(12-18-2012 11:05 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 10:08 AM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  The basic premise is that you shouldn't add seats unless there is demand to do so, which there isn't. Had Nippert been sold out for consecutive season then it would have warranted adding 5k - 10k new seats. What there is demand for is premium seating and luxury boxes for top-tier donors and those who don't necessarily want to sit in bleachers/chair backs and would rather have private accommodations. This renovation fits their needs to a tee.

I recall Whit saying in the past that he wasn't going to add seats just for the sake of putting a big number in a brochure, he wanted to make the stadium functionally better. It looks like that is what is gonna happen.
I do hope the current plans on the drawing board will have some preplanned flexibility if we hopefully need to add more capacity in the future.

Yea that would be nice. I will say that I was at first hoping they would break the 40k threshold and potentially increase capacity to 45k. But then I realized that I would rather they invest in re-doing the seating in the bowl so the first 5 - 7 rows didn't have bad sight lines. If renovating the stadium is all about revenue, then working on improving some of the best (and priciest) seats in the house is more beneficial than simply adding seats.

I am very excited. The most important things are fixing concessions/restrooms so that they dont drive away the casual fan and adding boxes/revenue seats

(12-18-2012 11:12 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  Wake Forest's stadium seats 31,500, Washington State 32,248 - Duke 33,941

They have credibility (for some reason), or at least are in leagues that have credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCA...l_stadiums

Oregon State and UConn aren't much larger but you never hear anyone complain about their stadium. TCU, Baylor and Stanford have all decreased capacity. UC definitely held to a different standard. I think locally it has to with once again everyone wanting to compare UC to Ohio State and UK which has been stated before are unfair comparisons.

Trend in sports is making the stadium as comfortable as possible. All sports leagues know that competing with sitting at home and watch 1080P on a 55" TV as compared to watching it live is getting tougher and tougher. So long as the experience is good, and it is a comfortable place to see a game - we will be fine.

Get your mind off overall capacity and wrap it around boxes and premium seats, better amenities, concourse improvement, etc. These drawings look really really good. Boxes are the way to go whether youre a pro baseball or football franchise or college facility. It is not about saying we can seat 50,000.

My take.

Pros:
1. Revenue generater through the new boxes/luxury seats.
2. Nippert will look and have the feel of a stadium that is much larger. I think people underestimate how much of an effect balancing the east pavillion will have.
3. Nippert's infrastructure will most likely be more functional.
4. It looks like Nippert might be a much louder stadium. (Built more upward than outward).
5. The design is modern and fits with the campus, yet appears to retain the quaintness that makes Nippert so special.

Cons:
1. Is it too short-sighted? If in the future there is a real need to add more seats, is there any space left?
2. Why not gain the extra 500 or so seats by extending the new pavillion to the end of the boxes. It will be cheaper to add them while building the new structure.
3. Will it change perception?
4. Regardless of changes, fans will always complain.

EDIT:
Removed PBS comment based on Crewdogz response (Post #28). He is right.

The only part of this that has me somewhat concerned and maybe Whitt can/will address it.....is that when we do upgrade our league status. They have to find a way IMO to play the big name teams AT NIPPERT STADIUM!

I don't know how it all works, maybe having the added luxury boxes etc. etc. will give UC the added revenue to pay a big name school to make up any difference because of lack of seating. {?}

I just don't like this thinking of when UC play an upper echelon team that every bit of home field advantage is absolutely stripped away from our players. Even if PBS would be sold out, it just is not as loud (for the known reasons) as playing at a sold out Nippert.

I may be wrong, but I do believe that the administrations of these big named schools want absolutely nothing to do with bringing their storied programs into Nippert Stadium where it sounds like there are 65,000+ UC fans and leaving with their helmets in hand. Whitt and Ono have to do EVERYTHING possible to keep EVERY game at OUR stadium. Like has been mentioned previously, there are quite a few stadiums that the bigger named schools have to go to that only seat 37,000-45,000. Why is it that other teams get to keep their home games truly at home but when said big time teams play UC - good ole Cincinnati marches down and puts money into Mike's wallet and allows the other school to nullify any true home field advantage with more of their fans?

Hopefully this improvement of our stadium will address many issues, with one being to allow UC to play all games, no matter who the opponent is....at Nippert Stadium. Thoughts?

(12-18-2012 11:55 AM)Shafes Wrote:  My take. Overall, nice addition that hits most of the right areas, but it looks like UC is embracing the need to use PBS in certain big game situations.

Pros:
1. Revenue generater through the new boxes/luxury seats.
2. Nippert will look and have the feel of a stadium that is much larger. I think people underestimate how much of an effect balancing the east pavillion will have.
3. Nippert's infrastructure will most likely be more functional.
4. It looks like Nippert might be a much louder stadium. (Built more upward than outward).
5. The design is modern and fits with the campus, yet appears to retain the quaintness that makes Nippert so special.

Cons:
1. Is it too short-sighted? If in the future there is a real need to add more seats, is there any space left?
2. Why not gain the extra 500 or so seats by extending the new pavillion to the end of the boxes. It will be cheaper to add them while building the new structure.
3. Will it change perception?
4. Regardless of changes, fans will always complain.

I think you shoot yourself in the foot revenue wise if you ask big donors to buy luxury boxes and then move premium games to PBS where they will not have a luxury box.

Adding the upper-deck to the visiting side will change the acoustics of the stadium tremendously. I imagine it'll get really loud down on the field level now.

(12-18-2012 11:40 AM)UCJT Wrote:  Trend in sports is making the stadium as comfortable as possible. All sports leagues know that competing with sitting at home and watch 1080P on a 55" TV as compared to watching it live is getting tougher and tougher. So long as the experience is good, and it is a comfortable place to see a game - we will be fine.

