WaveProf wrote:I have no problem with a dome game, especially if it’s Oklahoma. But why would we be actively rooting for it? We should obviously be striving to play them in yulmam. And with both Mississippi teams I think it’s a near lock
The reason for having OU come to NOLA is to make money and maybe draw casual fans that otherwise wouldn’t have attended a game. Having it at the Dome defeats that purpose if the cost to play there equals or outweighs the revenue earned as it was in the past. No longer being under contract each season hopefully means we get to negotiate a better deal if it were to happen for 1 game.
Of course we should be actively rooting for it. It will mean our program has taken off and is winning in a meaningful way.
Playing in the Dome in front of 50,000 or more will make us a nice bundle. No worries there.
At 50,000 maybe. At 40,000 probably not. Remember Dome would presumably charge Tulane commercial rates to rent and staff it. Comparable is what Temple pays the Eagles (in other words a lot.) Days of Tulane paying massively discounted rates to play in the Dome ended with Yulman.
You would have to draw significantly more to Dome than Yulman where all you are paying are marginal variable costs and no rent to make it worthwhile. This is in addition to losing the campus vibe, yada yada yada.
Tulane will make money with either sized crowd. Tulane can choose the low rent model with no revenue from parking and concessions it had before which made sense when we were only drawing a few thousand there or they can go big and get those revenues from those games. The HS championships have been played there for decades now and they don't draw those numbers on a daily basis and they make money. As to the Temple example that's apples and oranges. Everyone knows they are getting fleeced. Tulane would not be charged anywhere near that for a game in the Dome.
There would be no comparison in vibe to what that size crowd to a game in the Dome would bring than to a game on campus. If we play such a game it will mean that our program has progressed and is winning meaningful games and the conference championship . Everyone complains how we get no coverage locally. This is the way to overcome that both locally and nationally.
Seems like wavedom has all kinds of inside information on what the dome would charge us to play there and also how much revenue other events bring in when hosted there.
I fail to see how playing Oklahoma or Ole Miss or whoever in the Dome says we've arrived on the football scene. How is it any different than playing them uptown and having a packed stadium rather than a 1/3 empty dome (which is what drawing 50k would be)? You've got your opinion and that's fine, but seems to me you're making an awful lot of assumptions.
WaveProf wrote:I have no problem with a dome game, especially if it’s Oklahoma. But why would we be actively rooting for it? We should obviously be striving to play them in yulmam. And with both Mississippi teams I think it’s a near lock
The reason for having OU come to NOLA is to make money and maybe draw casual fans that otherwise wouldn’t have attended a game. Having it at the Dome defeats that purpose if the cost to play there equals or outweighs the revenue earned as it was in the past. No longer being under contract each season hopefully means we get to negotiate a better deal if it were to happen for 1 game.
Of course we should be actively rooting for it. It will mean our program has taken off and is winning in a meaningful way.
Playing in the Dome in front of 50,000 or more will make us a nice bundle. No worries there.
At 50,000 maybe. At 40,000 probably not. Remember Dome would presumably charge Tulane commercial rates to rent and staff it. Comparable is what Temple pays the Eagles (in other words a lot.) Days of Tulane paying massively discounted rates to play in the Dome ended with Yulman.
You would have to draw significantly more to Dome than Yulman where all you are paying are marginal variable costs and no rent to make it worthwhile. This is in addition to losing the campus vibe, yada yada yada.
Tulane will make money with either sized crowd. Tulane can choose the low rent model with no revenue from parking and concessions it had before which made sense when we were only drawing a few thousand there or they can go big and get those revenues from those games. The HS championships have been played there for decades now and they don't draw those numbers on a daily basis and they make money. As to the Temple example that's apples and oranges. Everyone knows they are getting fleeced. Tulane would not be charged anywhere near that for a game in the Dome.
There would be no comparison in vibe to what that size crowd to a game in the Dome would bring than to a game on campus. If we play such a game it will mean that our program has progressed and is winning meaningful games and the conference championship . Everyone complains how we get no coverage locally. This is the way to overcome that both locally and nationally.
