thetorch Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 SLU and the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission are holding a press conference at 1 PM. SLU's bid to host an upcoming NCAA regional has been accepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleBilliken Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 For what sport? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FromDaEastSide Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Per SLU_Billikens Twitter account: SLU to host upcoming NCAA Basketball Regional...press conference at 1 p.m. John Marecek is saying Men's. Unknown if at Chaifetz or Scottrade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milwaukeebill Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Per SLU_Billikens Twitter account: SLU to host upcoming NCAA Basketball Regional...press conference at 1 p.m. John Marecek is saying Men's. Unknown if at Chaifetz or Scottrade 2012. Mens. Edward Jones Dome. Seems kinda big for a regional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milwaukeebill Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 2012. Mens. Edward Jones Dome. Seems kinda big for a regional. source is twitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 2012. Mens. Edward Jones Dome. Seems kinda big for a regional. The Edward Jones Dome has been used for all of St. Louis' recent men's basketball regionals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slulaw09 Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 True, Pistol, but the Missouri Valley Conference has been the "host." Even in 2005, there was a college slam-dunk/3 pt. contest held at, of all places, Warsh U. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FromDaEastSide Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Was SLU a co-host for the Final Four in 2005 with the MVC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 True, Pistol, but the Missouri Valley Conference has been the "host." Even in 2005, there was a college slam-dunk/3 pt. contest held at, of all places, Warsh U. That's typically how it goes; the three point contest and dunk contest are held in smaller gyms in the host city. The exception was this year, when it was held at the Palace of Auburn Hills, a pretty big arena, although the actual final four was held at Ford Field. Prior years: 2008: St. Mary's College, San Antonio 2007: Georgia State Sports Arena, Atlanta 2006: Hinkle Fieldhouse (Butler), Indianapolis And so on. Why would the host make a difference what the venue is? It's not like a Valley team plays in either the Ed Jones Dome or Wash U's gym, or any arena in St. Louis, for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Was SLU a co-host for the Final Four in 2005 with the MVC? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 The Edward Jones Dome has been used for all of St. Louis' recent men's basketball regionals. Getting a regional is a big deal since (as my understanding of it is) it gets you in the running for a Final Four. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Postcard Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 What does it mean when a schools "hosts" a regional? Did SLU bid on this or was it the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Bureau? I thought it was usually the St. Louis Sports Commission that brought this kind of stuff in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drkelsey55 Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Since it will be at the "ED", will we get to play there in stead of having to go to a different site? Just trying to plan ahead as we are all planning on being in the dance in 12'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Did SLU bid on this or was it the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Bureau? I thought it was usually the St. Louis Sports Commission that brought this kind of stuff in. Sports Commission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Getting a regional is a big deal since (as my understanding of it is) it gets you in the running for a Final Four. The problem is, last year SLU and MVC put in bids to co-host the men's final four in any year from 2012-2016, since all prior years had already been chosen before. When the bids went out, St. Louis was left out in the cold, with the bids going to New Orleans, Atlanta, Dallas, Indianapolis, and Houston. When the bids for 2017 and on roll around next time, the Dome will be over 20 years old by the time it can host the event and the memory of the city hosting in 2005 will be fading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FromDaEastSide Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Per the Sports Commission: The St. Louis Organizing Committee is the organization that was formed to organize and operate the day-to-day preparations for the 2005 NCAA Final Four. The SLOC operates as a non profit and 501 ©(3) under the name of St. Louis Championship Basketball, Inc. The St. Louis Organizing Committee bid on and was selected to host the 2005 NCAA Final Four in 1998. The St. Louis Organizing Committee is a partnership between the Missouri Valley Conference, Saint Louis University, the St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission and the St. Louis Sports Commission I think this would of been the same group that lost on the last round of Final Four bidding. BTW, I would rather have the 1st and 2nd rounds here once in a while instead of always getting the Regional Semis and Finals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 The problem is, last year SLU and MVC put in bids to co-host the men's final four in any year from 2012-2016, since all prior years had already been chosen before. When the bids went out, St. Louis was left out in the cold, with the bids going to New Orleans, Atlanta, Dallas, Indianapolis, and Houston. When the bids for 2017 and on roll around next time, the Dome will be over 20 years old by the time it can host the event and the memory of the city hosting in 2005 will be fading. Yes. But memories of 2005 need not be sharp in 2017 or beyond. Instead, memories need only be sharp now (4 years later) which is when the bid is placed and presumably when the bids will be evaluated and either accepted or not. As to why the recent bids failed, I have to believe that there was (and now remains) real concern as to the physical condition of the ED in 2012 to 2016. Without the Rams, it will really drop/stagnate. Clearly, the ED is not in the Top 7 (nor will it be) of the NFL. In fact, the Rams may not be playing at the ED then. Possibly it will be undergoing major renovations in March - the Ram's offseason. They, of course, could be playing at a brand new in St. Louis (wouldn't that be great!) or at a brand new stadium in another city (sure hope not). Either way, if the Rams are not playing at the ED, the maintenance and upkeep will drop off and the physical condition of the ED will not be in prime shape to host a Final Four. Without long-term security, why take the risk here on St. Louis? Yes, St. Louis did good in 20005 and yes the downtown is showing some signs of life but it's not like our downtown is up to the level of other big-time cities. Hopefully, the downtown progress will continue. In the meantime, early round games are less risky and could be moved to Savvis if necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Yes. But memories of 2005 need not be sharp in 2017 or beyond. Instead, memories need only be sharp now (4 years later) which is when the bid is placed and presumably when the bids