Koch: Move UC basketball to the Banks

[UCalum08]

To add to the point of Waite... I honestly think if they want to move UC bball to downtown, ultimately its bigger than just UC basketball and that concerns UC.

The Banks is an automatic fun zone, new buildings, its fresh, fits well with GABP....and then there is US Bank. Its quickly becoming the eye sore of the riverfront. And besides the plus of UC bball having an awesome arena to play at, a new arena would fit the landscape, open Cincinnati to larger tournaments i.e. NCAA rounds, bigger shows etc and continue to keep downtown progressing. I find it hard to believe if the owners of US Bank want to truly make it a start of the art arena they could find help from the fortune 500 companies or the Castellini's. I mean Castellini has been a huge factor in the Banks becoming what it is.

There are def. pros and cons you can make sides for both. Honestly, if they would make US Bank a state of the art arena, its def. worth looking into. But besides it being a positive for UC, in reality its a positive for the City and almost necessary for the continued growth of downtown. Either way, it will be a while til anything happens with this.

 

[TheLongHaul]

I think Doc is dead on. The added entertainment value and better parking alone would be huge.

Except UC doesn't get any of that parking money. I'm on the fence still. One thing Doc doesn't mention is how it would benefit UC. It would definitely be beneficial for the city but it needs to be beneficial to UC and I'm still not sure what the best solution would be. In a perfect world I'd rather keep it on campus. If it moves off campus I will definitely miss the experience that goes along with having it on campus.

 

[BearcatMick]

You said,keep UC on campus and Doc is sensationalizing the argument for the paper. You provide no evidence or rationale for anything. You dont support a damn thing you say. On every single friggin topic you bring absolutely nothing of value to any discussion. At least the other people on here that I argue with have a point of view that is backed with some sort of reason. You either are a troll or an idiot. Either way you are just plain boring.

I'll ignore your ad homonym attacks this time.

1) US bank is a dump.
2) doc is just writing this to get clicks on a struggling enquirer website
3) we have a perfectly fine arena ON CAMPUS that is much more of a home court advantage than US bank could dream of. It's much louder
4)why should the university share ticket sales and concession stand profits with us bank when they could keep All the profits in house
5) 5/3 is a better arena

 

[JumpinJack5]

I'll ignore your ad homonym attacks this time.

1) US bank is a dump.
2) doc is just writing this to get clicks on a struggling enquirer website
3) we have a perfectly fine arena ON CAMPUS that is much more of a home court advantage than US bank could dream of. It's much louder
4)why should the university share ticket sales and concession stand profits with us bank when they could keep All the profits in house
5) 5/3 is a better arena

US Bank is not a dump. It could use some updating, but there are very few bad seats and the set up is much more ideal than 5/3. 5/3 has nicer concessions, restrooms, etc., but their are tons of bad seats and it isn't enjoyable to see a game there unless you are on the lower deck. While they won't be making a profit on ticket and concession sales, we don't have the expense of renovating an arena all by ourselves. If we offer to pay 20-30 mil to help with US Bank, that would be cheaper or about the same as paying 80 mil to renovate 5/3 and keeping the profits. And finally, don't bash Doc, he is one of the few good writers left in this area. While I agree the quality of the Enquirer has definitely gotten worse, people act as if it is all their fault-unfortunately, hometown newspapers are declining as a whole and newspaper companies have really had to cut back, and you can only cut back for so long until the quality drops off.

 

[JackBauer151]

I'll ignore your ad homonym attacks this time.

1) US bank is a dump.
2) doc is just writing this to get clicks on a struggling enquirer website
3) we have a perfectly fine arena ON CAMPUS that is much more of a home court advantage than US bank could dream of. It's much louder
4)why should the university share ticket sales and concession stand profits with us bank when they could keep All the profits in house
5) 5/3 is a better arena

1. It's "Ad hominem" if you want to be a smart ass at least be smart.

2. We are not talking about playing at the old US Bank. We are talking about a new updated version that is a state of the art arena.

3. You have no evidence or credibility to make those statements about Doc.

4. 5\3 can get loud but so can US Bank. The classic was rocking and so was the Oklahoma game two years ago.

5. You share the revenue because you don't have to pay the full freight to play in a state of the art arena. You are downtown and become the one of the biggest shows in town. That could mean more donors and definitely more exposure to the bigger conferences. It's not ideal to share revenue but you have to give up something to get something in this scenario.

