I'd be all for renaming Nippert Stadium if it meant bringing in a lot of $$$. Why is it such a big deal to keep that name?

(02-21-2013 12:51 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:40 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  I'm not sure what the Nippert's paid to keep the stadium name the same but hopefully it was substantial. If not I'm telling them thanks for all your support but we need to do what is best for this athletic department. That 15 million her estate gave to CCM instead of the athletic department could've bought the rights for a while longer.

You do not piss off donors by going back on an agreement like that. Especially one that has the power and influence of that family. If you tell them that, it hurts a whole lot of places throughout the university. It is not worth losing their support university wide so you can get a few million bucks from renaming the stadium.

Any idea on how much $$$ they contributed to keep that name? And this is a serious question, because I dont know the answer, but what all have they done University wide to support the school?

(02-21-2013 12:51 PM)subflea Wrote:  You do not piss off donors by going back on an agreement like that. Especially one that has the power and influence of that family. If you tell them that, it hurts a whole lot of places throughout the university. It is not worth losing their support university wide so you can get a few million bucks from renaming the stadium.

You're right you don't. I guess I'm more disappointed in the administration who allowed that to happen in the first place. Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama all have the luxury to name their stadium's whatever they so choose because of the stupid amount of money they generate. For a school with the revenue of ours I just cannot even understand the thought process to unlimited length naming rights

(02-21-2013 01:03 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:51 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:40 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  I'm not sure what the Nippert's paid to keep the stadium name the same but hopefully it was substantial. If not I'm telling them thanks for all your support but we need to do what is best for this athletic department. That 15 million her estate gave to CCM instead of the athletic department could've bought the rights for a while longer.

You do not piss off donors by going back on an agreement like that. Especially one that has the power and influence of that family. If you tell them that, it hurts a whole lot of places throughout the university. It is not worth losing their support university wide so you can get a few million bucks from renaming the stadium.

Any idea on how much $$$ they contributed to keep that name? And this is a serious question, because I dont know the answer, but what all have they done University wide to support the school?

Louise Nippert was one of the biggest benefactors of CCM, fully funding the renovations of Schmidlapp and Corbett Auditorium. She also has anonymously given millions of dollars for a host of other projects, scholarships and endowed chairs. James Nippert paid for the land and construction of Nippert Stadium.

The Nipperts are part of the fabric of UC's history, I wouldn't sell away their legacy for a temporary windfall. There are other ways to creatively sell naming rights.

(02-21-2013 01:11 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama all have the luxury to name their stadium's whatever they so choose because of the stupid amount of money they generate.

Funny that the 4 schools you mentioned all have stadiums named after the people who donated large sums to get the stadiums built, just like ours was named after a family member of the people who donated a large sum for the stadium to be built. None of those schools sold naming rights to a large corporation.

(02-21-2013 01:11 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:51 PM)subflea Wrote:  You do not piss off donors by going back on an agreement like that. Especially one that has the power and influence of that family. If you tell them that, it hurts a whole lot of places throughout the university. It is not worth losing their support university wide so you can get a few million bucks from renaming the stadium.

You're right you don't. I guess I'm more disappointed in the administration who allowed that to happen in the first place. Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama all have the luxury to name their stadium's whatever they so choose because of the stupid amount of money they generate. For a school with the revenue of ours I just cannot even understand the thought process to unlimited length naming rights

The stadium was built and named in 1924 before naming rights were sold. Great buildings used to be named as a way to honor people worthy of a legacy. I think dying as a direct result of an injury while playing qualifies.

(02-21-2013 12:51 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:40 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  I'm not sure what the Nippert's paid to keep the stadium name the same but hopefully it was substantial. If not I'm telling them thanks for all your support but we need to do what is best for this athletic department. That 15 million her estate gave to CCM instead of the athletic department could've bought the rights for a while longer.

You do not piss off donors by going back on an agreement like that. Especially one that has the power and influence of that family. If you tell them that, it hurts a whole lot of places throughout the university. It is not worth losing their support university wide so you can get a few million bucks from renaming the stadium.

