I hadn't heard of the renovation plans but my guess is if they are asking for public funds, it's a long shot. Love the thought but I don't see this happening.

 

I'd say basically zero chance after the football stadium deal has soured over the years.

Well in those two instances you mentioned, the Yum Center is actually the home court for Louisville, as is Rupp for UK...so, I see allowing them to play on each other's court, but not their own. But, that's not the case here. And why would UC be listed as the host school, instead of X?

 

Because no matter the site there is a host institution. It doesn't have to be anyone's home floor. I don't know why Cincinnati is the host and not Xavier; it probably has something to do with which school put in a bid. But bottom line, if Cincinnati is the host institution they can't play there but Xavier (or Dayton or Northern or UK or UofL) can.

Because no matter the site there is a host institution. It doesn't have to be anyone's home floor. I don't know why Cincinnati is the host and not Xavier; it probably has something to do with which school put in a bid. But bottom line, if Cincinnati is the host institution they can't play there but Xavier (or Dayton or Northern or UK or UofL) can.

 

Actually, it is the school that partnered with whatever entity represents US Bank Arena, who made the bid. My understanding is that every bid must be partnered with a school.

 

The host school does more than lend it's name. UC will be required to be heavily involved in the event, providing both guidance and resources in everything from event management, and media coordination to marketing and community involvement.

 

I'm not sure, but I think the host school gets some compensation for the partnership.

I'd say basically zero chance after the football stadium deal has soured over the years.

 

Same voters voted for a streetcar, why wouldnt they fund some upgrades?

Would be nice for the city. If I was a voter in Cincinnati, I wouldn't vote to fund their upgrades.

My guess is the pitch for the renovations is going to focus a lot on the convention business opportunity. They will say the arena needs to be renovated to attract the big conventions. They very well may try to package expansion of the convention center and the arena together to get public support.

Same voters voted for a streetcar, why wouldnt they fund some upgrades?

The days of tax payers paying for stadiums is over.

shocked it was picked. what a dump. At 42 years old, and last major renovation 20 years ago, would it set record for oldest arena to host games?

 

I am also. I was very surprised when I saw it was picked. I thought it would be the renovated 5/3 Arena. Doesn't make sense when UC doesn't want to play their home games there in 2017-2018

I am also. I was very surprised when I saw it was picked. I thought it would be the renovated 5/3 Arena. Doesn't make sense when UC doesn't want to play their home games there in 2017-2018

 

Isn't a large part of that because UC got a much better deal at BB&T since USBank high balled them?

In all honesty i could see tax payers being okay to foot the bill with US Bank. Its used year round for various events and could get even more intruiging events with the right renovations. But why not just charge more per ticket and concessions to foot the reno bill?

In all honesty i could see tax payers being okay to foot the bill with US Bank. Its used year round for various events and could get even more intruiging events with the right renovations. But why not just charge more per ticket and concessions to foot the reno bill?

 

I could argue the taxpayers are obligated to fund part of the bill.

I could argue the taxpayers are obligated to fund part of the bill.

 

I'd be interested to hear your argument.

I'd be interested to hear your argument.

 

1. You funded to other publicly funded stadiums, its only in fairness that you would fund a public arena that can be used 365 (potentially)

2. You funded millions into a street car that leads right to your entertainment district, do you not want to have a the best entertainment district possible, so people ride your street car.

 

For starters.

1. You funded to other publicly funded stadiums, its only in fairness that you would fund a public arena that can be used 365 (potentially)

2. You funded millions into a street car that leads right to your entertainment district, do you not want to have a the best entertainment district possible, so people ride your street car.

 

For starters.

 

So because they funded other projects, that makes them obligated to fund another? I'm not following.

1. You funded to other publicly funded stadiums, its only in fairness that you would fund a public arena that can be used 365 (potentially)

 

At some point, enough is enough. Taxpayers are always the losers in stadium construction/renovation. The problem is, however, teams like the Reds and Bengals got taxpayer money and they should have been paying for it themselves. Now US Bank needs renovated, but there's not a monied franchise using the arena, so there isn't anyone to fit the bill other than the taxpayers.