macphisto

On 4/4/2019 at 5:24 PM, Triple B said:

How many other viable options are out there besides Dak?

There are many, though it's not a huge industry so word gets around.  Dak is one of the bigger names, but you can deal with Samsung, Panasonic, ANC Sports, etc.  There are some less expensive options like Nevco out there as well.  

Dak is known for their support and ability to customize.  Generally when you get a board from Dak they also provide graphics packages for a few years.  That can be a large expense.  The Bucs got two years worth of graphics packages with their new boards before they went to an outside shop for a graphics package last year (I think they spent about $80K on their package last year, but that's a guess.  I know they had Famous Productions work on it).  

When you consider a center hung, you also have to consider the entire scoreboard system and how it functions.  Dak has a very straightforward scoring system that clubs like because of how it can easily integrate into the overlay system for scoring (usually Xpressions or Crossfire nowadays - more and more Xpressions), so that's a consideration as well.

For an arena you need the scoring system that can allow you to integrate players scores, team scores, and statistics into the board while relaying that info to traditional LED scoreboards and possible LED ribbon panels.  This is usually done via XML output, but the system used is very important.

The pro system most similar to the setup that USF runs was done by ANC Sports for the Cavaliers up in Cleveland.  It has a massive center hung (which we wouldn't need) with four corner screens that show player stats live.  UF has an ANC system for an arena layout very similar to ours.  Though I don't believe they have the corner stat screens.  

To really monetize the display, you'd want a center hung with LED ribbon installs.  Not going to get a full wraparound due to design.

On top of that, you have to have a modern control room.  That probably means a new switcher, new amp system, and possibly a new fiber run.  These things are expensive, but they also make the arena more palatable for sporting events and other events.  

That's part of the Lightning's interest as well beyond sports.  Upgrades to the overall facility will allow them to book more mid-tier acts.  They will  make money there, but so will USF.  They want it to do well with USF sports, but also want it to have even more concerts and other events and they have a lot of mid-tier bookings they could make with more overall updates.

One thing to consider on those LED ribbons is that when concert events are held, it gives sponsors an opportunity to broaden their audience so sponsorship can charge more and the school can make more.

For instance, if the school creates a strong enough brand that can resonate in the area, USF could have a bidding war between TGH, Advent, and Baycare for who becomes the official healthcare provider of USF Athletics.  I know how much Advent gives the Lightning and the Bucs and I know how they determine where to spend money.  

What the Lightning pitch is that these cost PAY for themselves long term as you can attract more sponsors at higher prices.  They can also help make the arena more attractive for events and make it more attractive for broadcast - which leads into other events. 

As I said above, the Lightning absolutely want to make more money.  But the arrangement with USF means that as they make more money, so does USF.  I believe the Lightning's share decreases in size percentage wise as the revenue grows.  The deal was designed to encourage USF to grow their athletics and arena infrastructure.  

40 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

New management group running the venue and $$$ are the only things I'm basing my opinion upon.  

If the tale has gotten around they may get bids from everyone, but they all might submit higher bids to allow for a change like that at the last second.  The story is pretty well known in sports production circles, fyi.

8 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

If and when USF opens bids for the project, I would be willing to bet Daktronics throws their hat into the ring. 

They may.  They may not.  Hard to say.  I just heard the Dak side.

2 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

How exactly did USF screw over the vendor, Daktronics? 

The original center hung was not designed to lift up for a concert setting - it was permanently set in place.  That was what USF asked for.  At the last second they asked for the ability to move it up or down - so they could pull the scoreboard up to clear for a stage in arena.  Then they didn't want to pay anything extra for this.  Daktronics did it for the quoted price because they had already built the panels, the structure, etc - but the mods basically wiped out any profit they would have made.  A Dak guy told me that the only way they'd work with USF again is they got a comprehensive full campus deal with USF to replace all major screens (baseball stadium, Marshall Center, etc) with contract language that requires price adjustments for changes like that, etc.   They would not just want to do a single job for the arena - the install at the Sun Dome left a really bad taste in their mouth.