Not to mention the implication behind the CCM comment is foolish. The last thing UC needs to do is pit or position our assets against each other. There's room for both CCM and athletics to thrive so UC should be and I'm sure is thrilled with donations to either program.

(02-21-2013 01:03 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:51 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:40 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  I'm not sure what the Nippert's paid to keep the stadium name the same but hopefully it was substantial. If not I'm telling them thanks for all your support but we need to do what is best for this athletic department. That 15 million her estate gave to CCM instead of the athletic department could've bought the rights for a while longer.

You do not piss off donors by going back on an agreement like that. Especially one that has the power and influence of that family. If you tell them that, it hurts a whole lot of places throughout the university. It is not worth losing their support university wide so you can get a few million bucks from renaming the stadium.

Any idea on how much $$$ they contributed to keep that name? And this is a serious question, because I dont know the answer, but what all have they done University wide to support the school?

I don't know the exact amount they gave for the name to remain the same.

As far as other gifts, I know she gave tens of millions to CCM over the years before her passing. That was in addition to the $85 million she gave to the arts throughout the city. When a donor has that kind of cash to spread around, you keep them happy.

(02-21-2013 01:17 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:51 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:40 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  I'm not sure what the Nippert's paid to keep the stadium name the same but hopefully it was substantial. If not I'm telling them thanks for all your support but we need to do what is best for this athletic department. That 15 million her estate gave to CCM instead of the athletic department could've bought the rights for a while longer.

You do not piss off donors by going back on an agreement like that. Especially one that has the power and influence of that family. If you tell them that, it hurts a whole lot of places throughout the university. It is not worth losing their support university wide so you can get a few million bucks from renaming the stadium.

Not to mention the implication behind the CCM comment is foolish. The last thing UC needs to do is pit or position our assets against each other. There's room for both CCM and athletics to thrive so UC should be and I'm sure is thrilled with donations to either program.

Completely agree with this.

I always like posting this Josh Katzowitz piece on the Nippert's when this discussion comes up. Very informative information on the history of the program/family:

http://www.cnati.com/featured-stories/ex...ert-00892/

(02-21-2013 01:14 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:11 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama all have the luxury to name their stadium's whatever they so choose because of the stupid amount of money they generate.

Funny that the 4 schools you mentioned all have stadiums named after the people who donated large sums to get the stadiums built, just like ours was named after a family member of the people who donated a large sum for the stadium to be built. None of those schools sold naming rights to a large corporation.

None of those schools sold their naming rights because they are in a position where they have sufficient income to do what they please. We're in a position where we're going to make at most 3 million a year from our most valuable asset (TV Rights).

(02-21-2013 01:17 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Not to mention the implication behind the CCM comment is foolish. The last thing UC needs to do is pit or position our assets against each other. There's room for both CCM and athletics to thrive so UC should be and I'm sure is thrilled with donations to either program.

Yes there is room for both to thrive but if you don't think that assets fight over money you are delusional. It may not be public but you can rest assured they are fighting over money just like everyone else does.

(02-21-2013 01:16 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The stadium was built and named in 1924 before naming rights were sold. Great buildings used to be named as a way to honor people worthy of a legacy. I think dying as a direct result of an injury while playing qualifies.

It did qualify in 1924. A lot of things were normal in 1924 that would now be considered "dated" and we've evolved from them to do newer and better things.


BTW I'm talking about renaming a stadium not abolishing the Nippert's from UC's history.

(02-21-2013 01:31 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:14 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:11 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama all have the luxury to name their stadium's whatever they so choose because of the stupid amount of money they generate.

Funny that the 4 schools you mentioned all have stadiums named after the people who donated large sums to get the stadiums built, just like ours was named after a family member of the people who donated a large sum for the stadium to be built. None of those schools sold naming rights to a large corporation.

None of those schools sold their naming rights because they are in a position where they have sufficient income to do what they please. We're in a position where we're going to make at most 3 million a year from our most valuable asset (TV Rights).

Just off the top of my head, I've having a hard time coming up with any non-NFL stadiums besides Lousyville's that has a major corporate name attached to it via paid naming rights. Most are named after people.

