JasonS
Football Moderator
Fox19 would hurt this program's exposure compared to FSOhio picking up the games. The major issue is the contract that the American signed with ESPN allowing this ESPN3 garbage.
upstate game thread
- Thread starter UCalum08
- Start date
Help Support BearcatTalk:
Fox19 would hurt this program's exposure compared to FSOhio picking up the games. The major issue is the contract that the American signed with ESPN allowing this ESPN3 garbage.
#BearcatNation
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Messages
- 2,120
You can absolutely build an arena with a capacity of 15,000 for under $100 million. Check out Mizzou Arena and United Spirit Arena (Texas Tech). Both are relatively new and were built for under $100m (even with 2013 inflation). May not be as top notch as something like the Yum Center, but still great arenas. Mizzou Arena is gorgeous. I wouldn't want something as small as 9,121 like you stated, but we don't need a HUGE arena. 14k would be plenty. I assume our attendance would increase with a new arena, but not by a TON.
The only question is, if we were going to get a new arena, where would we put it? I feel like there's a reason that they've only talked about US Bank, and renovating FTA (at least as far as we know).
I think poor attendance is kind of a catch 22. When it's low, the crowd is quiet, the place doesn't rock, and an occasional attendee finds it boring. Once a team wins consistently & attendance passes a critical mass of people, it feels alive, electric etc. that kind of energy feeds on itself. It's like going to a Reds game with 12,000 in the stands...dead boring.
All we do is Guyn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2012
- Messages
- 175
We just need to get some buzz and keep it. If we beat New Mexico and get ranked, a lot more tickets will sell for the shootout. If we beat Xavier and Pitt we will definitely be top 20, and I bet we sell out the Nebraska game.
Most people here are happy with UC's recent success, myself included, but to the average fan a team that is occasionally in the top 25 and has lost in the first few rounds of the tournament is NOT exciting.
I remember the buzz when we cracked the top 10 last year was huge. Then we immediately lost the next game to New Mexico and the rest is history
Most people here are happy with UC's recent success, myself included, but to the average fan a team that is occasionally in the top 25 and has lost in the first few rounds of the tournament is NOT exciting.
I remember the buzz when we cracked the top 10 last year was huge. Then we immediately lost the next game to New Mexico and the rest is history
That tempers my enthusiasm for this year's team. I think the offense looks a lot better, but if you look at last year, the Cats scored 80, 102, 93 & 91 in the first four games....a warning shot of only 58 vs. Alabama, then 87 & 92....only four games the rest of the way did they score 70 or more, with a high of 75.
So I'm still in wait and see mode, although I loved the ball movement against sc upchuck
Face it - sports fans are fickle entities. It doesn't make what the sport is. If you're winning, fans are coming. If you're not, they stay home (these patsie victories don't really count because they don't generate enough media hype). It doesn't matter if it's the Cats, Bengals, Reds, Muskies......or even the Yankees or Dodgers - and they have a tremendous infrastructure to draw from. If you start making banner headlines, the fans magically appear. Every venue is the same. UC gets ranked and knocks off some names, people's curiosity get piqued. You can't just MAKE fans attend games. It's much harder to get a live audience these days with all the media avenues available to them that make it much easier to stay home and warm on the sofa or at the computer. Me. personally, I would much rather experience the atmosphere of the game live. Unfortunately, not everyone feels that way. Those of you on this thread obviously feel like I do or else you wouldn't be doing all this brainstorming. A Top 25 and some home conference games ought to help - but there are no guarantees in life
I agree. You're competing for fans not just with other teams in the city, you're competing with HD tvs and readily accessible real-time stats, and new technologies (like the xbox1) that are making the home viewing experience a much more immersive experience.
I would agree we have to see this team play against better teams to know just what we have. The next two or three games we should have a pretty good idea. We know what we have on D.
My one area of optimism compared to last season is that this team has a completely different look to it. Of course that could be looked at as a negative too. JJ plays a completely different game than Mooj. ST and JL play much different than Parker. The combination of GG and TC is quite a bit different than Wright. SK and TR are the same...but they are better than last year.