6. 5\3 is not an arena, it is a multipurpose gym that is out of date. There are bad seats and sight lines. If you want to advance the program the 5\3 issue has to be addressed.

 

[BearcatMick]

1. It's "Ad hominem" if you want to be a smart ass at least be smart.

2. We are not talking about playing at the old US Bank. We are talking about a new updated version that is a state of the art arena.

3. You have no evidence or credibility to make those statements about Doc.

4. 5\3 can get loud but so can US Bank. The classic was rocking and so was the Oklahoma game two years ago.

5. You share the revenue because you don't have to pay the full freight to play in a state of the art arena. You are downtown and become the one of the biggest shows in town. That could mean more donors and definitely more exposure to the bigger conferences. It's not ideal to share revenue but you have to give up something to get something in this scenario.

6. 5\3 is not an arena, it is a multipurpose gym that is out of date. There are bad seats and sight lines. If you want to advance the program the 5\3 issue has to be addressed.

We don't have the money. How in the world are we going to be able to afford this football upgrade AND now 30 mil us bank upgrade, as you put it, WITHOUT raising tuition? The buyout from the big east split and donations aren't going to cover it all

The Enquirer has been floundering, like every other newspaper, since the digital age began. Why do you think it moved to Columbus and was bought by Gannett based in Virginia? Why do you think they have downsized personnel? Their quality has suffered tremendously. That's why they put out weird headlines or a streetcar article every other day....to get hits and revenue. Why Do you think pop up ads are everywhere?

Doc is just rabble rousing to get hits on their homepage. I stand by my statement.

 

[JasonS]

We don't have the money. How in the world are we going to be able to afford this football upgrade AND now 30 mil us bank upgrade, as you put it, WITHOUT raising tuition? The buyout from the big east split and donations aren't going to cover it all

The Enquirer has been floundering, like every other newspaper, since the digital age began. Why do you think it moved to Columbus and was bought by Gannett based in Virginia? Why do you think they have downsized personnel? Their quality has suffered tremendously. That's why they put out weird headlines or a streetcar article every other day....to get hits and revenue. Why Do you think pop up ads are everywhere?

Doc is just rabble rousing to get hits on their homepage. I stand by my statement.

If US Bank gets renovated it won't be because UC ponied up any money. This isn't a split the cost issue as I understand it. Basically, UC would agree to come play all home games at US Bank as long as the owners of the arena and the city would agree to renovate it. UC would also require first dibs on dates for games. By doing this UC would agree to split revenue with the arena. If UC has to drop millions to play at US Bank, it won't do it. UC would take those millions and renovate or replace 5/3 arena.

The city and US Bank owners want this to happen because they will have a permanent tenant that will draw consumers (unlike the Cyclones), an arena to attract NCAA Tourney games and AAC Tourney games, concerts and other shows. This would be a win-win for both parties and I am sure the city would kick in some money to keep growing the Banks and remove the eye sore that is US Bank Arena.

 

[TheLongHaul]

If US Bank gets renovated it won't be because UC ponied up any money. This isn't a split the cost issue as I understand it. Basically, UC would agree to come play all home games at US Bank as long as the owners of the arena and the city would agree to renovate it. UC would also require first dibs on dates for games. By doing this UC would agree to split revenue with the arena. If UC has to drop millions to play at US Bank, it won't do it. UC would take those millions and renovate or replace 5/3 arena.

The city and US Bank owners want this to happen because they will have a permanent tenant that will draw consumers (unlike the Cyclones), an arena to attract NCAA Tourney games and AAC Tourney games, concerts and other shows. This would be a win-win for both parties and I am sure the city would kick in some money to keep growing the Banks and remove the eye sore that is US Bank Arena.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If US Bank didn't require any money from UC they would just renovate it now. They don't need assurance that UC will play games there to justify it. They just don't want to foot the entire bill.

I don't think the city will put much, if any, money into it. Also, if UC doesn't put any money into it they won't have any bargaining chips. That means they'll get zero revenue from having games down there.

 

[JasonS]

That doesn't make any sense to me. If US Bank didn't require any money from UC they would just renovate it now. They don't need assurance that UC will play games there to justify it. They just don't want to foot the entire bill.

I don't think the city will put much, if any, money into it. Also, if UC doesn't put any money into it they won't have any bargaining chips. That means they'll get zero revenue from having games down there.

It makes perfect sense. They renovate it and recapture that money through ticket sales, concessions, etc. The ROI won't be there with just the Cyclones as the only tenant. If the Cyclones were a bigger draw, the arena would have already been renovated. UC would have to sign a multi year agreement (probably at least 10 years) to play all home games at US Bank. Between UC and the Cyclones, I would imagine the ROI would be acceptable enough to get something done.

