(04-13-2013 09:56 AM)chatcat Wrote:  

(04-13-2013 09:37 AM)indycat Wrote:  A major renovation and a favorable lease arrangement would make this a no brainer--at least as an interim home for UC. If the Nippert renovation truly enhances athletic revenue as projected and the ACC becomes the new conference home, US Bank Arena (USBA) could be the missing link in upgrading BOTH football and basketball facilities in the short term without incurring nine figure debt for UC. UC is "Cincinnati's team" and has proven in past decades it can fill 17,000 seats there for the best games. With plenty of parking and the added restaurant and bar choices (now within walking distance) a rebuilt USBA would be the largest and best venue for college basketball in our city. It would also be one of the largest arenas in the ACC, I believe behind maybe only the Carrier Dome and Yum Center. UCONN has nothing this size. Ditto for other teams that will compete for a coveted opening in the ACC.

I believe the DeanDome seats well over 20,000.

Yes, I've seen it and you're indeed correct. So I'll say the top third of the ACC would be a safe guess without looking up the stats.

Something has to be decided regarding basketball within the next year or so. Regarding downtown, I think if the Bearcats move downtown they should make a full effort to establish a presence down there. Moving the College of Law down there would be a start. A second building should become the second home of professional programs like paralegal, criminal justice, and business (part time and night). The arena would be the crown jewel of the new University of Cincinnati-Downtown Campus. Main Campus would be still be the home of football and every other major sports. Every degree program outside of law would still be available on main campus; however, working professionals downtown will now have their program within walking distance of their place of work.

(04-13-2013 09:56 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Plenty of parking? Is that true? How many of the red-sweater crowd (UC's biggest donors) are going to walk several blocks in the middle of the winter, plus navigate the stairs/escalators to get to the concourse level? And if all your parking is in garages, then how long will people be willing to wait in traffic to get out of those garages? And how long will students be willing to stand outside in freezing weather waiting on a bus to take them back to campus?

Answer those questions UC, plus some renovation to the Arena, and then maybe its a viable option. I would say the majority of fans that attend games are not interested in going to a bar/restaurant before or after the event. They just came for basketball, and need to get back home for work the next day.

Just speaking for myself, I agree. Most home games seem to be played on weeknights. As it is now I don't have time to make it home first and get to the 7 PM tipoffs, I usually have to drive over directly from work. After working an eleven hour day the last thing I want to do is booze it up in a bar or sit down in a restaurant downtown after the game when I have to be up the next morning by 6AM.
To have a few special games down there a year on a weekend when a crowd over the capacity of the Shoe is expected is fine. To do this for every home game seems excessive and not likely cost effective in the long run.
Also skeptical of this $100 million thing without UC getting stuck with footing at least some of the bill. There's no free lunch. If the university is going to invest money in facilities, let it be in an arena the school has control over.

(04-13-2013 09:56 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Plenty of parking? Is that true? How many of the red-sweater crowd (UC's biggest donors) are going to walk several blocks in the middle of the winter, plus navigate the stairs/escalators to get to the concourse level? And if all your parking is in garages, then how long will people be willing to wait in traffic to get out of those garages? And how long will students be willing to stand outside in freezing weather waiting on a bus to take them back to campus?

Answer those questions UC, plus some renovation to the Arena, and then maybe its a viable option. I would say the majority of fans that attend games are not interested in going to a bar/restaurant before or after the event. They just came for basketball, and need to get back home for work the next day.

I think you may some excellent counterpoints. This should all be researched before any decision but I do have anecdotal evidence from people attending a few games a year that they believe campus parking is a big issue. We who attend regularly know how to navigate Clifton and where to park. More casual fans are intimidated not knowing the neighborhood (mostly night games). Directions to cash parking are not clearly marked for these folks and traffic backs up on the west access (exiting/entering mostly from Hopple Street) and the east (no MLK exit) creating barriers to increased attendance on weeknights.
I'm a big believer that something is wrong. We have a 3 time NCAA participant, one year removed from the Sweet 16 and have played in the best conference in America in a half empty arena. I think out of respect for Coach Cronin and the team UC needs to understand the issues and work to resolve them. All options should be explored before moving to solutions.