I agree that it likely wouldn't be like Temple. That is assumed since Mrs. Benson is so cozy with Tulane, but that isn't the point.
The athletic department, Yulman vendors, and everyone associated with building the stadium is starving for a big game(s) at the stadium.
"There would be no comparison in vibe to what that size crowd to a game in the Dome would bring than to a game on campus." ; I'm not sure what you mean by this, but a packed house in Yulman is going bring a better vibe to everyone than a half filled dome.
"Everyone complains how we get no coverage locally. This is the way to overcome that both locally and nationally." This is just Pie in the Sky. Rice is playing LSU at the Texans stadium in 2020, you think they will get and outpouring of local and national coverage?
Quote:The Good - TULANE
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM
Honorable mention - Navy
One other point on Yulman (and this comes straight from LSU's experience.) It sold more season tickets this year when it had home games with Alabama and UGA and folks thought they might not be able to buy one off game tickets; so they purchased the season tickets including the body bag games.
Put OU on the home schedule in Yulman and you will increase season ticket sales. Put it in the Dome and you may have a little positive effect on season ticket sales but nothing like if it is held in Yulman. Demand and relative scarcity matter.
I'm glad to learn that the Dome will give us a friendly rate and only those northern stadium managements fleece the one off tenants. Who knew?
For you industrious types, I'm sure someone can file an FOIA request with ULL, obtain a copy of the Superdome contract and find out what the rent and costs are for MSU game. That would be a benchmark for what it could cost Tulane.
Baywave1 wrote:One other point on Yulman (and this comes straight from LSU's experience.) It sold more season tickets this year when it had home games with Alabama and UGA and folks thought they might not be able to buy one off game tickets; so they purchased the season tickets including the body bag games.
Put OU on the home schedule in Yulman and you will increase season ticket sales. Put it in the Dome and you may have a little positive effect on season ticket sales but nothing like if it is held in Yulman. Demand and relative scarcity matter.
I'm glad to learn that the Dome will give us a friendly rate and only those northern stadium managements fleece the one off tenants. Who knew?
For you industrious types, I'm sure someone can file an FOIA request with ULL, obtain a copy of the Superdome contract and find out what the rent and costs are for MSU game. That would be a benchmark for what it could cost Tulane.
That is definitely the big benefit.
Temple is not a one off tenant, Lincoln Field is their home stadium. That they are held hostage in a bad rent situation to help justify the cost of that stadium is not at all analogous to our relationship with the Dome.
Also worth noting that sellouts are the way to start the expansion process for Yulman and add that second level on the other side. As long as the dome is used for "big" games, that pressure will be much slower to come.
No to the Dome. Yulman only. On top of all of the legitimate reasons stated above, what is not said is the precedent it sets for future "big teams" and the decision that has to be made i.e. Oklahoma, Texas, UGA would be a "yes", what about Duke/Wake/Kansas St/West Virginia? Where do you draw the line? Who's to say that a UCF will get full of their britches and ask for the 'Dome as leverage to stay in the AAC?
You want a bigger stadium? We will have to play some sold out games at Yulman so that we can justify a second tier in the end zones or the western side of the stadium. It would never happen with a 'Dome alternative for "big games." We discussed the reason for building Yulman is that it is a foothold and statement for our program to have an on-campus facility. It is a "bridgehead" so that it COULD become a larger facility over time. There is no way that would happen with a 'Dome alternative.
GretnaGrn wrote:Also worth noting that sellouts are the way to start the expansion process for Yulman and add that second level on the other side. As long as the dome is used for "big" games, that pressure will be much slower to come.
GretnaGrn wrote:Also worth noting that sellouts are the way to start the expansion process for Yulman and add that second level on the other side. As long as the dome is used for "big" games, that pressure will be much slower to come.
GretnaGrn wrote:Also worth noting that sellouts are the way to start the expansion process for Yulman and add that second level on the other side. As long as the dome is used for "big" games, that pressure will be much slower to come.
Great point
The time it takes us to plan and fundraise a stadium expansion means that we'd have to sustain years of significant crowds, not just a game or two. May we win enough to do so!
tulaneoutlaw wrote:Seems like wavedom has all kinds of inside information on what the dome would charge us to play there and also how much revenue other events bring in when hosted there.
