So, it's official, FirstEnergy Stadium

 

 

BTW, terms of the naming rights deal will "remain confidential" and money will be used to make the Browns "more competitive" -- Haslam.

 

He was asked if a roof was being considered for the stadium. Haslam was non-committal: "We're going to look at a lot of different options for the stadium." And... Architects will continue to be engaged but "Winning is the best way to improve the fan experience."

I actually preffered First Energy Field

I actually preffered First Energy Field

 

I think 'Field' would sound better with the alliteration, just like "Progressive Park" would have sounded better than "Progressive Field." But, it's always been called a 'stadium,' so I think it should be kept that way. And Jacobs Field was a 'Field,' so I'm also glad they kept that.

Meanwhile, a word from another NFL city in the south.....

 

Charlotte City Council backs Carolina Panthers stadium money in 7-2 vote

By Steve Harrison

[email protected]

Posted: Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2013

 

The Charlotte City Council endorsed a proposal to give the Carolina Panthers $125 million for stadium renovations with a 7-2 vote during a closed session meeting late Monday night, according to people familiar with the debate.

 

Under the plan, a 1 percent tax on prepared food and beverages would be increased to 2 percent. That money would help fund the renovation plan for Bank of America Stadium, the team’s home since 1996.

 

.....The total cost of the stadium renovations is reportedly more than $200 million.

 

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/01/15/3789951/charlotte-city-council-backs-carolina.html#storylink=cpy

 

 

 

Oh man, does this sound horrible:

 

 

It's official: FirstEnergy Stadium is now the Cleveland Browns' home

By KEVIN KLEPS

2:41 pm, January 15, 2013

For the first time, there will be a corporate name attached to the Cleveland Browns' lakefront home.

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20130115/FREE/130119859

To go along with that topic, when does the sin tax expire?

To go along with that topic, when does the sin tax expire?

 

2015

Just read about a financing plan from the NFL called the G4 Loan Program which enables a team to borrow up to $250m for stadium renovation. It is to be paid back over 15 years. It was part of the new collective bargaining agreement. A number of teams are planning projects right now with this program foregoing any public involvement. I am beginning to think monies will not be an issue if Haslem decides to move forward with renovation plans. I would bet over the next year or two there will be a plan in place.

So, it's official, FirstEnergy Stadium

 

 

BTW, terms of the naming rights deal will "remain confidential" and money will be used to make the Browns "more competitive" -- Haslam.

 

He was asked if a roof was being considered for the stadium. Haslam was non-committal: "We're going to look at a lot of different options for the stadium." And... Architects will continue to be engaged but "Winning is the best way to improve the fan experience."

 

He nailed it on the winning thing. Look at Municipal Stadium. Even in the 80's it was already passed its prime but the team was winning so people loved the place, obstructed views and all. And that was after long summers of the Indians stinking up the joint.

 

Careful--you'll awaken the ghost of Sid Monge.

 

First Energy Field needs no lid.  It needs a winning team.  You won't be able to see an orange seat in the house with a contending team.    As I've said upthread, the only way I would consider a roof is if the NFL guaranteed a Superbowl in return, like Detroit received.  I don't think we have the Fortune 500 muscle that Detroit did.  End of story.

So, it's official, FirstEnergy Stadium

 

 

BTW, terms of the naming rights deal will "remain confidential" and money will be used to make the Browns "more competitive" -- Haslam.

 

He was asked if a roof was being considered for the stadium. Haslam was non-committal: "We're going to look at a lot of different options for the stadium." And... Architects will continue to be engaged but "Winning is the best way to improve the fan experience."

 

He nailed it on the winning thing. Look at Municipal Stadium. Even in the 80's it was already passed its prime but the team was winning so people loved the place, obstructed views and all. And that was after long summers of the Indians stinking up the joint.

 

Careful--you'll awaken the ghost of Sid Monge.

 

First Energy Field needs no lid.  It needs a winning team.  You won't be able to see an orange seat in the house with a contending team.    As I've said upthread, the only way I would consider a roof is if the NFL guaranteed a Superbowl in return, like Detroit received.  I don't think we have the Fortune 500 muscle that Detroit did.  End of story.

 

And what does the fortune 500 have to do with Superbowl site selection?  Im interested in hearing your thoughts.  What Detroit had was more central hotel rooms, than we currently have and Penske Group (Headed by Roger Penske of Shaker)  used the racing, auto industry and the 40th anniversary of the superbowl and tied it into american's heart land.

