For the WVU game, I noticed the Bulls had their logos painted on the field. Just wondering if anyone knew how they were able to work that out with the Bucs?
I know in Philly, Temple can only put up banners aroudn the field, and Pitt doesn't get to paint the field either?
Was it a one-time thing due to away games/bye week for the Bucs and the fact that it was a big game. Will they do this again (perhaps Cinci)?
Believe it has to do if the Tampa Bay Bucs have a home game that weekend or not.
For the Friday Night game vs WVU...the Bucs were on the road that weekend at Carolina.
This week, the Bucs are home at 1pm on Sunday...so not sure if USF will have much on the field logos as they did for the WVU game.
With the game on TV...I'm sure whatever that can be done to the field (that the Bucs approve) will be done.
Note: For the RU game last year...RJS grounds crew put an EXTRA layer of sold in the end zone...(painted it with USF logos)...then took it out by the next Buc home game (which wasn't for another week).
Problem was...the new sod on top didn't hold and provided very bad/uneven footing.
I think KnightLight is pretty much right. When there isn't a Bucs home game on the same weekend as USF, USF is given the option of having the field painted exclusively in USF colors. The two times we've had this opportunity were Rutgers last year and West Virginia this year. When we're both home on the same weekend, they'll sometimes just leave the Bucs logo unpainted with the white outline, and then paint the iconic "U" at midfield. Frankly, I don't care for that, because it looks like somebody's waving a white flag. Those occasions usually only happen when we play a day game the day before the Bucs. I'll go ahead and point out right now that the Bucs are home on November 4, the day after Cincinnati comes to USF. If the game really is played at 8 pm that night, the field will be fully decked out in Bucs paint, because they play about 14 hours after our game will be over.
Now, this is usually where the discussion of how necessary we should find an on campus stadium. However, we only pay $100K per game in rent (plus we don't get any concession or signage revenue at the stadium). For now, that's more financially sensible than the debt service and maintenance costs for our own stadium. Plus, Leavitt has long said that he likes the recruiting advantage of playing in a state of the art stadium where not only the Bucs play, but past and future Super Bowls are played. If/when it makes financial and competitive sense for us to have an on campus stadium, we'll cross that bridge.
USFFan
usffan Wrote:However, we only pay $100K per game in rent (plus we don't get any concession or signage revenue at the stadium).
That's terrible. Somebody dropped the ball negotiating that deal.
A turf field could have separate logos for college and NFL games. You'd just need to change those sections, and voila.
bitcruncher Wrote:A turf field could have separate logos for college and NFL games. You'd just need to change those sections, and voila.
Yes, but I believe that Raymond James is natural grass.
3601 Wrote:usffan Wrote:However, we only pay $100K per game in rent (plus we don't get any concession or signage revenue at the stadium).
That's terrible. Somebody dropped the ball negotiating that deal.
Having not negotiated it myself, I can't address how terrible a job this was. I do know that the cost of renting out the Network Associates Coliseum (which sucks compared to Raymond James Stadium) just for high school football was reported to cost over $300K, which is why they moved the NCS playoffs from there, so I'm not so sure that it's a bad deal.
USFFan
bitcruncher Wrote:A turf field could have separate logos for college and NFL games. You'd just need to change those sections, and voila.
With the "old" astroturf, sure. With the "new" fieldturf, I'm not so certain. It's a permanent installation. I don't believe that you can easily switch out sections without disturbing the millions of tiny rubber particles used in the base.
In Tampa's case, I believe that they must paint over the Bucs logo in green and then paint USF's logo over it. I think I read somewhere is like a $20,000 cost per game.
usffan Wrote:3601 Wrote:usffan Wrote:However, we only pay $100K per game in rent (plus we don't get any concession or signage revenue at the stadium).
That's terrible. Somebody dropped the ball negotiating that deal.
Having not negotiated it myself, I can't address how terrible a job this was. I do know that the cost of renting out the Network Associates Coliseum (which sucks compared to Raymond James Stadium) just for high school football was reported to cost over $300K, which is why they moved the NCS playoffs from there, so I'm not so sure that it's a bad deal.
USFFan
I'm comparing it to the deal that Memphis gets for leasing the Liberty Bowl.