I fail to see how playing Oklahoma or Ole Miss or whoever in the Dome says we've arrived on the football scene. How is it any different than playing them uptown and having a packed stadium rather than a 1/3 empty dome (which is what drawing 50k would be)? You've got your opinion and that's fine, but seems to me you're making an awful lot of assumptions.
Well you've chosen to go snarky rather than cite facts that contradict what I have said. As to what the Dome charges it is clearly not exorbitant or the HS championships wouldn't be played there. They have done so for decades now. Putting 50,00 in there would not leave it 1/3 empty. it now seats 65,000.
If we move the game to the Dome it will be because our program has become a winner and the game will be played in a world renowned facility. The media attention would make it clear that we have arrived. I'm not talking about just scheduling those type of games there up front just to do it. I'm saying to do it if we have raised our level of play to championship caliber in the AAC.
WaveProf wrote:I have no problem with a dome game, especially if it’s Oklahoma. But why would we be actively rooting for it? We should obviously be striving to play them in yulmam. And with both Mississippi teams I think it’s a near lock
The reason for having OU come to NOLA is to make money and maybe draw casual fans that otherwise wouldn’t have attended a game. Having it at the Dome defeats that purpose if the cost to play there equals or outweighs the revenue earned as it was in the past. No longer being under contract each season hopefully means we get to negotiate a better deal if it were to happen for 1 game.
Of course we should be actively rooting for it. It will mean our program has taken off and is winning in a meaningful way.
Playing in the Dome in front of 50,000 or more will make us a nice bundle. No worries there.
At 50,000 maybe. At 40,000 probably not. Remember Dome would presumably charge Tulane commercial rates to rent and staff it. Comparable is what Temple pays the Eagles (in other words a lot.) Days of Tulane paying massively discounted rates to play in the Dome ended with Yulman.
You would have to draw significantly more to Dome than Yulman where all you are paying are marginal variable costs and no rent to make it worthwhile. This is in addition to losing the campus vibe, yada yada yada.
Tulane will make money with either sized crowd. Tulane can choose the low rent model with no revenue from parking and concessions it had before which made sense when we were only drawing a few thousand there or they can go big and get those revenues from those games. The HS championships have been played there for decades now and they don't draw those numbers on a daily basis and they make money. As to the Temple example that's apples and oranges. Everyone knows they are getting fleeced. Tulane would not be charged anywhere near that for a game in the Dome.
There would be no comparison in vibe to what that size crowd to a game in the Dome would bring than to a game on campus. If we play such a game it will mean that our program has progressed and is winning meaningful games and the conference championship . Everyone complains how we get no coverage locally. This is the way to overcome that both locally and nationally.
I agree that it likely wouldn't be like Temple. That is assumed since Mrs. Benson is so cozy with Tulane, but that isn't the point.
The athletic department, Yulman vendors, and everyone associated with building the stadium is starving for a big game(s) at the stadium.
"There would be no comparison in vibe to what that size crowd to a game in the Dome would bring than to a game on campus." ; I'm not sure what you mean by this, but a packed house in Yulman is going bring a better vibe to everyone than a half filled dome.
"Everyone complains how we get no coverage locally. This is the way to overcome that both locally and nationally." This is just Pie in the Sky. Rice is playing LSU at the Texans stadium in 2020, you think they will get and outpouring of local and national coverage?
What we are charged at the Dome has nothing to do with the Benson's. They don't own the Dome the state does.
As to the vendors that's there problem. We have to do what's best for the program. If we are to rise up and be a player in athletics then we move the game if our program warrants it.
Sorry but the excitement over such a matchup in the Dome would easily outdo anything that can be mustered on campus. A crowd of 50,000 doesn't make for a half empty stadium.
That type of game getting us coverage isn't pie in the sky. Rice is just doing it to make money off the game. In our case we would be doing it because our program has reached a level on the field that puts us in a position to win and we would be doing so in front of more than twice the number that can see it in Yulman.