On 4/2/2019 at 3:09 PM, George Jenkins said:

Serious question, has a billionaire ever funded a stadium without the "help" of the tax payer?

Jerry Jones tried it in Arlington, but the cost overruns had the city step in to help.  I think he paid about $700M of the $1.1B price tag.  I work with people that worked with Jerry for years and he really wanted to do it without taxpayer money at all to show it could be done, but he did need some help to get it over the top.  

Still, paying almost 70% of the cost is pretty impressive.  

On 4/1/2019 at 11:00 AM, Triple B said:

I get that it's not totally out of the goodness of their heart but the only way you apparently were aware of them being "pretty good to USF" was a suite donation when there is obviously lots more .... and as far as it just being business, I'm guessing that there's tons more opportunities out there for a lot better ROI than investing in USF basketball.

Guys, the Lightning could sell that suite for a lot more than the write off they are getting from it.  Yes, it's not all done out of the goodness of their hearts.

But the Lightning do A LOT of work with USF.  They provide a lot of opportunities for USF's Graduate Sports Management program and have donated a lot to support that program.  

The Lightning's attitude on upgrading Yuegling would mean more revenue for them AND for USF.  Lightning has also offered to begin fundraising by adding a couple million to start off as seed money if USF commits.  Ultimately USF has to take the lead.  The Lightning cannot start fundraising efforts.  The Lightning have no power to issue bonds as part of an effort either while USF does.  

So, yes, the Lightning want a stronger USF brand because it is more money for them AND because they want to get out an manage more things for venues.  But their interests can align.  

The people I talk to at Lightning will not financially benefit.  They just want a great presentation for USF and see turning USF into a premium brand as a challenge they want to try, but they cannot get money for that themselves and the Lightning are not going to just fund it for them.  

Should be said - USF burned some bridges when the Sun Dome was remodeled.  They screwed over Daktronics in a fairly big way, so they won't get any good pricing on boards either.  What happened there is known inside the industry.  

21 hours ago, Jonesy Bull said:

They should act on any advice they get from the Lightning.  They are a top notch organization that pretty much does everything the right way.

There's been a lot of back and forth since last year with the Lightning.  They have expressed to USF the need to update the Control Room, the boards, and the entire video system inside the Yuengling Center, but USF has been reluctant to commit to it and raise funds for it.  It'll probably cost about $20M to do it all right and the people at the Lightning has told them at this point it is better to future proof and install 4K boards and 4K screens on the concourse.  

The people over at the Lightning production are very willing to help USF create a world class show for all events at Yuengling and are interested in helping with football as well.  The Lightning are also happy to help with cross promotion. They would LOVE to see USF basketball get built up on the men's and women's side.

They have been helping in limited ways since 2017 but they are willing to take it to the next level.  USF just has to commit to it.  The Lightning as an org may also be happy to contribute to a stadium fund.  They actually are interested in a potential USF stadium for an outdoor hockey game.  They are less interested in RayJay, but their relationship with the Bucs is cordial at best.  The teams in this area are not huge fans of one another.  That's not uncommon in cities due to competition, but some places have teams that get along great (Cleveland is like this).  

The Lightning are happy to be a partner with USF.  And if USF gets its act together, there are a lot of sponsors that would be happy to throw money at them - I know of several.  But USF has to work to move up the pecking order.  It takes investment, but it could pay huge dividends down the line.

On 3/29/2019 at 8:22 AM, usfgrad84 said:

Money loser on the surface and in the short run. If the extra playing experience, learning how to win meaningful games and confidence going in to next year translates to bigger crowds, bigger wins, attracting better recruits in the future it could turn out to be a worthy investment. Too early to tell. 

If I recall correctly, the ladies run of successful tourney appearances was preceded by a WNIT appearance in the championship game? Was it a win. I don't remember, but it was the last building block in their recent success.

Maybe not an exact comparison, but it may turn out to be a great investment for the future of the program. 