This is a really good point -- it'd be interesting to see if part of the plan here is to address some of the "modern" comforts at the game (improved in-stadium wireless access, replace the scoreboard with a widescreen HD board, add some HDTVs in the concourse so you can follow the game while getting a beer, etc.) with the effort being to capture the market of fans who follow the program but would prefer to sit at home and watch the game v. coming down to Nippert.

It would fit well with Whit's idea of "improving the gameday experience" with tailgating and whatnot.

(12-18-2012 12:05 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:55 AM)Shafes Wrote:  My take. Overall, nice addition that hits most of the right areas, but it looks like UC is embracing the need to use PBS in certain big game situations.

Pros:
1. Revenue generater through the new boxes/luxury seats.
2. Nippert will look and have the feel of a stadium that is much larger. I think people underestimate how much of an effect balancing the east pavillion will have.
3. Nippert's infrastructure will most likely be more functional.
4. It looks like Nippert might be a much louder stadium. (Built more upward than outward).
5. The design is modern and fits with the campus, yet appears to retain the quaintness that makes Nippert so special.

Cons:
1. Is it too short-sighted? If in the future there is a real need to add more seats, is there any space left?
2. Why not gain the extra 500 or so seats by extending the new pavillion to the end of the boxes. It will be cheaper to add them while building the new structure.
3. Will it change perception?
4. Regardless of changes, fans will always complain.

I think you shoot yourself in the foot revenue wise if you ask big donors to buy luxury boxes and then move premium games to PBS where they will not have a luxury box.

Why wouldn't they be given a box at PBS? They have far more boxes there than Nippert ever will.

(12-18-2012 12:25 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:05 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:55 AM)Shafes Wrote:  My take. Overall, nice addition that hits most of the right areas, but it looks like UC is embracing the need to use PBS in certain big game situations.

Pros:
1. Revenue generater through the new boxes/luxury seats.
2. Nippert will look and have the feel of a stadium that is much larger. I think people underestimate how much of an effect balancing the east pavillion will have.
3. Nippert's infrastructure will most likely be more functional.
4. It looks like Nippert might be a much louder stadium. (Built more upward than outward).
5. The design is modern and fits with the campus, yet appears to retain the quaintness that makes Nippert so special.

Cons:
1. Is it too short-sighted? If in the future there is a real need to add more seats, is there any space left?
2. Why not gain the extra 500 or so seats by extending the new pavillion to the end of the boxes. It will be cheaper to add them while building the new structure.
3. Will it change perception?
4. Regardless of changes, fans will always complain.

I think you shoot yourself in the foot revenue wise if you ask big donors to buy luxury boxes and then move premium games to PBS where they will not have a luxury box.

Why wouldn't they be given a box at PBS? They have far more boxes there than Nippert ever will.

I don't know this for sure, but I bet the Brown family would take a huge cut of any luxury box revenue at PBS, considering how they've pretty much cornered concessions and parking there for any event.
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but if we offer nice luxury suites at Nippert, maybe some business would prefer to invest in those rather than that pig in a poke down on the river.

The boxes at Nippert belong to UC which they will lease, the boxes at PBS belong to the County/Mike Brown. So if Company X leases a box at PBS they aren't going to allow Company Y to use it for premium games like UC vs. Oklahoma. Unless I am wrong it's 2 different locations owned/operated by 2 seperate entities.

(12-18-2012 12:25 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:05 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:55 AM)Shafes Wrote:  My take. Overall, nice addition that hits most of the right areas, but it looks like UC is embracing the need to use PBS in certain big game situations.

...

I think you shoot yourself in the foot revenue wise if you ask big donors to buy luxury boxes and then move premium games to PBS where they will not have a luxury box.

Why wouldn't they be given a box at PBS? They have far more boxes there than Nippert ever will.

I think Crewdogz is right. At first I thought about the PBS boxes too, but I know many stadiums have you buy the rights to the boxes, which means you have the rights to it for all events. So the PBS box owners would still have the rights for events outside of Bengals games.

fricken awesome....can't wait

(12-18-2012 12:31 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  The boxes at Nippert belong to UC which they will lease, the boxes at PBS belong to the County/Mike Brown. So if Company X leases a box at PBS they aren't going to allow Company Y to use it for premium games like UC vs. Oklahoma. Unless I am wrong it's 2 different locations owned/operated by 2 seperate entities.

hmm. That would make sense. I'm not sure how that works.

Not sure how the boxes will work as at the Shoe the Boxes are now leased thru IMG not UC

We cannot and won't be taken seriously with 35,000 seats...our issue is one of perception much more than reality. To spend that kind of money and end up with no increase in capacity makes no sense. We came close to filling the place several times this year...and have filled numerous times in the past several years. Our objective is to grow and develop the program to a level that clearly belongs among the "players" in college football. We don't have to be OSU but we can't be sitting with a really nice MAC facility either. If we don't believe we can develop enough to get a consistent crowd level into the 40's then I'm not sure what the direction is here.

Can't wait until that lease is up in... what... 14 more years??

(12-18-2012 01:38 PM)cmhcat Wrote:  We cannot and won't be taken seriously with 35,000 seats...our issue is one of perception much more than reality. To spend that kind of money and end up with no increase in capacity makes no sense. We came close to filling the place several times this year...and have filled numerous times in the past several years. Our objective is to grow and develop the program to a level that clearly belongs among the "players" in college football. We don't have to be OSU but we can't be sitting with a really nice MAC facility either. If we don't believe we can develop enough to get a consistent crowd level into the 40's then I'm not sure what the direction is here.

When UC shows that it can consistently, year after year sell out Nippert Stadium (and season tickets to begin with), then they will be forced to add more seats. Until then, 35,000 is the right size for Cincinnati.