Baywave1 wrote:One other point on Yulman (and this comes straight from LSU's experience.) It sold more season tickets this year when it had home games with Alabama and UGA and folks thought they might not be able to buy one off game tickets; so they purchased the season tickets including the body bag games.
Put OU on the home schedule in Yulman and you will increase season ticket sales. Put it in the Dome and you may have a little positive effect on season ticket sales but nothing like if it is held in Yulman. Demand and relative scarcity matter.
I'm glad to learn that the Dome will give us a friendly rate and only those northern stadium managements fleece the one off tenants. Who knew?
For you industrious types, I'm sure someone can file an FOIA request with ULL, obtain a copy of the Superdome contract and find out what the rent and costs are for MSU game. That would be a benchmark for what it could cost Tulane.
When people saw the seat licenses they'd have to pay to get the season tickets they'd most likely pass. Our situation isn't comparable to LSU's at all. They have other SEC games too. The rest of our scheduling just isn't that attractive. That's just a weak argument.
You choose to go snarky too. Do a FOIA. Or just use your common sense and look at what's been going on there. As I have pointed out the HS championships being played there shows the rent isn't exorbitant . Do you think ULL v. MSU will draw 50,000? I certainly don't but they are playing there anyway.
GretnaGrn wrote:Also worth noting that sellouts are the way to start the expansion process for Yulman and add that second level on the other side. As long as the dome is used for "big" games, that pressure will be much slower to come.
There's not much rom for expansion. Even if Tulane could pull out of the agreement they made with the city and added that upper deck on that side it would only add 3,000 seats just as the east side has.
ml wave wrote:
Temple is not a one off tenant, Lincoln Field is their home stadium. That they are held hostage in a bad rent situation to help justify the cost of that stadium is not at all analogous to our relationship with the Dome.
I brought up one off because typically one doesn't get a volume discount by definition for single rentals. All I can tell you is that rule one of basic real estate apprasing for rental income is to look at analogous fact patterns. Here as I noted, I would look first to ULL-MSU contract.
Otherwise it's a pro team and FBS team sharing a stadium. As noted, Eagles pound Temple for rent. USC as Coliseum manager charges "market rate" to Rams (as required by L.A. City government.) So we know that's not volume discounted either.
I could not find what Miami pays Hard Rock. UMass pays Gillette a sliding scale that protects the college on the low end of attendance but if a bonanza (say a 50,000+ crowd like Tulane with luck might draw for OU in the Dome) gives Gillette fifty percent of excess revenue over agreed expenses.
Point is simply some here are assuming Tulane would get a sweetheart deal from Dome for OU or whoever. "So why are we waiting to move this game from Yulman?" Perhaps Tulane won't pay much. It just seems most (if not all) others in similar situations elsewhere are not getting those favors from the landlord. If so, then Tulane would pay a lot.
Rotorooter wrote:No to the Dome. Yulman only. On top of all of the legitimate reasons stated above, what is not said is the precedent it sets for future "big teams" and the decision that has to be made i.e. Oklahoma, Texas, UGA would be a "yes", what about Duke/Wake/Kansas St/West Virginia? Where do you draw the line? Who's to say that a UCF will get full of their britches and ask for the 'Dome as leverage to stay in the AAC?
You want a bigger stadium? We will have to play some sold out games at Yulman so that we can justify a second tier in the end zones or the western side of the stadium. It would never happen with a 'Dome alternative for "big games." We discussed the reason for building Yulman is that it is a foothold and statement for our program to have an on-campus facility. It is a "bridgehead" so that it COULD become a larger facility over time. There is no way that would happen with a 'Dome alternative.
Tulane controls where the games are played. so doing it for these games doesn't paint them into a corner for schools like Duke and Wake. UCF is in the conference and certainly has no leverage.
As to the bigger stadium there really isn't a lot of room. I addressed the west upper deck already. The south end zone abuts Reilly so no expansion possible there. An upper deck on the north end zone wouldn't provide all that much either.
GretnaGrn wrote:Also worth noting that sellouts are the way to start the expansion process for Yulman and add that second level on the other side. As long as the dome is used for "big" games, that pressure will be much slower to come.