 

However, I do agree that if a dome is needed a guarantee for a future Superbowl should be included along with better marketing for the Hall of fame game, perhaps moving that game to Cleveland (sorry Canton).

So, it's official, FirstEnergy Stadium

 

 

BTW, terms of the naming rights deal will "remain confidential" and money will be used to make the Browns "more competitive" -- Haslam.

 

He was asked if a roof was being considered for the stadium. Haslam was non-committal: "We're going to look at a lot of different options for the stadium." And... Architects will continue to be engaged but "Winning is the best way to improve the fan experience."

 

He nailed it on the winning thing. Look at Municipal Stadium. Even in the 80's it was already passed its prime but the team was winning so people loved the place, obstructed views and all. And that was after long summers of the Indians stinking up the joint.

 

Careful--you'll awaken the ghost of Sid Monge.

 

First Energy Field needs no lid.  It needs a winning team.  You won't be able to see an orange seat in the house with a contending team.    As I've said upthread, the only way I would consider a roof is if the NFL guaranteed a Superbowl in return, like Detroit received.  I don't think we have the Fortune 500 muscle that Detroit did.  End of story.

 

And what does the fortune 500 have to do with Superbowl site selection?  Im interested in hearing your thoughts.  What Detroit had was more central hotel rooms, than we currently have and Penske Group (Headed by Roger Penske of Shaker)  used the racing, auto industry and the 40th anniversary of the superbowl and tied it into american's heart land.

 

However, I do agree that if a dome is needed a guarantee for a future Superbowl should be included along with better marketing for the Hall of fame game, perhaps moving that game to Cleveland (sorry Canton).

 

Sorry, what I meant and should have clarified:  Detroit had the big three auto makers who spend a TON on NFL advertising, not only for the Superbowl but during the course of the regular season.  This gave them extra muscle that the team used when Ford Field was built to get the big show back.  If you remember, it was the blizzard-fouled Superbowl in Pontiac at the old Silverdome that sent the NFL packing to warmer climates for better than two decades. 

So, it's official, FirstEnergy Stadium

 

 

BTW, terms of the naming rights deal will "remain confidential" and money will be used to make the Browns "more competitive" -- Haslam.

 

He was asked if a roof was being considered for the stadium. Haslam was non-committal: "We're going to look at a lot of different options for the stadium." And... Architects will continue to be engaged but "Winning is the best way to improve the fan experience."

 

He nailed it on the winning thing. Look at Municipal Stadium. Even in the 80's it was already passed its prime but the team was winning so people loved the place, obstructed views and all. And that was after long summers of the Indians stinking up the joint.

 

Careful--you'll awaken the ghost of Sid Monge.

 

First Energy Field needs no lid.  It needs a winning team.  You won't be able to see an orange seat in the house with a contending team.    As I've said upthread, the only way I would consider a roof is if the NFL guaranteed a Superbowl in return, like Detroit received.  I don't think we have the Fortune 500 muscle that Detroit did.  End of story.

 

And what does the fortune 500 have to do with Superbowl site selection?  Im interested in hearing your thoughts.  What Detroit had was more central hotel rooms, than we currently have and Penske Group (Headed by Roger Penske of Shaker)  used the racing, auto industry and the 40th anniversary of the superbowl and tied it into american's heart land.

 

However, I do agree that if a dome is needed a guarantee for a future Superbowl should be included along with better marketing for the Hall of fame game, perhaps moving that game to Cleveland (sorry Canton).

 

Sorry, what I meant and should have clarified:  Detroit had the big three auto makers who spend a TON on NFL advertising, not only for the Superbowl but during the course of the regular season.  This gave them extra muscle that the team used when Ford Field was built to get the big show back.  If you remember, it was the blizzard-fouled Superbowl in Pontiac at the old Silverdome that sent the NFL packing to warmer climates for better than two decades. 

 

I understand that but ad spending was declining drastically at that time.

 

I'm going to say the penske lead committee was helped them win the bid.  Not the strength of their local fortune 500s

There are probably truth in both assertions MTS.

 

My point was mainly to say that without a guarantee of a Superbowl, I would not invest in a dome.  There are simply not enough indoor stadium events to justify the cost.  Plus, it's Browns football.  We want a winner.  And we want them outdoors.  A roof would do nothing to sell tickets if they keep fielding the same schlock.

Would a dome allow us to move the MAC football championship game to Cleveland?

 

Would it get us in the rotation for hosting the Big 10 football championship game?

