Ranking Cincinnati Basketball’s 2017-18 Arena Options

We know that UC Basketball is in need of a temporary home for the 2017-18 season, when Fifth Third Arena will be closed for major renovations.  It had been reported that the University was considering playing nest season’s home games at the historic Cincinnati Gardens arena.  UC would have had scheduling freedom due to the Gardens’ lack of major tenants, and would probably pay considerably less to use the aging arena in Bond Hill than it would have to to rent the area’s more modern facilities.

But here’s a plot twist: A deal is in place for The Gardens to be sold, demolished, and redeveloped into industrial space.  There is no timeline for demolition of the historic arena, but the Cincinnati athletic department has confirmed that the deal eliminates The Gardens from UC’s search for a home arena next season.

So where does UC go from here?  The other options AD Mike Bohn has mentioned are the US Bank area (located downtown, and home to minor league hockey), BB&T Arena (Northern Kentucky University), and the Cintas Center (Xavier).  Each building has it’s pros and cons, though I believe that one is the clear favorite if an appropriate deal can be reached.

I have constructed the handy table below to show each of the factors taken into account.

Potential UC "Home" Courts for 2017-18

As you can see, I think that US Bank Arena is the ideal home for the Bearcats, if I had to choose one building, and one only.  While not the area’s nicest facility anymore, it is still modern and acceptable, and its location downtown near restaurants and bars would make help UC draw more fans due to the destination factor – while Norwood is close to some restaurants at Rookwood Commons, not many people want to go out on the town in Alexandria, KY.  Further, US Bank’s seating capacity of 17,000 is ideal for bigger games.  Cintas seats 12,250, and BB&T can accommodate 9,400.

The problem that may arise in playing the full 2017-18 schedule at US Bank Arena is two-fold, however.  First, rent at US Bank is likely higher than the other two arenas, so playing lower-profile opponents downtown could be cost prohibitive.  For example, we know that UC will host Albany on a Monday night in November in an early-season tune-up game.  That game won’t draw more than 6,000 or 7,000 fans, so UC would probably lose money playing it at US Bank Arena, especially after they pay Albany a $50,000 or $100,000 guarantee.

Same goes for the like of the USFs and ECUs of the AAC during conference play, obviously no guarantee being paid, but still not a money-maker once you pay to rent an arena.  But playing games like UConn, Memphis, Temple, SMU, and whatever big name non-league games the ‘Cats schedule at US Bank makes a lot of sense.  Those games routinely sell 11,000-13,000 tickets – more than the capacities of the arenas at NKU and Xavier.

Second, US Bank’s primary tenant, minor league hockey’s Cincinnati Cyclones, play a full schedule of home games concurrent with college basketball season.  The changeover from hockey to basketball can be done in 4-5 hours if the ice is left in place under a sheet of insulation, and that works great at modern, major-league facilities like Madison Square Garden and the United Center.  But ice systems and climate control aren’t as effective at aging, minor-league facilities, and can render the basketball court unplayable due to moisture and condensation from the underlying hockey rink.  At such facilities, it’s preferable to totally melt and drain the ice surface, and then put it back in when it’s time for hockey again.  This could severely limit the scheduling flexibility that the Bearcats have, as they would have to dodge the hockey schedule.

My solution to the problem is this: play home games at multiple sites.  Play games against higher-profile opponents and weekend games at US Bank Arena.  Play low-profile opponents on weeknights and any games that conflict with Cyclones hockey at BB&T or Cintas.  Let’s say the Bearcats play 17 home games in 2017-18, as they did last year.  Maybe 8 or 9 of those games (Fri/Sat/Sun games and big-name opponents) end up downtown, and the other 8 or 9 (mostly weeknights) get split between NKU and Xavier.

In my opinion, UC has an interesting opportunity with this temporary homelessness.  A similar situation to what they had with Nippert being closed in 2014.  Go schedule as many road games as possible for 2017-18, and sign those contracts as part of home-and-home deals.  You play on the road while your arena is closed, then those big-name teams come visit the shiny, new Fifth Third Arena at a later date.  It worked out perfectly with the Miami (FL) football series.  Visit The U while Nippert is closed, host The U at the New Nippert and black them out.

UC will owe Michigan a return trip to Ann Arbor – try to make that happen in December of 2017.  The Crosstown Shootout rotation is already set to play in Norwood next year, so UC doesn’t lose a home game.  Go out and get a couple more of those series against the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, etc., and play another road game or two in 2017-18.  Is that putting yourself against murderer’s row?  Maybe, but if you take even one or two of those Top 50 true road games, that looks great to the selection committee come March.

And while we’re discussing playing games at NKU’s building, throw them a bone.  Play a road game at NKU in ’17-’18.  Let them make some money by selling out the otherwise 85% empty BB&T Arena and selling some season tickets.  UC’s end of the deal: give us a good price if we need to use your arena for a few other games here and there, and play us at home a few times in years to come.  And why not play a road game at Miami U. or Wright State to get a few return trips.  Maybe the best idea?  Re-institute the UC-Dayton game.  That used to be a great rivalry that generated lots of interest, and would be an easy RPI Top 50 game every year.  Play the first installment at UD Arena in ’17-’18.