We seem to be taking it to the rack more this year and shooting less threes. The press is going to give us an additional offensive dynamic than the past couple of years. I'm a little nervous but excited to see what we can do the next three games.
Bearcat_NTS
Well-known member
Cincinnati is currently #21 in the KenPom. Adjusted offense is #65 (last year was #126) and adjusted defense is #10 (last year was 14).
Last year Cincinnati was the second worst offensive team to make the NCAA tournament as an at large (UNLV was the worst). If UC can remain around where they are ranked now, I am pretty confident that they will be getting a favorable seed.
The first test is on Saturday. We will see how the UC offense looks against legitimate competition.
Last year Cincinnati was the second worst offensive team to make the NCAA tournament as an at large (UNLV was the worst). If UC can remain around where they are ranked now, I am pretty confident that they will be getting a favorable seed.
The first test is on Saturday. We will see how the UC offense looks against legitimate competition.
How come our home court is so weak? No noise weak student section it sucks
Good stuff...thanks for the info
I am embarrassed of our home court too. I am a fourth year student and nobody is showing up to the games. The deal was that the 275 students who showed up to the most home games would get 2 free Xavier tickets. I have been to every home game so I received my tickets. However, I know people that have missed 3 games and still received their tickets.
It is really depressing that we can't fill the student sections up considering there are dorms within a 2 minute walking distance from the arena (Dabney, Daniels, Turner, CRC). Even the other dorms, aside from Stratford are within 5 minutes walking distance.
I think the problem for the students is the lack of advertisement on campus directed toward the students. I rarely receive basketball emails and my friend wasn't even aware there was a game this Tuesday. I feel safe in betting half the students aren't even aware we are playing New Mexico tomorrow!
I did not even know that you could buy tickets online as a student until my sophomore year because it wasn't talked about. We need students to go around and raise awareness on how to buy tickets, and maybe even hand out student tickets that have not been picked up on game day.
Bearcat_NTS
Well-known member
UC has become a "football school" in that most of the younger students coming in are much more in tune to when those games are and the stuff surrounding them. It is going to take a deep tournament run to get back to where we should be: a basketball centric, urban university with a solid football program.
david aka the TYZ
Well-known member
I want to pick your brain because I'm curious. When you say buy tickets do they charge students for tickets now? When I was a student tickets were free. Guest tickets they charged for but student tickets were free. And I was most of the way through my freshman year before I knew that students got tickets free and how to go about getting seats so I understand what you're saying about info not being made readily available. This was before the internet age though. It was 96-00 and obviously we had and used the internet, but not as communication with the school. I remember going up to the third floor of McMicken to use the computer labs. Now being a UCATS donor I get all kinds of emails from the athletic department. And yeah, I've been a little disappointed with the student turnout the last couple games as well. The day after Thanksgiving I kind of understood as most students could be home and off campus. Do you live on campus or are you a commuter? The reason I ask is that I was a commuter so I feel I didn't really get the full college experience and also that could be why I was out of the loop on what went on around campus.
david aka the TYZ
Well-known member
Just curious, why do you think this is what we should be? I honestly want to be a football school in the fall and a basketball school in the winter. I want both to be important and showcased. I get that with the Bengals we'll never be the biggest football team in town, but we can be the biggest basketball program in town. And with our current conference affiliation our basketball program has a better chance to excel than our football program. I want UC to not be known as a football school or a basketball school. I want both programs to be equally supported and successful.
Bearcat_NTS
Well-known member
Southwest Ohio region is a basketball hotbed (you can tell by the high rating for the NCAA tournament in Cincinnati, Louisville and Dayton). The University of Cincinnati is a historically top 15-20 program, maybe higher if you put stock in National Title's from the 60's. As I've said many a times, there is no reason why UC should not average at least 10k a season. I think a new arena will create some momentum coupled with Mick continuing to keep UC as an NCAA tournament team.
The reality is, UC will never be a big time football school like Ohio State or Michigan. However, UC can become a very solid program that consistently wins 8-9-10 games a year. The discrepancy between a good football program (like UC) and an elite one (like O$U) is much larger than the discrepancy in basketball. That is why I believe UC should stick to what made the University great and that is a basketball centric school. If you talk to the average B12 fan, that is how they view UC.