 

 

Would a dome allow us to move the MAC football championship game to Cleveland?

 

Would it get us in the rotation for hosting the Big 10 football championship game?

 

 

 

Who can say, without looking at the current contracts.

So here are the terms -- $102 million is sufficient to finance some pretty major improvements to the stadium including a majority of the costs of adding a roof......

 

FirstEnergy Stadium sponsorship deal with Browns worth $102 million over 17 years

By NATE ULRICH AND BETTY LIN-FISHER Published: January 17, 2013

 

Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp.’s stadium naming rights deal with the Browns is worth $6 million a year, sources told the Beacon Journal this afternoon.

 

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because FirstEnergy and the Browns agreed the terms of the deal would remain private.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-browns/cleveland-browns-1.270107/firstenergy-stadium-sponsorship-deal-with-browns-worth-102-million-over-17-years-1.365812

...Detroit had the big three auto makers who spend a TON on NFL advertising, not only for the Superbowl but during the course of the regular season.  This gave them extra muscle that the team used when Ford Field was built to get the big show back.  ...

Yes, I remember that position being expressed in the 1980s for the first Superbowl that was held in Pontiac.  "The NFL owes Detroit!"  I doubt if the league that screwed us is going to give us a Superbowl, though.

 

It would be grand if the owners of the Browns would now let the city off the hook for those annual maintenance cost s that the city now has to start paying.  I should write to Haslam.

There are probably truth in both assertions MTS.

 

My point was mainly to say that without a guarantee of a Superbowl, I would not invest in a dome.  There are simply not enough indoor stadium events to justify the cost.  Plus, it's Browns football.  We want a winner.  And we want them outdoors.  A roof would do nothing to sell tickets if they keep fielding the same schlock.

 

Not "we". I don't want it outdoors. I want a dome. Of course I want a winner too. That's the most important. But having a team in the 21st century would be nice too. Only, what, five football stadiums have no sponsorship name? And having a retractable roof at best is another thing that updates that stadium. I have no interest in, no attachment to, and no desire to continue to be antiquated in everything we do in order to hold on to a romanticized image of a team and city that no longer exists. No thank you. Change the name of the stadium (check.), get a dome and stop playing.

The reason it is called First Energy Stadium rather than First Energy Field is that the University of Akron soccer stadium is already taken as First Energy Field.

Would a dome allow us to move the MAC football championship game to Cleveland?

 

Would it get us in the rotation for hosting the Big 10 football championship game?

 

 

 

I would be doubtful about the possibility of a Big Ten title game, though I wouldn't write the idea off completely.  However I have to believe that the stadium (with a dome) would have a great shot at hosting a MAC title game considering the MAC is headquartered here AND Northeast Ohio almost certainly has the largest number of MAC alumni of any city anywhere.

There are probably truth in both assertions MTS.

 

My point was mainly to say that without a guarantee of a Superbowl, I would not invest in a dome.  There are simply not enough indoor stadium events to justify the cost.  Plus, it's Browns football.  We want a winner.  And we want them outdoors.  A roof would do nothing to sell tickets if they keep fielding the same schlock.

 

Not "we". I don't want it outdoors. I want a dome. Of course I want a winner too. That's the most important. But having a team in the 21st century would be nice too. Only, what, five football stadiums have no sponsorship name? And having a retractable roof at best is another thing that updates that stadium. I have no interest in, no attachment to, and no desire to continue to be antiquated in everything we do in order to hold on to a romanticized image of a team and city that no longer exists. No thank you. Change the name of the stadium (check.), get a dome and stop playing.

 

I feel sorry when I hear people talk this way.  Because the Browns have a great tradition.  And it's one that's outdoors.  Winning has nothing to do with the structure.  It has to do with running a great organization.  Green Bay and New England come to mind, they arguably play in two of the worst climates in the league.

Would a dome allow us to move the MAC football championship game to Cleveland?

 

Would it get us in the rotation for hosting the Big 10 football championship game?

 

 

 

I would be doubtful about the possibility of a Big Ten title game, though I wouldn't write the idea off completely.  However I have to believe that the stadium (with a dome) would have a great shot at hosting a MAC title game considering the MAC is headquartered here AND Northeast Ohio almost certainly has the largest number of MAC alumni of any city anywhere.

 

How are the MAC tournament decisions made now?  I assume this means basketball, correct?

Would a dome allow us to move the MAC football championship game to Cleveland?