(02-21-2013 01:37 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:31 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:14 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:11 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama all have the luxury to name their stadium's whatever they so choose because of the stupid amount of money they generate.

Funny that the 4 schools you mentioned all have stadiums named after the people who donated large sums to get the stadiums built, just like ours was named after a family member of the people who donated a large sum for the stadium to be built. None of those schools sold naming rights to a large corporation.

None of those schools sold their naming rights because they are in a position where they have sufficient income to do what they please. We're in a position where we're going to make at most 3 million a year from our most valuable asset (TV Rights).

Just off the top of my head, I've having a hard time coming up with any non-NFL stadiums besides Lousyville's that has a major corporate name attached to it via paid naming rights. Most are named after people.

The reason we're having this discussion is because of the loss of revenue coming from the old Big East and the NBE. Trying to build a new addition to a stadium with LESS money than you had before. When you lose money you're forced to come up with new streams of income. This solution is one people bring up.

(02-21-2013 01:37 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Just off the top of my head, I've having a hard time coming up with any non-NFL stadiums besides Lousyville's that has a major corporate name attached to it via paid naming rights. Most are named after people.

You are correct - there are not that many (but I may have missed some)

Apogee Stadium - North Texas
BB&T Field - Wake Forest
Bright House Networks Stadium - UCF
Carrier Dome - Syracuse
Houchens Industries–L. T. Smith Stadium - WKU
Jones AT&T Stadium - Texas Tech
Liberty Bank Stadium - Arkansas State
Papa John's Cardinal Stadium - UofL, as noted above
InfoCision Stadium – Summa Field - Akron
TCF Bank Stadium - Minnesota
GEO Group Stadium - Florida Atlantic (this is in the news this week - GEO Group runs prisons)

UC wouldn't have started the Nippert expansion fundraising unless they were positive they could raise the amount needed and likely had a good chunk of it already committed. Whit is on record saying Nippert and Carson Field will not be renamed but other things could be sold for naming rights. I'm pretty confident leaving the fundraising to the experts.

(02-21-2013 02:34 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  UC wouldn't have started the Nippert expansion fundraising unless they were positive they could raise the amount needed and likely had a good chunk of it already committed. Whit is on record saying Nippert and Carson Field will not be renamed but other things could be sold for naming rights. I'm pretty confident leaving the fundraising to the experts.

If we left everything to the experts we wouldn't have a message board.

I'm sure the press box and all the new construction on that side will be named for sponsors. However, the field and the stadium already have names that aren't for sale.

(02-21-2013 02:34 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  UC wouldn't have started the Nippert expansion fundraising unless they were positive they could raise the amount needed and likely had a good chunk of it already committed. Whit is on record saying Nippert and Carson Field will not be renamed but other things could be sold for naming rights. I'm pretty confident leaving the fundraising to the experts.

All they need is enough to get started. UC doesn't need to fundraise the entire $70M.

I read (on here?) that all UC needs to do is sell 50% to break even. They've done research on this already, so I think they have a decent idea of what they can sell and for how much.

(02-21-2013 01:34 PM)Kco17 Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:17 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Not to mention the implication behind the CCM comment is foolish. The last thing UC needs to do is pit or position our assets against each other. There's room for both CCM and athletics to thrive so UC should be and I'm sure is thrilled with donations to either program.

Yes there is room for both to thrive but if you don't think that assets fight over money you are delusional. It may not be public but you can rest assured they are fighting over money just like everyone else does.

Of course there are internal debates over limited funds, nobody is arguing about that so skip the red herrings. This is about how you treat your benefactors and lead a University. You don't tell the family of someone who gave $15M to one of your programs that she felt strongly about that she should have put it somewhere else instead. And you especially don't tell her family that she should have put it elsewhere to temporarily continue naming rights that they already were promised in return for separate donations. The President/Administration has a duty to look out for the entire University. To tell or imply to a donor that he/she should have donated to another program instead is a foolish recipe to end up with nothing for either program and much internal strife.