will be evaluated and either accepted or not. As to why the recent bids failed, I have to believe that there was (and now remains) real concern as to the physical condition of the ED in 2012 to 2016. Without the Rams, it will really drop/stagnate. Clearly, the ED is not in the Top 7 (nor will it be) of the NFL. In fact, the Rams may not be playing at the ED then. Possibly it will be undergoing major renovations in March - the Ram's offseason. They, of course, could be playing at a brand new in St. Louis (wouldn't that be great!) or at a brand new stadium in another city (sure hope not). Either way, if the Rams are not playing at the ED, the maintenance and upkeep will drop off and the physical condition of the ED will not be in prime shape to host a Final Four. Without long-term security, why take the risk here on St. Louis? Yes, St. Louis did good in 20005 and yes the downtown is showing some signs of life but it's not like our downtown is up to the level of other big-time cities. Hopefully, the downtown progress will continue. In the meantime, early round games are less risky and could be moved to Savvis if necessary. I agree there are possible issues with the ED but I think the real issue is there are too many other cities with just as much to offer if not more than St. Louis. The NCAA is committed to Indy every 5th year because they are headquartered there. Dallas has the new Jerry jones dome. New Orleans is a destination city and there is national sentiment to get a game there if possible. Therefore, you've got San Antonio, Atlanta, Detroit, Houston and St. Louis all fighting for 2 bids in any 5-year cycle. Its a shame but we are probably going to be on the outside looking in unless something changes. I think another main factor was concern over the difficulty people had flying into St. Louis during 2005. That problem is obviously about to get a lot worse in the coming years. We got lucky in 2005 with 3 regional schools within driving distance but what if UW, Florida, Texas and U Conn had been the participants. Attendance may have been ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Yes. But memories of 2005 need not be sharp in 2017 or beyond. Instead, memories need only be sharp now (4 years later) which is when the bid is placed and presumably when the bids will be evaluated and either accepted or not. As to why the recent bids failed, I have to believe that there was (and now remains) real concern as to the physical condition of the ED in 2012 to 2016. Without the Rams, it will really drop/stagnate. Clearly, the ED is not in the Top 7 (nor will it be) of the NFL. In fact, the Rams may not be playing at the ED then. Possibly it will be undergoing major renovations in March - the Ram's offseason. They, of course, could be playing at a brand new in St. Louis (wouldn't that be great!) or at a brand new stadium in another city (sure hope not). Either way, if the Rams are not playing at the ED, the maintenance and upkeep will drop off and the physical condition of the ED will not be in prime shape to host a Final Four. Without long-term security, why take the risk here on St. Louis? Yes, St. Louis did good in 20005 and yes the downtown is showing some signs of life but it's not like our downtown is up to the level of other big-time cities. Hopefully, the downtown progress will continue. In the meantime, early round games are less risky and could be moved to Savvis if necessary. I hope we don't have a new stadium in 2016 if it costs 1 cent in tax payer money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 I hope we don't have a new stadium in 2016 if it costs 1 cent in tax payer money. didnt the cowboys stadium cost $1.2 billion? the giants stadium was more than that. yet according to this recently updated link, only the washington redskin's franchise is valued at more than $1 billion dollars. http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/forbes.html doesnt make sense to me for the city to build a stadium that is ranked in the upper tier of all stadiums. i'd say it would make more sense for the city to buy a damn team and then tell them where they are playing. works for green bay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 didnt the cowboys stadium cost $1.2 billion? the giants stadium was more than that. yet according to this recently updated link, only the washington redskin's franchise is valued at more than $1 billion dollars. doesnt make sense to me for the city to build a stadium that is ranked in the upper tier of all stadiums. i'd say it would make more sense for the city to buy a damn team and then tell them where they are playing. works for green bay. -roy i don't think the city of green bay owns the packers, but i do agree the money being spent on stadiums is mind blowing -if the line about any publicity being good publicity is correct, jerry jones is a genius with his scoreboard -the ny stadium may have cost more with the cost of the land -i hope that stl is not out in the cold when it comes to final 4's, but all of the domed stadiums now in play will make it real tough to get another one -let's hope we have a home game or 2 in the tourney then on to the final 4!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drkelsey55 Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 GB not owned by the city, but Shareholder & Financial History Stock certificates from the 1923, 1950 and 1997 stock sales Of all the reasons that make the Green Bay Packers and their story so incredible and unique, the most significant is simply this: The team is literally owned by its fans. Presently, 112,120 people (representing 4,750,937 shares) can lay claim to a franchise ownership interest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 didnt the cowboys stadium cost $1.2 billion? the giants stadium was more than that. yet according to this recently updated link, only the washington redskin's franchise is valued at more than $1 billion dollars. doesnt make sense to me for the city to build a stadium that is ranked in the upper tier of all stadiums. i'd say it would make more sense for the city to buy a damn team and then tell them where they are playing. works for green bay. Assets minus Liabilities = Net Worth Yes, the Cowboys have a $1.2b asset in the new stadium but I think it was largely financed privately, therefore I'm sure they sold a fair amount of debt (liabilities) to make it happen. I'm sure Jerry Jones believes he increased the value of his team with this stadium, and he may well have, but he also significantly increased his risk, especially if fans in Dallas realize paying $150 for upper deck seats and $12 hamburgers isn't better than sitting on their couch and watching Romo throw interceptions in HD. The interest Jerry owes on that debt won't stop accruing no mater what... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/forbes.html i added this link to my above post which i forgot to include before. if greenbay is owned by a whole bunch of shareholders so be it. do the same. diversify ownership to buy an existing fanchise (hell buy the rams, i dont think the rosenblum's left really care that much about being owners) and remove the stupid covenant insisting on a top tier stadium. somehow it has to be cheaper than building another frickin stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARon Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Since the fans bought the Packers the league has instituted new rules that bar public ownership of a team. As did all other major sports leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.