Koch: Move UC basketball to the Banks

[TheLongHaul]

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).

That's not that common on week night games. Parking isn't going to be much better downtown. I pay $1 (or sometimes $5) to park in a lot that is close distance to the Shoe and it's never full. On weeknights I just park in meters on short vine and it's free. Never been problem. US Bank will have parking but it'll be very expensive. If you want cheaper parking d/t you'll have to walk a little ways. I think expecting double the attendance is a bit much.

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.

That's a huge consideration. UC just can't get a new shiny stadium out of this. The deal has to generate more revenue than their currently making or there is no way they can do the deal.

 

[JumpinJack5]

That's not that common on week night games. Parking isn't going to be much better downtown. I pay $1 (or sometimes $5) to park in a lot that is close distance to the Shoe and it's never full. On weeknights I just park in meters on short vine and it's free. Never been problem. US Bank will have parking but it'll be very expensive. If you want cheaper parking d/t you'll have to walk a little ways. I think expecting double the attendance is a bit much.


I realize that parking could be a major issue, especially since it was privatized by the bumbling idiots of city council. Thankfully, I know someone who works at a building with a garage close to US Bank/GABP and lets me use their parking pass since they only work during the day. If I went to a UC game at the Banks and didnt have a pass, Id park over in Newport and go over the Purple People Bridge to US Bank. Or Sawyer Point is usually a decent option. These are all things that must be analyzed and worked out before a decision is made. Wouldn't be any different than parking for the Reds/Bengals. While I love the Gaslight District in Clifton, I don't go out of my way to get a meal there and then go to the UC game. At the Banks, food is right there while you enter/exit and that is very appealing. I just went to the Yardhouse today, it is excellent. The Holy Grail is pretty good, Christian Morlein is solid, etc. No offense to Waffle House in U Square, but I would prefer the options at the Banks. Lots of UC students venture downtown, it is one of the appealing aspects of UC. You have the small college feel of Clifton and a nice-sized city close by with things to do. If UC can have a solid transportation system for the students, it is a no-brainer. This is a crucial time for UC athletics-the football stadium is being upgraded and we have a good, experienced coach who has the ability to energize this fan base. Basketball needs something to help it stand out and appeal to recruits. If done correctly, US Bank could really add to our program. If the stars align correctly and everything goes smoothly with both of these programs (Not easy, I know), we could start to build a brand and start to gain religious supporters, which has been a major hurdle in an area with lots of OSU, ND, Miami, XU, UK, U of L fans. Definitely worth considering....,

 

[david aka the TYZ]

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).

We didn't even get that many down there for the shootout this year. I can believe that maybe the big time games with a sexier arena could draw in the 16-18,000 range, but we're not going to average that. Unless we are ranked #1, like the 99-00 team that sold out the Shoe. We'll still have some Arkansas-Pine Bluff games in the non-conference and we'll have some Tulane's and SMU's in the conference slate. The Reds struggle to get 16-18,000 on week nights when school is in session. I just don't see it happening.

 

[Robert]

As good as the Reds and Bengals have been the past 2 seasons, and with both still not always doing well with ticket sales... I don't see Cincinnati being able to play full-time at US Bank. I don't think even a national-championship contending UC team would average more than 15,000.

Here's an idea: What if UC could work out something with US Bank where, if renovations take place, they play a set number of marquee games at US Bank... say, around 5 or so. On top of that, get Xavier to agree to keep the shootout downtown as well, giving US Bank 6 great college basketball games a year to count on. Then, when the money is available, renovate 5/3 with a new seating arrangement, perhaps cutting the capacity down to about 11,000, but making the viewing experience much, much more enjoyable. While 5/3 is being renovated, US Bank will also get the incentive of having a full season of UC basketball at the arena.

Thoughts? It might not be enough of an incentive to get US Bank to renovate, and I'm not sure how much it would help UC... just throwing stuff at the wall here.

 

[Robert]

Or, perhaps play all non-marquee out-of-conference games and weekday conference games at 5/3, and marquee out-of-conference and weekend conference games at US Bank? Splitting time between arenas sponsored by competing banks could be an issue too...

 

[JasonS]

When UC was #1 in the country in 1999-2000 they sold out every game (13,176) and would have easily sold 2,3 or 4,000 more tickets per game if there were more seats. If this team is a perennial top 10-15 team in the country, people will show up. That's not an issue. You have to win though.

 

[JackBauer151]

As good as the Reds and Bengals have been the past 2 seasons, and with both still not always doing well with ticket sales... I don't see Cincinnati being able to play full-time at US Bank. I don't think even a national-championship contending UC team would average more than 15,000.

Here's an idea: What if UC could work out something with US Bank where, if renovations take place, they play a set number of marquee games at US Bank... say, around 5 or so. On top of that, get Xavier to agree to keep the shootout downtown as well, giving US Bank 6 great college basketball games a year to count on. Then, when the money is available, renovate 5/3 with a new seating arrangement, perhaps cutting the capacity down to about 11,000, but making the viewing experience much, much more enjoyable. While 5/3 is being renovated, US Bank will also get the incentive of having a full season of UC basketball at the arena.