We pay $35,000 per game.
We keep all skybox revenue.
We get 50% of the concessions revenue in excess of $50,000
We get a large portion of the signage advertising revenue.
We get 35% of parking revenue.
OrangeXtreme Wrote:bitcruncher Wrote:A turf field could have separate logos for college and NFL games. You'd just need to change those sections, and voila.
With the "old" astroturf, sure. With the "new" fieldturf, I'm not so certain. It's a permanent installation. I don't believe that you can easily switch out sections without disturbing the millions of tiny rubber particles used in the base.
The new Fieldturf has washable paint, I believe. It allows for easy removal and replacement of logos and such.
No offense but to try to compare a lease of the Liberty Bowl and RJS is apples an oranges.
RJS is a state of the art NFL stadium, main home of an NFL team that is the primary tennant and that has a sweetheart deal from the city to get them to stay in Tampa.
Cubanbull Wrote:No offense but to try to compare a lease of the Liberty Bowl and RJS is apples an oranges.
RJS is a state of the art NFL stadium, main home of an NFL team that is the primary tennant and that has a sweetheart deal from the city to get them to stay in Tampa.
Our lease at the "state of the art" FedExForum is even better.
A football stadium is a football stadium when it comes down to how much money the school is making off the game. Unless you get some sort of revenue because the stadium is "state of the art" then it really doesn't matter, does it? The primary reason that new stadiums are built is to create new revenue streams. If you aren't getting any of the revenue streams then what's the point?
ask our recruits. If you think playing in an NFL quality stadium is not helping our recruiting then you havent heard about our recruits raving about it.
Would we love to have better access to revenues absolutely and as our team draws better USF will have more leverage at getting better deals there.
Once it makes more financial sense to move to our own stadium them im sure USF will do so but for now there are advantages at playing at RJS
Cubanbull Wrote:ask our recruits. If you think playing in an NFL quality stadium is not helping our recruiting then you havent heard about our recruits raving about it.
Would we love to have better access to revenues absolutely and as our team draws better USF will have more leverage at getting better deals there.
Once it makes more financial sense to move to our own stadium them im sure USF will do so but for now there are advantages at playing at RJS
I agree with you on the recruits. I still think it's a bad lease.
It is NOT a good lease but unfortunately it is what it is. The Bucs hold all the cards there. As we draw sell out crowds it will put more pressure on them to give us a better deal or lose us as tenants and the money we bring.
Leavitt has been very vocal at the fact that RJS is a great recruiting tool and that he would like USF to stay there until we are able to build something comparable. Drawing 67,000 for games would not be possible if we built a simple 45,000 stadium on campus
3601,
Most USF fans agree that we dont have a great deal because of the Bucs getting the concessions, but where would USF play if they didnt agree to a deal??? Until USF builds their own stadium, I dont think USF could do a thing. I can tell you that the new deal is better than the old one, but we still are not getting a fair shake on it to be honest. Now that USF has the bandwagon effect of the City of Tampa, I expect things to change during the next go around much like the BIG EAST's bowl situation.
I agree that y'all really don't have any leverage. Hopefully, you'll get a more favorable lease when this one expires.
Memphis will obviously get a good deal for the Liberty Bowl, without Memphis football they only have 1 game a year in the place. That also explains the significant portion of the signage around the place going to UM. However, in USF's case they don't have much negotiating power. The NFL team obviously is the reason the signage is there, and they still have 10 dates a year at minimum for football without USF. It would be nice if they could find a way to do the logos on the field as some point (even to the point of putting htem at the 35 yardline or something).
3601 Wrote:OrangeXtreme Wrote:bitcruncher Wrote:A turf field could have separate logos for college and NFL games. You'd just need to change those sections, and voila.
With the "old" astroturf, sure. With the "new" fieldturf, I'm not so certain. It's a permanent installation. I don't believe that you can easily switch out sections without disturbing the millions of tiny rubber particles used in the base.
The new Fieldturf has washable paint, I believe. It allows for easy removal and replacement of logos and such.
Actually new field turf doesn't use paint. In the Carrier Dome, the lines and logos are actually colored turf fibers, just orange and blue and white instead of green.