 

Would it get us in the rotation for hosting the Big 10 football championship game?

 

 

 

I would be doubtful about the possibility of a Big Ten title game, though I wouldn't write the idea off completely.  However I have to believe that the stadium (with a dome) would have a great shot at hosting a MAC title game considering the MAC is headquartered here AND Northeast Ohio almost certainly has the largest number of MAC alumni of any city anywhere.

 

How are the MAC tournament decisions made now?  I assume this means basketball, correct?

 

I dont know.  That's why I said we would need to look at the bids and contracts on how the Mac decides on where its various sport tourney's are hosted.

 

The Q already hosts the mens and women's basketball tourney and the title sponsor is First Energy.

IMO the Q is the right sized venue for the MAC Tourney.  The NCAA has trouble filling seats on the final four games in stadiums--they are always well below the building's actual capacity.

What about NCAA or MAC football bowl games and/or playoffs? Cleveland briefly had the Great Lakes Bowl a few years ago. If FES is renovated (especially with a roof), then it's time to revive that.

IMO the Q is the right sized venue for the MAC Tourney.  The NCAA has trouble filling seats on the final four games in stadiums--they are always well below the building's actual capacity.

 

That is not a true statement.  Domes are often used because of the sheer size, not the seating.  The host network gets prime production, but as it's a large national sporting event other media networks, writers, columnist, etc need access and domed stadiums can be blocked off, especially the area's that are good for football but bad for basketball so that other media outlets can set up their kiosks.

 

The next three mens final four will be hosted in domes.  They do this so the playing floor can be raised to meet the 45k seat min. and other areas of the dome used for marketing/advertising.

What about NCAA or MAC football bowl games and/or playoffs? Cleveland briefly had the Great Lakes Bowl a few years ago. If FES is renovated (especially with a roof), then it's time to revive that.

 

If anyone wants in a a bowl, they are going to have to pony up the money for a bowl and would need a major sponsor like KeyBank, Sherwin-Williams, Cleveland Clinic or Geico.  Also, if it's not a BCS bowl [rose, fiesta, sugar, orange & national], which has set dates and the top teams you're pretty much screwed of a prime date, which in turn would not be enough for advertisers sponsors.  Not to mention Conference contracts (tie-ins).

 

Even long established bowls like the Cotton, Peach, Citrus,  and Gator have set dates and conference tie-ins. and are lead in bowls.  Do you really want to see a bowl game played by the teams that finished fifth or below in their conference?

 

Now you all know, I'm one for thinking outside the box and turning a negative into a positive.  Here is the scenario.  We create a "North Coast Bowl"?  Who pays for it?  What is the payout?  What teams can play in it?  What date is it?  What events are planned around it? (parade?  Fan appreciation?  formal balls? club, league, high school tie ins [OHSAA needs to be involved at this point], etc.)

 

At this point we're not late to the game, we should not even enter the game.  Why create a bowl "just to do it" when the odds are stacked against us.

 

I don't want it to be thought of as the Las Vegas or New Orleans bowls [although New Orleans has two 2 bowl games every year]!  Or god forbid the "PinStrip" Bowl a bowl game played at Yankee Stadium.  The Music City Bowl?  The Liberty Bowl?  Idaho Potato bowl?  Or a bowl that has changed it's name 3 times in ten years like the Belk Bowl. 

Under the new BCS format, cities with bowls can host playoff games. The winners play for the BCS championship in a city that competed for and won the bid to host the title game.

Under the new BCS format, cities with bowls can host playoff games. The winners play for the BCS championship in a city that competed for and won the bid to host the title game.

 

I'm confused.  I dont understand what you're trying to get across.

Under the new BCS format, cities with bowls can host playoff games. The winners play for the BCS championship in a city that competed for and won the bid to host the title game.

 

I'm confused.  I dont understand what you're trying to get across.

 

That if we had a stadium with a roof, we could also compete for a BCS championship game, in addition to a Super Bowl....

 

The national championship game would be played on a Monday night, at least six days after the semifinals, and the neutral site would be up for bid the same way the National Football League rotates its Super Bowl among bidding cities.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-26/college-football-gets-four-team-playoff-to-replace-bcs-system.html

There are probably truth in both assertions MTS.

 

My point was mainly to say that without a guarantee of a Superbowl, I would not invest in a dome.  There are simply not enough indoor stadium events to justify the cost.  Plus, it's Browns football.  We want a winner.  And we want them outdoors.  A roof would do nothing to sell tickets if they keep fielding the same schlock.