Thoughts? It might not be enough of an incentive to get US Bank to renovate, and I'm not sure how much it would help UC... just throwing stuff at the wall here.

Zero chance US Bank would agree to that. If the upgrades take place they need to happen with the understanding that UC will become the primary tenant. For UC it will be all or nothing.

 

[TheLongHaul]

When UC was #1 in the country in 1999-2000 they sold out every game (13,176) and would have easily sold 2,3 or 4,000 more tickets per game if there were more seats. If this team is a perennial top 10-15 team in the country, people will show up. That's not an issue. You have to win though.

So all UC has to do is be #1 in the country and they will sell 17,000?

I think you are making it look way easier than it would be.

 

[JumpinJack5]

So all UC has to do is be #1 in the country and they will sell 17,000?

I think you are making it look way easier than it would be.

Stability and success sells tickets. That's why it is so hard to be a top tier program-while it is hard enough to win for a year or two, the top programs win consistently year in and year out. UC has been consistently good for about 3 years now. Slowly, attendance has improved. If they can pull together a nice tourney run in the next year or two, attendance will start to get to the levels it needs to get to. Mick has all the talent he needs now. While we will most likely never have all 5 star guys, Mick didnt have a whole lot to work with until these past few years. If the talent level continues to improve, I think UC will receive more recognition and the teams will be more consistent.

 

[TheLongHaul]

Stability and success sells tickets. That's why it is so hard to be a top tier program-while it is hard enough to win for a year or two, the top programs win consistently year in and year out. UC has been consistently good for about 3 years now. Slowly, attendance has improved. If they can pull together a nice tourney run in the next year or two, attendance will start to get to the levels it needs to get to. Mick has all the talent he needs now. While we will most likely never have all 5 star guys, Mick didnt have a whole lot to work with until these past few years. If the talent level continues to improve, I think UC will receive more recognition and the teams will be more consistent.

I agree with everything you said but it has nothing to do a new arena. Attendance will improve if they keep winning. Expecting it to double isn't very realistic.

 

[JasonS]

I agree with everything you said but it has nothing to do a new arena. Attendance will improve if they keep winning. Expecting it to double isn't very realistic.

A new arena is necessary for recruiting and would increase attendance faster.

 

[TheLongHaul]

A new arena is necessary for recruiting and would increase attendance faster.

I agree (though 'necessary' is a bit much). A new arena off campus would help attendance I still don't think they would average close to 17,000. I also think it would hurt the student turnout.

 

[JumpinJack5]

I agree with everything you said but it has nothing to do a new arena. Attendance will improve if they keep winning. Expecting it to double isn't very realistic.

A new arena certainly will not hurt attendance, that's my point-if things go well, it is a huge supplement to the program.

 

[CincyForLife6]

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/...nk-interesting-option-UC-hoops?nclick_check=1
Just found this

 

[JumpinJack5]

I don't think XU understood, they can't just steal our conference for free. We get the Cintas Center and they get the BE, sounds fair.

 

[#BearcatNation]

I don't think XU understood, they can't just steal our conference for free. We get the Cintas Center and they get the BE, sounds fair.

I don't want the Cintas. Too small long-term.

After thinking about it a lot, I'm all for downtown, as long as they really get it looking like UC's "home." There can be some Cyclones stuff, but it has to be in a corner or something. The hallways, rafters, etc. need to be smothered in UC history. That building definitely isn't top notch at the moment, but I think it has the potential to be saved.

I also think they'd need to fix the awkward seating at the ends of the court, since the arena was technically made for hockey. But I believe the US Bank Arena President addressed that and said it can be done.

 

[JumpinJack5]

I don't want the Cintas. Too small long-term.

After thinking about it a lot, I'm all for downtown, as long as they really get it looking like UC's "home." There can be some Cyclones stuff, but it has to be in a corner or something. The hallways, rafters, etc. need to be smothered in UC history. That building definitely isn't top notch at the moment, but I think it has the potential to be saved.

I also think they'd need to fix the awkward seating at the ends of the court, since the arena was technically made for hockey. But I believe the US Bank Arena President addressed that and said it can be done.

I was just teasing, downtown, if done right, would be the best option.

 

[charlie hustle]

After thinking about it a lot, I'm all for downtown, as long as they really get it looking like UC's "home." There can be some Cyclones stuff, but it has to be in a corner or something. The hallways, rafters, etc. need to be smothered in UC history. That building definitely isn't top notch at the moment, but I think it has the potential to be saved.

Agreed! and some stuff outside, too. there's room for things like light pole banners and the such. for example: http://www.brittenbanners.com/about_us/pauls_corner/1205-bannersaver-light-pole-brackets.jpg (obviously i'm putting the cart before the horse)