(04-13-2013 10:59 AM)indycat Wrote:  I'm a big believer that something is wrong. We have a 3 time NCAA participant, one year removed from the Sweet 16 and have played in the best conference in America in a half empty arena. I think out of respect for Coach Cronin and the team UC needs to understand the issues and work to resolve them. All options should be explored before moving to solutions.

I don't think anything is wrong. Our attendance for BE games was very strong, not late 90's strong, but still good.

I have to admit to being intriqued by the possibility of playing a stones throw from all the new restaurants and bars at the Banks. It would create a different type of fan, a younger fan that we need. I think the area has changed enough to say that you can't compare to when we've played at the Coliseum in the past. Many young people are starting to gravitate to the downtown areas.

I still don't think it can be renovated. The concourses and bathrooms are too tight. $100 mil can make it look nice and fancy but I don't think at that price you could move the phyisical walls of the building which I think would need to be done to be able to widen concourses and put in new restroom facilities. If someones willing to blow it up and build a new state of the art 15,000 seat facility with the luxury/club seating there I'd be in favor of it.

(04-13-2013 10:59 AM)indycat Wrote:  

(04-13-2013 09:56 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Plenty of parking? Is that true? How many of the red-sweater crowd (UC's biggest donors) are going to walk several blocks in the middle of the winter, plus navigate the stairs/escalators to get to the concourse level? And if all your parking is in garages, then how long will people be willing to wait in traffic to get out of those garages? And how long will students be willing to stand outside in freezing weather waiting on a bus to take them back to campus?

Answer those questions UC, plus some renovation to the Arena, and then maybe its a viable option. I would say the majority of fans that attend games are not interested in going to a bar/restaurant before or after the event. They just came for basketball, and need to get back home for work the next day.

I think you may some excellent counterpoints. This should all be researched before any decision but I do have anecdotal evidence from people attending a few games a year that they believe campus parking is a big issue. We who attend regularly know how to navigate Clifton and where to park. More casual fans are intimidated not knowing the neighborhood (mostly night games). Directions to cash parking are not clearly marked for these folks and traffic backs up on the west access (exiting/entering mostly from Hopple Street) and the east (no MLK exit) creating barriers to increased attendance on weeknights.
I'm a big believer that something is wrong. We have a 3 time NCAA participant, one year removed from the Sweet 16 and have played in the best conference in America in a half empty arena. I think out of respect for Coach Cronin and the team UC needs to understand the issues and work to resolve them. All options should be explored before moving to solutions.

Agree that there's something wrong, just not sure a move off campus is the solution or not. We're not alone. Tradition rich UCLA just refurbished Pauley Pavilion, won the regular season conference title, had brought in a top recruiting class, and got in the tournament. Yet, if the numbers I found are correct(not sure they are- could be pre-refurb figures), their average attendance was 6,353 and ours was 8,069.
Here's the link if anyone's interested:
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketba...010-18.pdf

UCLA attendance figures are correct. UC actually drew more to conference games than UCLA. I think the biggest issue is all of the games are on TV. As a season ticket holder, there were a number of games I skipped to watch on TV, 9:30 start times are brutal and why spend $30 for parking and beer to watch a bad opponent when you can watch in the comfort of your house. Nationally all sports attendance is suffering because of the proliferation of TV coverage.

Parking is an issue when there are more than 10K people at a game. You discover spots but it gets dicey walking around Clifton late at night.

(04-13-2013 11:33 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  I still don't think it can be renovated. The concourses and bathrooms are too tight. $100 mil can make it look nice and fancy but I don't think at that price you could move the phyisical walls of the building which I think would need to be done to be able to widen concourses and put in new restroom facilities. If someones willing to blow it up and build a new state of the art 15,000 seat facility with the luxury/club seating there I'd be in favor of it.

For $100 million you would be able to get bigger concourses and bathrooms. It would be an internal and external facelift. The support structures are all in good shape. You could push the exterior walls out and do things like a glass exterior over looking the river. You would also be able to increase the size of the 2nd level to make larger locker rooms, a suitable media room, etc. Those things would be vital to attracting the NCAA tournament.

you could probably also reconfigure the seating - maybe to 15,000 but more comfortable. $100 mill is quite a bit of money when you have a solid structure in place.

Where are the rumors of a $100 million renovation coming from?

That number seems crazy to me.

(04-13-2013 08:19 PM)bearcatdp Wrote:  you could probably also reconfigure the seating - maybe to 15,000 but more comfortable. $100 mill is quite a bit of money when you have a solid structure in place.