 

Not "we". I don't want it outdoors. I want a dome. Of course I want a winner too. That's the most important. But having a team in the 21st century would be nice too. Only, what, five football stadiums have no sponsorship name? And having a retractable roof at best is another thing that updates that stadium. I have no interest in, no attachment to, and no desire to continue to be antiquated in everything we do in order to hold on to a romanticized image of a team and city that no longer exists. No thank you. Change the name of the stadium (check.), get a dome and stop playing.

 

I feel sorry when I hear people talk this way.  Because the Browns have a great tradition.  And it's one that's outdoors.  Winning has nothing to do with the structure.  It has to do with running a great organization.  Green Bay and New England come to mind, they arguably play in two of the worst climates in the league.

 

We just have a fundamental disagreement then. I think the idea of playing football in "the rugged climate of the elements" is extremely overrated. I want a team that wins, yes, but I also want a team that looks like it plays in 2013, not 1953. In fact, one of the things I really like about Jimmy Haslam is that he clearly looks at the package of the Cowboys as a model. When they announced the changing of the name, Mary Kay Cabot on 92.3 said that the whole presentation, the video, the fanfare, the glitz and glam was indicative of the new Cleveland Browns. She referred to Haslam as "Hollywood Jimmy". I LOVE that. That's where I want us to be. This may be harsh, but I couldn't care less about "playing outdoors". Put a dome on the damn thing. Lol.

This fortune teller, who apparently isn't very good at predicting the future since he isn't living on his own beach someplace, has his own take on the stadium.....

 

Browns Stadium needs more than a name change to be good for Cleveland: Mark Naymik

By Mark Naymik, The Plain Dealer

on January 18, 2013 at 2:00 PM, updated January 18, 2013 at 2:57 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Browns Stadium needs more than a name change.

 

A retractable roof would be nice, but that is never going to happen.

 

In all the excitement generated by new Browns owner Jimmy Haslam's decision to sell stadium-naming rights to Akron-based FirstEnergy, a critical question got lost. How will naming rights be good for the stadium itself -- and for the taxpayers who are on the hook for caring for it?

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2013/01/browns_stadium_needs_more_than.html

Instead of renewing the sin tax, Cleveland should levy a $129 million tax on stadium admissions until the debt is retired.  Yes, it would be paid by the attendees, but the Browns can only raise the ticket price by "so much" until the people quit buying.  It is like the tax on soft drinks.

 

$10 tax * 70,000 seats * 10 games * 10 years => $70 million

 

Let's make it $20 for 20 years => $280 million

IMO the Q is the right sized venue for the MAC Tourney.  The NCAA has trouble filling seats on the final four games in stadiums--they are always well below the building's actual capacity.

 

That is not a true statement.  Domes are often used because of the sheer size, not the seating.  The host network gets prime production, but as it's a large national sporting event other media networks, writers, columnist, etc need access and domed stadiums can be blocked off, especially the area's that are good for football but bad for basketball so that other media outlets can set up their kiosks.

 

The next three mens final four will be hosted in domes.  They do this so the playing floor can be raised to meet the 45k seat min. and other areas of the dome used for marketing/advertising.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree then, even though you are reinforcing my point.  The MAC tournament is not the NCAA Final Four, thus reaffirming my statement that the MAC tourney is best hosted in an NBA building.  You also correctly point out that the NCAA scales down 80,000 seat domes into a more manageable 35,000-45,000 seats. Many of these seats go to corporate sponsors as comps in lieu of sponsor dollars.

 

My point was, the MAC tournament should not be a justification for spending $200 million to put a lid on First Energy Stadium.  There are very few events that could justify recouping this cost.

 

 

IMO the Q is the right sized venue for the MAC Tourney.  The NCAA has trouble filling seats on the final four games in stadiums--they are always well below the building's actual capacity.

 

That is not a true statement.  Domes are often used because of the sheer size, not the seating.  The host network gets prime production, but as it's a large national sporting event other media networks, writers, columnist, etc need access and domed stadiums can be blocked off, especially the area's that are good for football but bad for basketball so that other media outlets can set up their kiosks.

 

The next three mens final four will be hosted in domes.  They do this so the playing floor can be raised to meet the 45k seat min. and other areas of the dome used for marketing/advertising.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree then, even though you are reinforcing my point.  The MAC tournament is not the NCAA Final Four, thus reaffirming my statement that the MAC tourney is best hosted in an NBA building.  You also correctly point out that the NCAA scales down 80,000 seat domes into a more manageable 35,000-45,000 seats. Many of these seats go to corporate sponsors as comps in lieu of sponsor dollars.