 

It's a good sign.  I work directly with the productions of a lot of college and pro sports teams.  I love USF, it's my alma mater.  I've talked with them in the past (from AD down) about making the programs more appealing to fans.  I have yet to talk to the new admin running the show, but I know the people I work with at the Lightning have made it known they are interested in taking over event production for USF games for all sports - staffing and allowing for students to continue to participate.  But they have stated the USF must decide to make an INVESTMENT.

At the beginning of the season when the Lightning talked about helping USF grow its basketball programs, USF kicked back at them worrying about cost and sustainability.  The Lightning told them they had to choose to make an investment and that ONLY if they did could they hope to grow their fanbase and increase their attendance.  

I take this as a good sign.  

The Lightning have also told them of the need to upgrade the boards at Yuengling and that remains an uphill battle (part of that is because of what happened the last time they did that and how it caused a serious issue with Daktronics).

Hopefully they are beginning to understand that they need to invest if they have any hope of growing their programs.  My company has shared that with them in the past as well.  We are willing to do work with them for a lower price point than others, though the school would also be willing to test things out for us as part of the deal.  That happens with us and the Lightning too - the Lightning are a big partner for us (we've done interactive work with them and have done their graphics and ice projections for several years).

USF has some strong partners and potential partners that are willing to step in, but USF has to show investment.  

This tournament showed some of that.  It's not a money maker, but it shows they believe in their recruits and wanted to give them the opportunity to play beyond the regular season.  It shows Coach Gregory that we want to build something with him.  And it shows other partners, like the Lightning, that USF may be willing to do what is necessary to grow and strengthen USF Athletics and make it a viable option for students, families, and everyone throughout Tampa Bay.

There's a long way to go, but investing in the CBI is a good first step.

On 2/6/2019 at 6:19 PM, Jonesy Bull said:

We are not winning at Houston this year.  A win at home against Temple and UCF, however - possible to probable.

Wasn't saying we were.  But a Houston win would go a long way to making a case.  I don't expect a win.  

Right now I'm thinking 21 or maybe 22 wins is the best possible record.  That won't get us in the tournament, but will probably give us a solid seed in the NIT.  

Next year we need to get in - that's my expectation.  

On 2/5/2019 at 12:00 PM, NewEnglandBull said:

24 will not be enough

Depends on what the wins are.  A win at Houston with 24 wins may be enough, especially if one of those losses is a split with UCF.  

On 8/11/2017 at 9:57 AM, bullsmeanbusiness said:

I thought so too but in this initial study, I did not see anything. If not then it should definitely be in the second study they do. If the information for every year that we have been at Ray Jay (ticket sales, concessions, etc) is readily available I wouldn't mind taking a stab at the analysis.

There are several sources of revenue you get when you have an OCS.  Tickets, concessions, and parking revenue are the biggest ones.  USF currently pays over $1M a year to the Sports Authority for usage between the raw lease fee and the ticket surcharges.  They are also probably losing out on $3M+ a year on food revenues which likely generate around $1.5-1.8M in net profits pure year in food sales (food cost is super low at stadiums while labor cost likely runs 15% or less due to volume).  There's likely another $1M per year in parking revenue.  Advertising revenue also factors.  The signage around the stadium would generate revenue as would the naming rights.  UCF gets $1 million per year for naming rights.  That number could be higher IF USF can maintain a national ranking for any length of time.

An OCS could likely generate an additional $12-20M+ per year in profit for the program for just football activities.  Concerts, bowl games, and other charged usage for the stadium increase that - except you also have maintenance costs to factor in.  Operational expenses as well - because the power & water bills are probably not a small things.

On the plus side, I could see what is currently the St. Petersburg Bowl relocating and actually being played on campus in a proper football stadium.

Financing is a problem.  How much can be donated?  How much would need to be bonded?  Bonding out $100M for 20 years would be very manageable long term.  That means you need to raise at least $100M and have a plan for cost overages.



 

8 minutes ago, GaUSFBull said:

I'm not either.  I don't care about the wins/losses.  I think a guy getting ACC Coach of the Year, considering the other programs in the conference, in his first year in the toughest MBB conference in the country, is a pretty big deal.  GT was picked to finish last in conference and they exceeded expectations thoroughly.  