I don't understand the dynamics of booster donations very well so this is a question I have. What if UC FB was able to gradually bring in better recruits with continued solid play and did manage to somehow gain the type of repuation/perception these other schools have? Woulnd't our donors start to give a lot more money? I understand we are held back by our budget right now...but why can't that change or change enough to make us legit contenders if we were able to make a power conference someday?
Just curious.
david aka the TYZ
Well-known member
I agree with all that. I understand too that tradition leans us to be a basketball school. I guess I should be clear when I say I want us to be known for football as well as basketball, I don't expect us to be as big as OSU or an SEC school or anything in football. That just isn't feasible. I would just like UC to be a draw locally for both. I'd love for Nippert to be packed every game and for us to win big at whatever level we're on and for bball, I'd love to get back to where we were 12 years ago where the Shoe was packed and the basketball team was ranked most years and a permanent fixture in the postseason. I just don't think the school should have the mindset to focus on one or the other (and I don't think they do even though they are pushing football right now out of necessity). I also don't want the fans to focus on one or the other. I'm pretty much as passionate about both programs equally and I just wish everyone else was.
Bearcat_NTS
Well-known member
Here is what I know as far the AD Budget. Cincinnati had to pour in a lot of money into the Varsity Village Project to get into the Big East. Unfortunately, VV is not a revenue generator, so it put the Athletic Department in great debt (still paying it off). The former AD, Mike Thomas, didn't do a good job of facilitating donors to give to the program and scheduled games like WVU & UofL at PBS with the hope it would make money (when UC actually lost money on both). He essentially ran the AD like a MAC program, cutting scholarships to many sports. He also couldn't get the Nippert Renovation project started. Cincinnati's budget was amongst the worst of the AQ Conference schools.
When Tuberville came to UC, several big donors immediately began to give money to help fund the Nippert Stadium renovation. Getting a big name coach resinated with the big donors. Now that Nippert Stadium is going to be renovated, there will be more opportunities for revenue. The school was also able to reinstate funding to Olympic sports.
Ideally, once Nippert is completed, UC would be able to begin reconstruction of the Shoe, however it will be difficult to tap into those donors again...that just put up a ton of money for the football stadium. That is where the issue lies with me. It appears like it will be YEARS until that gets done.
Thanks. Here is another question. Why would we put 80M into renovating the Shoe if we can rebuild for say between 100M and 125M? Would the reno be a patch over an ugly hole...or would it really make an ugly hole into something really attractive and functional? Personally I would rather see a re-build for beautification purposes on the outside and in. With everything else the University has done to beautify...it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to rehab the inside and leave the outside pretty drab.
I guess maybe we would have to leave the facility where it is because there are other things in the building other than the arena? So we would actually have to find a new piece of ground to build?
david aka the TYZ
Well-known member
Honestly as long as UC isn't in a power 5 conference they will have a hard time being taken seriously for football as they can't honestly say we have a chance to play for a national title every year. Putting talent aside for a second, a program like Ole Miss can say we got a chance to play for the national title every year. Their program is a big draw and brings in big donations and can bring in big recruits. Thus they can "compete" for a national title every year. Obviously when talent gets seperated year in and year out they aren't really in contention for the title most years. Now take UC, short of a fluke season like 2009 where they ran the table and almost snuck in to the title game, I don't think any of our fanbase or more importantly donors are delusional enough to think we can compete for the national title. And honestly that drive to be the best, to win the title, is what keeps fans rabid and has donors throwing insane bucks into a program. There's no saying that the next generation of fans won't support this school at a much higher level than we currently have. Success on the field/court will have everything to do with that. I do think football just leads itself to being big time more than basketball. Games are on weekends (at least they should be), tailgating is happening thus it's more of a party and a family/social thing. I think people are more apt to put their money in that than going to 20 basketball games during the winter, half the games are on school/work nights and you don't really do much other than go to the game then go home. O don't know if that answered any of your queries, just my thoughts on the matter.