 

My point was, the MAC tournament should not be a justification for spending $200 million to put a lid on First Energy Stadium.  There are very few events that could justify recouping this cost.

 

 

I think you've misunderstood .  I agree the Q is the right size for the MAC Basketball tourney.  However, you statement that the NCAA has trouble filling seats for final fours is incorrect.  The NCAA needs the size of those stadiums not for the seating, but for all the other production values not seen to a TV viewer or visitor.  There are things that need to be done, that cant be done in a 20k seat area.

 

Also, in regard to "corporate" sponsors there are only three NATIONAL, Coke,  ATT and Capital one.  They cannot buy tickets, if they are it's violating their agreements, as it can be seen as purchasing ticket for family and friends of players.  There are a shitload of policies on tickets and corporations.  If you say that company's are buying show me an example so I can look deeper into it.

IMO the Q is the right sized venue for the MAC Tourney.  The NCAA has trouble filling seats on the final four games in stadiums--they are always well below the building's actual capacity.

 

That is not a true statement.  Domes are often used because of the sheer size, not the seating.  The host network gets prime production, but as it's a large national sporting event other media networks, writers, columnist, etc need access and domed stadiums can be blocked off, especially the area's that are good for football but bad for basketball so that other media outlets can set up their kiosks.

 

The next three mens final four will be hosted in domes.  They do this so the playing floor can be raised to meet the 45k seat min. and other areas of the dome used for marketing/advertising.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree then, even though you are reinforcing my point.  The MAC tournament is not the NCAA Final Four, thus reaffirming my statement that the MAC tourney is best hosted in an NBA building.  You also correctly point out that the NCAA scales down 80,000 seat domes into a more manageable 35,000-45,000 seats. Many of these seats go to corporate sponsors as comps in lieu of sponsor dollars.

 

My point was, the MAC tournament should not be a justification for spending $200 million to put a lid on First Energy Stadium.  There are very few events that could justify recouping this cost.

 

 

I think you've misunderstood .  I agree the Q is the right size for the MAC Basketball tourney.  However, you statement that the NCAA has trouble filling seats for final fours is incorrect.  The NCAA needs the size of those stadiums not for the seating, but for all the other production values not seen to a TV viewer or visitor.  There are things that need to be done, that cant be done in a 20k seat area.

 

Also, in regard to "corporate" sponsors there are only three NATIONAL, Coke,  ATT and Capital one.  They cannot buy tickets, if they are it's violating their agreements, as it can be seen as purchasing ticket for family and friends of players.  There are a sh!tload of policies on tickets and corporations.  If you say that company's are buying show me an example so I can look deeper into it.

 

I think we are on the same page then--I thought you were making the argument for the MAC tourney moving to CBS, which is clearly not the case.

 

Also note that I never said the sponsors were buying tickets directly--they are included as a part of their sponsorship deal as "comps".

IMO the Q is the right sized venue for the MAC Tourney.  The NCAA has trouble filling seats on the final four games in stadiums--they are always well below the building's actual capacity.

 

That is not a true statement.  Domes are often used because of the sheer size, not the seating.  The host network gets prime production, but as it's a large national sporting event other media networks, writers, columnist, etc need access and domed stadiums can be blocked off, especially the area's that are good for football but bad for basketball so that other media outlets can set up their kiosks.

 

The next three mens final four will be hosted in domes.  They do this so the playing floor can be raised to meet the 45k seat min. and other areas of the dome used for marketing/advertising.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree then, even though you are reinforcing my point.  The MAC tournament is not the NCAA Final Four, thus reaffirming my statement that the MAC tourney is best hosted in an NBA building.  You also correctly point out that the NCAA scales down 80,000 seat domes into a more manageable 35,000-45,000 seats. Many of these seats go to corporate sponsors as comps in lieu of sponsor dollars.

 

My point was, the MAC tournament should not be a justification for spending $200 million to put a lid on First Energy Stadium.  There are very few events that could justify recouping this cost.

 

 

I think you've misunderstood .  I agree the Q is the right size for the MAC Basketball tourney.  However, you statement that the NCAA has trouble filling seats for final fours is incorrect.  The NCAA needs the size of those stadiums not for the seating, but for all the other production values not seen to a TV viewer or visitor.  There are things that need to be done, that cant be done in a 20k seat area.