UC has the ultimate bargaining chip: another arena to play in. They don't NEED US Bank Arena. US Bank Arena needs UC much more.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Anything that gets me out of 5th/3rd I'm all for. Of course it has to be beneficial to both parties financially. Enjoy going down to the Banks and would rather watch the Cats at US bank then 5th/3rd without the renovations. Building a new arena on Campus or renovating old would work for me as well. The Shoe is a terrible place to watch the games and I would rather stay home then sit in that arena on most nights.

 

[TheLongHaul]

It makes perfect sense. They renovate it and recapture that money through ticket sales, concessions, etc. The ROI won't be there with just the Cyclones as the only tenant. If the Cyclones were a bigger draw, the arena would have already been renovated. UC would have to sign a multi year agreement (probably at least 10 years) to play all home games at US Bank. Between UC and the Cyclones, I would imagine the ROI would be acceptable enough to get something done.

UC has the ultimate bargaining chip: another arena to play in. They don't NEED US Bank Arena. US Bank Arena needs UC much more.

I disagree. US Bank isn't just sitting there waiting to put hundreds of millions of dollars into the arena solely because of UC basketball, who currently doesn't sell out it's much smaller venue.

And lets just say this is true. US Bank offers to spend hundreds of millions to renovate a building for UC without charging them a penny (does that sound right?), where is UC going to earn revenue off of this? US Bank is not going to spend all the money and then have UC take the revenue away from them.

 

[JasonS]

I disagree. US Bank isn't just sitting there waiting to put hundreds of millions of dollars into the arena solely because of UC basketball, who currently doesn't sell out it's much smaller venue.

And lets just say this is true. US Bank offers to spend hundreds of millions to renovate a building for UC without charging them a penny (does that sound right?), where is UC going to earn revenue off of this? US Bank is not going to spend all the money and then have UC take the revenue away from them.

We can agree to disagree. US Bank is not going to renovate solely for UC. It would be part of the entire plan. Currently, US Bank cannot attract NCAA Tourney games, Conference Tourney Games, Big name concerts aren't coming there any more. Sure, they will get the circus and the Cyclones, but if the city wants the Banks to be a prime location for people all year long, they need a draw from November - March. If you think UC is going to pay $30 Million (or whatever the amount is) to not have any say in what happens at the arena when they are not there is crazy. If UC has $30 Million to spend, they will spend it on 5/3 or a brand new arena. UC would earn money off the ticket sales (probably better than 50%) and the arena would take the rest. If 5/3 was better to watch a game from the cheap seats, they would sell that place out. It just isn't. I don't think it is far fetched to think UC could average close to 17 or 18,000 a game at an essentially brand-spanking new arena. If UC got half of the ticket sales on 16,000 (a bit conservative in my opinion) it would be the same as drawing 8,000 at the shoe. They averaged 9,139 at each home game (including Xavier at US Bank) and 8,869 at the Shoe. Yes, you lose out on money from concessions, etc but if you can essentially make the same amount of money, play in a new arena, not assume any of the financial risk, and allow twice as many fans the ability to come watch the games, why wouldn't you do it? You are increasing your brand and would become the thing to do downtown in the winter months after the Bengals are done. As long as UC is smart and doesn't schedule any games that conflict with the Bengals in November and December, this would work very well.

 

[JackBauer151]

We can agree to disagree. US Bank is not going to renovate solely for UC. It would be part of the entire plan. Currently, US Bank cannot attract NCAA Tourney games, Conference Tourney Games, Big name concerts aren't coming there any more. Sure, they will get the circus and the Cyclones, but if the city wants the Banks to be a prime location for people all year long, they need a draw from November - March. If you think UC is going to pay $30 Million (or whatever the amount is) to not have any say in what happens at the arena when they are not there is crazy. If UC has $30 Million to spend, they will spend it on 5/3 or a brand new arena. UC would earn money off the ticket sales (probably better than 50%) and the arena would take the rest. If 5/3 was better to watch a game from the cheap seats, they would sell that place out. It just isn't. I don't think it is far fetched to think UC could average close to 17 or 18,000 a game at an essentially brand-spanking new arena. If UC got half of the ticket sales on 16,000 (a bit conservative in my opinion) it would be the same as drawing 8,000 at the shoe. They averaged 9,139 at each home game (including Xavier at US Bank) and 8,869 at the Shoe. Yes, you lose out on money from concessions, etc but if you can essentially make the same amount of money, play in a new arena, not assume any of the financial risk, and allow twice as many fans the ability to come watch the games, why wouldn't you do it? You are increasing your brand and would become the thing to do downtown in the winter months after the Bengals are done. As long as UC is smart and doesn't schedule any games that conflict with the Bengals in November and December, this would work very well.