I don't know how you can be labeled as "taking a step back" when you exceed expectations.

I'd call losing by 50 to Duke taking a step back.

He got ACC coach of the year because of a few flashy wins and because they pretty much automatically disqualify Coach K and Roy Williams from consideration.

He has the worst record for a Coach of the Year winner in about a decade.  Coach K and Roy Williams deserved it a lot more than he did, but they aren't even considered.  That last ACC Coach of the Year to win with such a bad record?  Seth Greenberg.  He won it twice for going 9-7 and 8-8 in conference.  

My uncle works at UNC.  ACC Coach of the Year is a charity award because they exclude the top dogs from receiving it.  

They lost four seniors.  All their top players were recruited by Gregory.  The Freshmen were mostly his and just signed by the new guy.  They're losing 6 seniors this year, so we'll see how he does going forward.

How do we know that Gregory would not have done similar with these players he recruited?

So are we going to acknowledge that Gregory laid the foundation and did not leave the cupboard bare?  If he couldn't recruit then there's no way GT would've won much.

 

19 minutes ago, JTrue said:

Took a step back? They finished 17-15, 11th in the ACC (8-10), and made the NIT. That's a step forward.

They made the NIT last year and went 19-14 in the regular season.  They won the first two rounds in the NIT last year, taking out the #1 seed in their bracket.

The new coach did have to deal with graduating seniors but is still using players that were recruited by his predecessor.  

GT last by over 50 to Duke this year.  Last year they only lost by 9.  They got blown out multiple times this year.  Seems like the new coach can get the guys motivated for big games, but he can't do it every time.

Our new coach is not perfect, but we don't get the pick of the litter.

BTW, he won 25 his last year at Dayton with players he recruited and did not inherit.

The cupboard was bare at GT when he got there and he had to build from scratch. The new guy benefitted from that.  

So he can at least provide a stable recruiting cycle and grow the program to prepare for someone and make the program more desirable. 

Who else would we have gotten?

5 minutes ago, GaUSFBull said:

Say what?  His replacement, Josh Pastner is ACC Coach of the Year this year, his first year at Tech.  GT had a couple of huge Top 25 wins over FSU and UNC.  They didn't make the NCAA tourney but they were close.  They're in the NIT as a #6 seed.

I'd say they took a major step forward.  

They won 21 last year and 17 this year while scoring 6 less points per game.

They beat FSU and UNC and also got blown out by Tennessee and Georgia. They lost by over 50 points to Duke (110-57).  Lost by 12 to Wake.  Lost by 12 to Clemson.

Seems like they got up for some big opponents but then took a lot of games off.

Last year they won 21, beat Virginia and ND, and beat the #1 seed in the NIT (South Carolina).

So Panther won coach of the year with Gregory's players by winning a few big games but losing big in games his team should've won.  

I don't see how they're better off.  They won the first two rounds of the NIT to get to 21.  We'll see how the new guy does. 

That 76-86 record was at GT.  He had to rebuild the program and went from 11 to 21 wins during his tenure.  

He went 172-94 at Dayton before that.  

They got a guy with experience as a head coach this time.  GT took a step back after they didn't renew him.

13 hours ago, Gismo said:

Expand to 6 team playoff... take each P5 conference champion and the highest ranked G5 team. Top 2 seeds get a round 1 bye. That is what I would like to see. 

I think this works with a caveat.  The G5 team has to have a qualifying ranking - maybe top 15?  That's where Western Michigan is.  Or maybe an exception to the ranking requirement if the top G5 team goes undefeated.  

I don't think the G5 should get a seat if it produces a bunch of 10-2 or 9-3 teams that defeat nobody.  I think if we had beaten FSU and Temple and won the AAC title game then we'd have been in the Top 15 pretty easily.  

Despite the weak schedule, I think we'll finish in the Top 15 or Top 10 if we go undefeated even on a weak schedule because I suspect we'll start in the Top 25.  

A Top 15 requirement or undefeated requirement is fair if they expand.  If none of the G5 meets that then the 6th sport can go to another P5 school.