 

Also, in regard to "corporate" sponsors there are only three NATIONAL, Coke,  ATT and Capital one.  They cannot buy tickets, if they are it's violating their agreements, as it can be seen as purchasing ticket for family and friends of players.  There are a sh!tload of policies on tickets and corporations.  If you say that company's are buying show me an example so I can look deeper into it.

 

I think we are on the same page then--I thought you were making the argument for the MAC tourney moving to CBS, which is clearly not the case.

 

Also note that I never said the sponsors were buying tickets directly--they are included as a part of their sponsorship deal as "comps".

 

Gotcha, but "comps" shouldn't be apart of the deal.  Remember this is college/NCAA not the professional sports.

I think it's a pipedream to believe that Cleveland would ever be considered for a Super Bowl, BCS Championship Game, or even NCAA Championship (hoops).  Even with a roof, CBS is still a dump compared to the other immaculate facilities that these events usually go to.  Beyond that, I just don't think that Cleveland has the allure to get one of these events.  Maybe Haslam has some pull (money) to get one of them as a one-time thing, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

 

More realistically, I think that Cleveland could have a shot things like an NCAA hoops regional tournament, minor bowl games, etc.

I think it's a pipedream to believe that Cleveland would ever be considered for a Super Bowl, BCS Championship Game, or even NCAA Championship (hoops).  Even with a roof, CBS is still a dump compared to the other immaculate facilities that these events usually go to.  Beyond that, I just don't think that Cleveland has the allure to get one of these events.  Maybe Haslam has some pull (money) to get one of them as a one-time thing, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

 

More realistically, I think that Cleveland could have a shot things like an NCAA hoops regional tournament, minor bowl games, etc.

 

Pipedream?  That may be strong, but I don't think you're far off.  Which is why I would want a GUARANTEE, in writing, of the marquee event(s), before we put a dime into covering the stadium.  One Superbowl would cover it.  We would need a hugely unified political and corporate community.  And we would need the Browns back on the map.    Thanks to all our Cleveland ex-pats the Browns are one of the most heavily supported in the entire nation.  A winning Browns team would awaken the masses once more. 

Defeatism reigns again in Cleveland, Ohio. (And before anyone uses this, don't give me that "I'm just being realistic" crap. That's the excuse given to rationalize their defeatism.) I'm so sick of us thinking and acting like losers. If Haslam pays for half-to-most of the cost for a dome, what does the cost matter? If we get a dome, it's unlikely that the taxpayers would pay more than half, if that. I wouldn't be in favor of the taxpayers paying most of the costs, but if it's half or less, why the hell wouldn't you do it? If you continue to just do what you've always done, you will continue to get what you've always had. In order to even be on the radar for the big events most of us want, we have to have a facility that's competitive.

My vote....Hate domes...play football outside.

My vote....Hate domes...play football outside.

 

exactly!! Play the game in the elements! Nothing better than two teams playing hard late in the season in a blizzard. Now that's just good tv!

As a timely footnote:

 

The San Francisco 49's are heading to their 6th Superbowl (they are 5-0).  They play in the "not-so-California" elements in Candlestick Park.  No dome.

 

This is the Raven's second trip (1-0).  Art Modell took our Browns team to Memorial Stadium in Baltimore, then moved into the also uncovered Ravens Stadium a couple seasons after. 

 

 

Defeatism reigns again in Cleveland, Ohio. (And before anyone uses this, don't give me that "I'm just being realistic" crap. That's the excuse given to rationalize their defeatism.) I'm so sick of us thinking and acting like losers. If Haslam pays for half-to-most of the cost for a dome, what does the cost matter? If we get a dome, it's unlikely that the taxpayers would pay more than half, if that. I wouldn't be in favor of the taxpayers paying most of the costs, but if it's half or less, why the hell wouldn't you do it? If you continue to just do what you've always done, you will continue to get what you've always had. In order to even be on the radar for the big events most of us want, we have to have a facility that's competitive.

 

Whether I'm right or wrong, defeatist or realist, it's all irrelevant if Haslam foots the bill.  I'd support a dome if he's paying for it and from there we can worry about trying to attract marquee events.  However if the taxpayers have to pick up a significant portion of the tab, it's a gamble that I'm not sure I'd like to see the county (because let's be honest, it wouldn't just be Clevelanders) take at this time.