Not to mention the exposure to other conferences. It's not a secret UC wants out of the American. New facilities and higher attendance makes UC more attractive. UC downtown in a new arena makes them the "NBA" team of the city. If it helps them into a new conference in the future the revenue from that alone would have made it worth it. I agree with the people that say revenue is an issue. It has to make sense from a dollars standpoint. The renovation has to be significant and not just a few quick fixes to US Bank. They must get priority in scheduling. The brass at UC is not stupid. They know all these things have to be addressed. If the other side is willing to discuss these issues with UC why would you not listen?

 

[TheLongHaul]

We can agree to disagree. US Bank is not going to renovate solely for UC. It would be part of the entire plan. Currently, US Bank cannot attract NCAA Tourney games, Conference Tourney Games, Big name concerts aren't coming there any more. Sure, they will get the circus and the Cyclones, but if the city wants the Banks to be a prime location for people all year long, they need a draw from November - March. If you think UC is going to pay $30 Million (or whatever the amount is) to not have any say in what happens at the arena when they are not there is crazy. If UC has $30 Million to spend, they will spend it on 5/3 or a brand new arena. UC would earn money off the ticket sales (probably better than 50%) and the arena would take the rest. If 5/3 was better to watch a game from the cheap seats, they would sell that place out. It just isn't. I don't think it is far fetched to think UC could average close to 17 or 18,000 a game at an essentially brand-spanking new arena. If UC got half of the ticket sales on 16,000 (a bit conservative in my opinion) it would be the same as drawing 8,000 at the shoe. They averaged 9,139 at each home game (including Xavier at US Bank) and 8,869 at the Shoe. Yes, you lose out on money from concessions, etc but if you can essentially make the same amount of money, play in a new arena, not assume any of the financial risk, and allow twice as many fans the ability to come watch the games, why wouldn't you do it? You are increasing your brand and would become the thing to do downtown in the winter months after the Bengals are done. As long as UC is smart and doesn't schedule any games that conflict with the Bengals in November and December, this would work very well.

I guess we'll have to see how it plays out. I don't think US Bank will spends hundreds of millions to renovate only to give UC half the revenue without UC putting a single dime into it. If that's the case US Bank could just renovate now. They don't need UC. Like you said, if they renovate they can get NCAA tournament games, conference games, top shelf concerts, etc. 50% of revenue for 15-18 games/year from UC isn't the the show stopper IMO.

Bad seats at 5/3 isn't the reason UC isn't selling out now. Sure it doesn't help but they still have issues getting butts into seats for the lower deck. But even using your math, getting revenue at 8,000 seats/game isn't going to cut it. Especially without getting any concession revenue and no parking revenue. If that was the case UC would be thrilled with having 9,000 at games right now, which they obviously aren't. UC basketball really needs to increase their revenues and you're telling me they will be satisfied with a plan that actually lowers revenue?

 

[All we do is Guyn]

Would it be that big of an issue to replace the seats in the upper part of 5/3 Arena? Seems like an easy fix to me if the biggest problem with the arena is that the seats are uncomfortable apparently.

 

[JasonS]

Would it be that big of an issue to replace the seats in the upper part of 5/3 Arena? Seems like an easy fix to me if the biggest problem with the arena is that the seats are uncomfortable apparently.

The space is the issue. As you get further up to the top of the arena, the view becomes more about the person in front of you and not the court. This wouldn't change with replacing seats unless you are going to eliminate seats and make it a more steep grade. But lets be honest here, UC isn't going to spend money to renovate AND lose seating.

 

[JasonS]

I guess we'll have to see how it plays out. I don't think US Bank will spends hundreds of millions to renovate only to give UC half the revenue without UC putting a single dime into it. If that's the case US Bank could just renovate now. They don't need UC. Like you said, if they renovate they can get NCAA tournament games, conference games, top shelf concerts, etc. 50% of revenue for 15-18 games/year from UC isn't the the show stopper IMO.