Great point
The time it takes us to plan and fundraise a stadium expansion means that we'd have to sustain years of significant crowds, not just a game or two. May we win enough to do so!
ml wave wrote:
Temple is not a one off tenant, Lincoln Field is their home stadium. That they are held hostage in a bad rent situation to help justify the cost of that stadium is not at all analogous to our relationship with the Dome.
I brought up one off because typically one doesn't get a volume discount by definition for single rentals. All I can tell you is that rule one of basic real estate apprasing for rental income is to look at analogous fact patterns. Here as I noted, I would look first to ULL-MSU contract.
Otherwise it's a pro team and FBS team sharing a stadium. As noted, Eagles pound Temple for rent. USC as Coliseum manager charges "market rate" to Rams (as required by L.A. City government.) So we know that's not volume discounted either.
I could not find what Miami pays Hard Rock. UMass pays Gillette a sliding scale that protects the college on the low end of attendance but if a bonanza (say a 50,000+ crowd like Tulane with luck might draw for OU in the Dome) gives Gillette fifty percent of excess revenue over agreed expenses.
Point is simply some here are assuming Tulane would get a sweetheart deal from Dome for OU or whoever. "So why are we waiting to move this game from Yulman?" Perhaps Tulane won't pay much. It just seems most (if not all) others in similar situations elsewhere are not getting those favors from the landlord. If so, then Tulane would pay a lot.
No one has said Tulane would be getting a sweetheart deal. The Dome is used for a lot more events than those stadiums you referenced. They don't need to rape those willing to use it.
tulaneoutlaw wrote:Seems like wavedom has all kinds of inside information on what the dome would charge us to play there and also how much revenue other events bring in when hosted there.
I fail to see how playing Oklahoma or Ole Miss or whoever in the Dome says we've arrived on the football scene. How is it any different than playing them uptown and having a packed stadium rather than a 1/3 empty dome (which is what drawing 50k would be)? You've got your opinion and that's fine, but seems to me you're making an awful lot of assumptions.
Well you've chosen to go snarky rather than cite facts that contradict what I have said. As to what the Dome charges it is clearly not exorbitant or the HS championships wouldn't be played there. They have done so for decades now. Putting 50,00 in there would not leave it 1/3 empty. it now seats 65,000.
If we move the game to the Dome it will be because our program has become a winner and the game will be played in a world renowned facility. The media attention would make it clear that we have arrived. I'm not talking about just scheduling those type of games there up front just to do it. I'm saying to do it if we have raised our level of play to championship caliber in the AAC.
Why do you assume Tulane would get the same rate for a one off game that the Superdome gives to state high schools on an annual basis? They could be giving very favorable rates just for the sake of helping out the community and getting good publicity. You made claims about revenue we'd make and what kind of deal we'd get so it seemed to me you'd be the one to have actual facts.
Here's a fact for you: the listed capacity of the Superdome for a football game is 74,295. That figure varies for other events, but that's where I got 50,000=1/3 empty from. You're welcome to Google that and corroborate if you'd like.
You think moving the game to the Dome would indicate we're a winner. I think controlling where we play and playing those games in front of sold out crowds where we have better control over the crowd mix would be a better indication of success. Guess we just disagree
I'm just curious what people think. So if OK came to us and said Yulman couldn't accommodate all of their fans who were planning to go to the game (trip to New Orleans!) and asked us to either please move the game to the Dome or they would just pay us off and not have the game............folks here would elect the latter?
wavedom wrote:
When people saw the seat licenses they'd have to pay to get the season tickets they'd most likely pass. Our situation isn't comparable to LSU's at all. They have other SEC games too. The rest of our scheduling just isn't that attractive. That's just a weak argument.
You choose to go snarky too. Do a FOIA. Or just use your common sense and look at what's been going on there. As I have pointed out the HS championships being played there shows the rent isn't exorbitant . Do you think ULL v. MSU will draw 50,000? I certainly don't but they are playing there anyway.
OU "and the rest of our scheduling" may not be attractive in a 70,000 seat Superdome or 100,000+ LSU stadium but in a 30,000 seat one? I'd answer an emphatic yes.