Well they were saying $100 million for the Shoe too.

I remember going down to UC games in the 80's nothing was more depressing than having 2500-3000 people watching the game. You could hear someone sneeze across the arena and respond with a bless you and be thanked. I guess one advantage is that you heard the players talking to each other. It was so depressing the players hated it. Yes it was the Yates years and the level of play and players were poor. It was so unenjoyable I stopped going to games. When they moved back on campus the atmosphere was so much better, there was excitement and energy. I bought season tickets because it was fun again. I will not be getting season tickets if we move back to Riverfront Arena renovated or not.

Went to the Miss. State game ( had floor seats ) and went to the Dayton game ( good seats lower level, free throw line ), did not go to X game because I don't like the place, it's a dump, like the Shoe much better. Will certainly not attend any games there.

(04-14-2013 04:48 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  Went to the Miss. State game ( had floor seats ) and went to the Dayton game ( good seats lower level, free throw line ), did not go to X game because I don't like the place, it's a dump, like the Shoe much better. Will certainly not attend any games there.

I just don't get the people that call US bank a dump, what do think of 5/3?

Also, a renovation is part of any plan to move down there. I really doubt moving down there without a renovation is in anyone's plans.

US Bank will certainly NOT be a dump after a $100 million renovation. If it still is, who is in charge of such a project

For that matter, the Shoe wouldn't be either. Difference lies in, who is footing the bill. And what kind of lease UC ends up with.

(04-15-2013 09:59 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  US Bank will certainly NOT be a dump after a $100 million renovation. If it still is, who is in charge of such a project

For that matter, the Shoe wouldn't be either. Difference lies in, who is footing the bill. And what kind of lease UC ends up with.

Exactly. If what we're talking about is UC paying 100M vs. someone else paying the 100M to get a renovation that is needed to either arena... I guess I'm up for someone else paying.

(04-14-2013 04:48 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  Went to the Miss. State game ( had floor seats ) and went to the Dayton game ( good seats lower level, free throw line ), did not go to X game because I don't like the place, it's a dump, like the Shoe much better. Will certainly not attend any games there.

This is the kind of attitude that kills me. I'd go watch the cats if they played in a parking lot in Over the Rhine. An arena a team does not make- as yoda would put it.

$100mm?????????

Let's see: If UC averaged 13k tickets per game and thoe tickets averaged $50 per seat and UC played 20 home games per year and the arena got 50% of the ticket sales (all optimistic assumptions), it would take over 15 years just to pay back the principle on $100mm.

Financially, that is suicidal. The arena would get a far better return on the funds just by buying long term treasuries and take on far less rick.

I gotta believe that the $100mm figure is a figment of someone's drunken stupor.

(04-15-2013 11:19 AM)QSECOFR Wrote:  $100mm?????????

Let's see: If UC averaged 13k tickets per game and thoe tickets averaged $50 per seat and UC played 20 home games per year and the arena got 50% of the ticket sales (all optimistic assumptions), it would take over 15 years just to pay back the principle on $100mm.

Financially, that is suicidal. The arena would get a far better return on the funds just by buying long term treasuries and take on far less rick.

I gotta believe that the $100mm figure is a figment of someone's drunken stupor.

I wondered about that one too Why not just bulldoze and rebuild if it's really $100 MM just to fix it.

Either drunken stupor, or a federal-government-esque attempt to raise some pork-capital.

(04-15-2013 11:31 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(04-15-2013 11:19 AM)QSECOFR Wrote:  $100mm?????????

Let's see: If UC averaged 13k tickets per game and thoe tickets averaged $50 per seat and UC played 20 home games per year and the arena got 50% of the ticket sales (all optimistic assumptions), it would take over 15 years just to pay back the principle on $100mm.

Financially, that is suicidal. The arena would get a far better return on the funds just by buying long term treasuries and take on far less rick.

I gotta believe that the $100mm figure is a figment of someone's drunken stupor.

I wondered about that one too Why not just bulldoze and rebuild if it's really $100 MM just to fix it.

Either drunken stupor, or a federal-government-esque attempt to raise some pork-capital.

Q are you talking about 5/3 or USBank?

If US Bank were to get a major upgrade I think they would host way more events than just UC basketball home games.