Don't care for Schiano, but he'd be a fit at Temple.  Same recruiting base as Rutgers pretty much.  

Strong is the best hire.  I think Houston and Cincy both did very well.  Fickell and Applewhite both have ties to their major recruiting bases.  Applewhite will be an easy transition for Houston.  

Fickell is an Ohio State lifer.  A lot of Ohio State fans wanted him to be the HC before it was clear that Meyer would return.  He was solid in his one year despite the fallout from Tressel and talent issues.  

1 hour ago, Buller64 said:

The future is unclear while CS has shown strength at Louisville, his tenure at Texas was less than sterling. The plus side is that recruiting will be good but his in game management is questionable and, while at Texas, he couldn't seem to get his players on the same page. So we may find ourselves in the same position as we were under CJL, having the talent to compete but not quite putting it all together.

I think there were many mitigating factors at Texas.  Expectations were high.  The Boosters were not all on board and I think the faculty weren't always onboard.  The cupboard was also bare after Mack Brown.  That program was in bad shape and it was not easy to find direction, especially with the expectations.

We're in a maintenance situation right now.  If Strong can keep the offense together and add to it while making the defense even average, the chances of us going undefeated on next year's schedule are good.  He didn't seem to have the playcalling issues at Louisville, but I think he had a lot less pressure on him too.

Time will tell, but he can add the recruits, lock down the Bay Area, and then hopefully learn from mistakes.

Just now, Orlando Bull said:

I'm not buying it yet... feel like the details would have been worked out before he ever stepped foot in Tampa. Especially if there was a deal-breaker in there.

If it is the buyout clause, they'll probably hammer at it or raise the buyout for certain big time jobs.  

2 minutes ago, ajusf16 said:

Something with the buyout clause. Not dead but a major ripple

So USF wants a large buyout if he leaves and Strong doesn't like that?  

3 minutes ago, OncomingStorm said:

Fresh article from ESPN on Strong/USF. No new info, but still worth checking out:

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18243353/charlie-strong-preliminary-talks-south-florida-bulls-head-coaching-job

Well, the open jobs are shrinking fast and there are still good ones out there.  Cincy got their guy.  Houston got theirs.  

Strong is also talking to Temple, but USF is a better fit for him and his background.  Schiano is the natural fit for Temple.  

And if Schiano gets the Temple job, how long until Urban Meyer gets panic attacks again, losing so much staff?

1 minute ago, Bull Dozer said:

Huge tech economy there too.  Almost like a baby silicon valley.  It's a fantastic city.  

Yeah.  Austin is one of the nicest cities in the country.  It's Texas' jewel.  And it's near San Antonio - about the distance between Orlando and Tampa.  That region is beautiful and very different from how most people perceive Texas - but Texas is so big and has so many different geographic regions.  

Just now, TallyBull said:

I'd say 13 vs 49 media market and a metro region with about a million more people is a pretty dramatic difference.

But again, I don't care. Austin is king of the world! Bigger than you think! Hooray for Austin!

Back to #StrongWatch2016.

Not saying Austin is huge, but I think a lot of people think it's a smaller city in Texas instead of a sizeable Metro area.  Austin is not a small college town or the equivalent of Tallahassee.  I think a lot of people that have never been that live here equate it with Tallahassee, but it's much, much larger than that.  

It's bigger than Jacksonville.

14 minutes ago, TallyBull said:

Understood. But Austin ain't Tampa.

Austin is bigger than Tampa.  932,000 in Austin versus 346,000 in Tampa.  The Tampa Bay area is bigger.  2.975 million in the Tampa Bay Metro region, but Austin's Metro region is just over 2 million.  So this area is bigger, but it's not as dramatic a difference as you'd think.  It's pretty close in size to the Orlando Metro region.  

9 hours ago, Gismo said:

It's the opportunity cost of not getting the FL markets.

Yeah.  They already have Houston due to all their Texas teams.  Houston adds a program with upside that just knocked off one of their power teams, but it doesn't add much in market or academics.