If you think we could sell 50,000 seats for OU in the Dome then let's assume we could sell out Yulman at 30,000. If that includes only selling an additional 5000 season tickets (perhaps a reach, perhaps not), Tulane is better off by definition with a six (or better yet seven) home game season.
As concerns the HS tourney, LHSAA rents the Dome now for multiple days every year and with the split in the championship format has added what five (or is it six?) games. By definition they are providing the Dome volume which makes them a better customer. As with any business, "Buy more from me and I'll give you a better price." Finally don't you think All State is in effect paying for all this? LHSAA and All State are simply bigger customers than Tulane is or would be.
GreenieBacker wrote:I'm just curious what people think. So if OK came to us and said Yulman couldn't accommodate all of their fans who were planning to go to the game (trip to New Orleans!) and asked us to either please move the game to the Dome or they would just pay us off and not have the game............folks here would elect the latter?
It's probably better to play the game because it would be difficult to reschedule with anyone much less an opponent of that caliber on short notice, but it would be less than ideal imo.
tulaneoutlaw wrote:Seems like wavedom has all kinds of inside information on what the dome would charge us to play there and also how much revenue other events bring in when hosted there.
I fail to see how playing Oklahoma or Ole Miss or whoever in the Dome says we've arrived on the football scene. How is it any different than playing them uptown and having a packed stadium rather than a 1/3 empty dome (which is what drawing 50k would be)? You've got your opinion and that's fine, but seems to me you're making an awful lot of assumptions.
Well you've chosen to go snarky rather than cite facts that contradict what I have said. As to what the Dome charges it is clearly not exorbitant or the HS championships wouldn't be played there. They have done so for decades now. Putting 50,00 in there would not leave it 1/3 empty. it now seats 65,000.
If we move the game to the Dome it will be because our program has become a winner and the game will be played in a world renowned facility. The media attention would make it clear that we have arrived. I'm not talking about just scheduling those type of games there up front just to do it. I'm saying to do it if we have raised our level of play to championship caliber in the AAC.
Why do you assume Tulane would get the same rate for a one off game that the Superdome gives to state high schools on an annual basis? They could be giving very favorable rates just for the sake of helping out the community and getting good publicity. You made claims about revenue we'd make and what kind of deal we'd get so it seemed to me you'd be the one to have actual facts.
Here's a fact for you: the listed capacity of the Superdome for a football game is 74,295. That figure varies for other events, but that's where I got 50,000=1/3 empty from. You're welcome to Google that and corroborate if you'd like.
You think moving the game to the Dome would indicate we're a winner. I think controlling where we play and playing those games in front of sold out crowds where we have better control over the crowd mix would be a better indication of success. Guess we just disagree
Why wouldn't the Dome be as good a partner to us as they are to the HS's? They asked us to come practice there to help them get the new turf( a new one is installed every year) in shape for the season and we did. We also practiced there a few times more this year after that. We have pull there.
We definitely disagree on the impact playing a big game in the Dome could do for the program.
As to the Dome the seating for football is 65,000 after the latest work that was done. That's the information sent to me by the Saints as a season ticketholder. The wikpedia page you looked up is outdated. it still includes baseball . Baseball can no longer be played in the Dome based on the latest work done.
Last edited by wavedom on Wed Jan 30, 2019 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GreenieBacker wrote:I'm just curious what people think. So if OK came to us and said Yulman couldn't accommodate all of their fans who were planning to go to the game (trip to New Orleans!) and asked us to either please move the game to the Dome or they would just pay us off and not have the game............folks here would elect the latter?
Depends on the state of our program at the time. If we are winning at a high level you move it. If we are just winning 6 or 7 games and don't look like we have any chance then let them cancel.
GreenieBacker wrote:I'm just curious what people think. So if OK came to us and said Yulman couldn't accommodate all of their fans who were planning to go to the game (trip to New Orleans!) and asked us to either please move the game to the Dome or they would just pay us off and not have the game............folks here would elect the latter?
Well Solomon, I don't know. I guess it depends upon the buyout amount. I'd then take that and use it to give a bigger payout to another name team to visit Yulman if OU decided to walk.