As a timely footnote:

 

The San Francisco 49's are heading to their 6th Superbowl (they are 5-0).  They play in the "not-so-California" elements in Candlestick Park.  No dome.

 

This is the Raven's second trip (1-0).  Art Modell took our Browns team to Memorial Stadium in Baltimore, then moved into the also uncovered Ravens Stadium a couple seasons after. 

 

 

 

Bottom line, a dome provides more than just cover 8 days out of 365 (2% of the year). Other events can happen easier and that's why it's even being considered.

I think it's a pipedream to believe that Cleveland would ever be considered for a Super Bowl, BCS Championship Game, or even NCAA Championship (hoops).  Even with a roof, CBS is still a dump compared to the other immaculate facilities that these events usually go to.  Beyond that, I just don't think that Cleveland has the allure to get one of these events.  Maybe Haslam has some pull (money) to get one of them as a one-time thing, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

 

More realistically, I think that Cleveland could have a shot things like an NCAA hoops regional tournament, minor bowl games, etc.

 

You label these "immaculate" facilities?  Have you been to any of these stadiums/arenas? 

 

I have been to and inspected many arenas and stadiums/domes and let me tell you The Q and CBS are on par with any stadium outside of Dallas, Lucas and Phoenix Stadium.  I haven't seen Phoenix in person.  The problem isn't our stadium infrastructure it's the lack of hotel rooms.

As a timely footnote:

 

The San Francisco 49's are heading to their 6th Superbowl (they are 5-0).  They play in the "not-so-California" elements in Candlestick Park.  No dome.

 

This is the Raven's second trip (1-0).  Art Modell took our Browns team to Memorial Stadium in Baltimore, then moved into the also uncovered Ravens Stadium a couple seasons after. 

 

 

 

Bottom line, a dome provides more than just cover 8 days out of 365 (2% of the year). Other events can happen easier and that's why it's even being considered.

 

The stadium is in use more than just 8 days.  Please remember it does host many special event, such as American Idol auditions, concerts, etc.  So Browns games or sporting event cannot be solely counted.  All events hosted at the stadium should be included in the events total.

I think it's a pipedream to believe that Cleveland would ever be considered for a Super Bowl, BCS Championship Game, or even NCAA Championship (hoops).  Even with a roof, CBS is still a dump compared to the other immaculate facilities that these events usually go to.  Beyond that, I just don't think that Cleveland has the allure to get one of these events.  Maybe Haslam has some pull (money) to get one of them as a one-time thing, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

 

More realistically, I think that Cleveland could have a shot things like an NCAA hoops regional tournament, minor bowl games, etc.

 

You label these "immaculate" facilities?  Have you been to any of these stadiums/arenas? 

 

I have been to and inspected many arenas and stadiums/domes and let me tell you The Q and CBS are on par with any stadium outside of Dallas, Lucas and Phoenix Stadium.  I haven't seen Phoenix in person.  The problem isn't our stadium infrastructure it's the lack of hotel rooms.

 

AMEN!!!!!

 

Please Cleveland, do not fool ourselves into believing that if we build it, they will come.  Let's focus on our strengths and get the hotel rooms built via our medical mart and the jobs and new economy it helps to establish in the 20th century.  If that keeps growing, we'll stay on the map!

As a timely footnote:

 

The San Francisco 49's are heading to their 6th Superbowl (they are 5-0).  They play in the "not-so-California" elements in Candlestick Park.  No dome.

 

This is the Raven's second trip (1-0).  Art Modell took our Browns team to Memorial Stadium in Baltimore, then moved into the also uncovered Ravens Stadium a couple seasons after. 

 

 

 

Bottom line, a dome provides more than just cover 8 days out of 365 (2% of the year). Other events can happen easier and that's why it's even being considered.

 

The stadium is in use more than just 8 days.  Please remember it does host many special event, such as American Idol auditions, concerts, etc.  So Browns games or sporting event cannot be solely counted.  All events hosted at the stadium should be included in the events total.

 

Agreed, it was stated due to the fact that there were statements directly to the fact that football should be played outside, which are those 8 days.

That being said, I don't know the number of other events, but I would guess that if the avg. temp. for a time period is below 60 you are not going to get much scheduled.

Please Cleveland, do not fool ourselves into believing that if we build it, they will come.  Let's focus on our strengths and get the hotel rooms built via our medical mart and the jobs and new economy it helps to establish in the 20th century.  If that keeps growing, we'll stay on the map!

In other words, focus!!