.

I like that Xavier's desire to have it returned to campus (meaning solely that they get it in their gym in front of their crummy fans half the time) is so out there already, and I should think their motives are transparent. I realize that we have learned not to trust liberal-minded administrations to do anything other than turn the other cheek and sing Kumbaya, but I like what I'm hearing from Mick, and he's putting his administration in a position where they will clearly have to defy his wishes if they want to return to the campuses.

We have the opportunity right now to never have to set foot in Cintas Center again, and shame on us if we fumble it. We have shown ourselves to be overly generous where the UC-Miami football series is concerned -- let's not make the same mistake with this basketball series, if it is to be played at all. (I never liked the idea of associating with hypocrites like Xavier in the first place.)

Well said--never, ever go back to Cintas. I disagree somewhat on UC-Miami football only because Miami has so many seats available it can become a de facto home game for UC. Tickets are cheap and the drive and tailgating are both easy. And it's a potential drawing card for UC folks in the Hamilton/Middletown/Dayton corridor.

I'm not suggesting necessarily that UC never plays in Oxford again, but it should be a 3-for-1 deal ideally, and realistically a 2-for-1 deal. Again, if Miami isn't interested in those terms then they are removing a marquee opponent (and big win opportunity) from their schedule (one that comes with essentially no travel costs), and I don't think they're in a position to do that. And if terms like that (2-for-1) are proposed and rejected by Miami, then I think most intelligent people would blame Miami for stopping the series. After that, maybe you treat them as a buy game here on occasion, if they're interested.

agreed...no cintas

either play XU downtown every year or cxl the series

If never going back to Cintas again but not looking like a oaf in making that occur, the brawl may turn out to be a big positive, certainly with respect to this series. I mean, honestly, Tu Holloway goes looking for trouble and Dez Wells pushes GeLawn Guyn to the floor, and it ultimately costs Xavier ever hosting UC again. That's not a bad silver lining. UC needs to stand firm on this one.

Money will drive the future of the series, most of the stuff in this thread is just noise.

(12-21-2012 10:21 AM)Overrated Wrote:  I would love to see the financials on this game. Will selling roughly 9,000 tickets every year and paying US Bank a fee to use the arena result in more money for UC than 13,000+ tickets every 2 years, plus all the parking revenue.

I don't think that Xavier has parking revenue, do they? I seem to remember everyone parking in an old grocery store parking lot nearby.

Also, does anyone consider that the tickets for the downtown game were twice as expensive than they ever are when they're on campus? There's no doubt that this is a money maker.

(12-21-2012 06:29 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  agreed...no cintas

either play XU downtown every year or cxl the series

Cancel the series? Once the "new" BE yes started, Xavier is liable to be one of the top 2 or 3 teams on the schedule.

Some of the nonsense spewed here is amusing. Xavier-UC is a great rivalry game, 99% of the time is a great PR moment for both programs, and the idea of canceling it because one fanbase or the other needs to feel smugly superior and claim the other guys to be "beneath them" is frankly absurd.

The game should stay at US Bank arena for the near future. As for the future OOC, I see Whit really stepping up the schedule if we are in a weaker conference. Even when we were in C-USA, there were still bigger games in the season.

As long as I can remember it has been a huge rivalry game for Xavier, as well as for the social elite of the city who do not show up the rest of the year. For the season long UC fans it has been a game to get out of the way so the real season can begin.