Bad seats at 5/3 isn't the reason UC isn't selling out now. Sure it doesn't help but they still have issues getting butts into seats for the lower deck. But even using your math, getting revenue at 8,000 seats/game isn't going to cut it. Especially without getting any concession revenue and no parking revenue. If that was the case UC would be thrilled with having 9,000 at games right now, which they obviously aren't. UC basketball really needs to increase their revenues and you're telling me they will be satisfied with a plan that actually lowers revenue?

For the record, UC played 21 home games last year (counting XU at US Bank) so figure on 20 or so home games per year.

I get what you are saying about just renovate it already but the people in charge are business people and they aren't going to do it without looking at the ROI. A UC commitment plays into this for sure. It isn't the only piece but it is an important piece. And for the record, I don't think we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars. Probably on the order of $75-100 Million. You get much more than that and you might as well build a brand new arena. With a new arena Cincinnati could look to try to attract an NBA franchise. Who knows. I know Columbus is trying to get one even with Cleveland being only 2 hours away. It wouldn't be outrageous to think the city could parlay a new or newly renovated arena into more business. For the record, I think the NBA is a pipe dream anyway but opportunities like that have to be discussed at least by those who have stake in the arena.

They would also probably have to have preliminary discussions with the AAC and NCAA about Cincinnati as a tourney site. It's not going to be done strictly because it benefits UC but if UC isn't willing to go in on a deal, I can almost assure that it won't be done.

 

[david aka the TYZ]

This might be the best real debate this board has seen without it turning into a pissing match.


Jason, I'm curious as to your conclusion that we could get 17-18,000 in a new arena downtown. That number seems high to me. I'm not 100% sold that there would even be a higher draw, but nearly double seems way too high for me. I can maybe say I'm being swayed by the idea that games at a renovated arena (assuming it's an amazing transformation) could make it more of "Cincinnati's team". The thing for me is UC basketball is not a new commodity. It has existed for years and years, it already has it's share of fans and is more followed in the city compared to Xavier (as far as who people would consider their team between one of the two). Yeah any new arena would temporarily create a buzz, but I don't think there are that many more people in this city that are really not going to UC games solely because of the arena.

I honestly think any talk right now is hype being put out by the Nederlander group. I guess it's good somebody out there wants UC basketball. If they're willing to pony up the cash and can truly make it a nice arena then I think UC would be wise to sit down with them and discuss dollars and cents. If it makes sense financially, then I would support it. It would allow for UC to put a new arena on hold for the time being, but I still think it is in UC's long-term plans to have games on campus. Any new arena would require a year or two move to USBank anyway. Speaking of which anybody else get word that the 2014 UC football games will not be played at Nippert? Presumably they are going to be played at Paul Brown, but no plans have been confirmed.

 

[JasonS]

I don't think is far fetched to think people would make an evening out of it by going downtown, to a newly renovated arena, have dinner and drinks down on the banks and then go to a UC game. The biggest complaint I get from the casual fan is parking in Clifton and the seating in fifth third. If Syracuse can average over 24,000 a game, I don't see why UC can't average 16-18,000 if the arena is nice. And doesn't mean it will happen over night but give it a year for people to get their feet wet and I think you will see a big turnout (as long as the prices are reasonable).

 

[JumpinJack5]

I disagree. US Bank isn't just sitting there waiting to put hundreds of millions of dollars into the arena solely because of UC basketball, who currently doesn't sell out it's much smaller venue.

And lets just say this is true. US Bank offers to spend hundreds of millions to renovate a building for UC without charging them a penny (does that sound right?), where is UC going to earn revenue off of this? US Bank is not going to spend all the money and then have UC take the revenue away from them.

One thing to consider is that if UC commits to playing there and money goes into it, US Bank could gain UC's revenue along with the revenue of another big fish-the NCAA Tournament. While I completely understand why some are torn on this, the potential for growth of UC and the city is a hard fact to ignore. UC must, must, must do something to keep the students involved. When UC played at US Bank (formerly the Colosseum) long ago, I've heard stories of the shuttles being constantly late and sometimes they wouldn't show up at all. One guy I talked to about it who was a student at the time stated, "We started off with 7-8 guys using the shuttle. By the end of the year, it was just me and one other guy because of how bad the shuttles were." First off, this is a different era of UC basketball-we have much better teams than we had in the 70s-80s. Secondly, I fully expect that this administration would look at problems when we did this the first time and do there best to correct them. If everyone goes 100% into this and we have good teams, we have the potential to be a perennial top 10-15 team. The reward outweighs the risk, and that is why I support it.