DOCSLIB.ORG

Ucla's Post-Season Play History

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ucla's Post-Season Play History UCLA’S POST-SEASON PLAY HISTORY 2005-06 NCAA TOURNAMENT 1984-85 NCAA TOURNAMENT 1977-78 AIAW PLAYOFFS 1st Round Cleveland, OH Regional 1st Round West Regional West Regional at Stanford #5 UCLA 74, #12 Bowling Green 61 (at Purdue) #6 UCLA 78, #3 Washington 62 (at Seattle) UCLA 80, Stanford 54 2nd Round Cleveland, OH Regional West Regional Semifi nal (at UCLA) UCLA 79, Long Beach St. 78, ot #4 Purdue 61, #5 UCLA 54 (at Purdue) #2 Georgia 78, #6 UCLA 42 UCLA 100, UNLV 88* Sectionals at Long Beach 2003-04 NCAA TOURNAMENT 1982-83 NCAA TOURNAMENT UCLA 102, BYU 57 1st Round Mideast Regional 1st Round West Regional UCLA 86, Stephen F. Austin 60* #7 Minnesota 92, #10 UCLA 81 (at Minne- #3 Oregon St. 75, #6 UCLA 62 (at Willamette, OR) Final Four at UCLA sota) UCLA 85, Montclair St. 77 (semis) 1980-81 AIAW PLAYOFFS UCLA 90, Maryland 74* 1999-00 NCAA TOURNAMENT West Regional at Pepperdine 1st Round Mideast Regional UCLA 92, USF 68 1976-77 AIAW PLAYOFFS #7 George Washington 79, #10 UCLA 72 (at Notre USC 102, UCLA 85 West Regional at Fullerton Dame) UCLA 61, San Diego St. 54 (3rd place) UCLA 86, UCSB 33 Sectional Playoff s UCLA 91, Long Beach St. 77 1998-99 NCAA TOURNAMENT UCLA 72, Oregon St. 65 (Pauley) Cal St. Fullerton 91, UCLA 87* 1st Round West Regional UCLA 73, Kansas 71 (at Kansas) NWIT at Amarillo, TX #3 UCLA 76, #14 UW Green Bay 69 (at UCLA) Louisiana Tech 87, UCLA 54 (at Tech) UCLA 102, Indiana St. 73 2nd Round West Regional UCLA 66, Old Dominion 59 #3 UCLA 87, #6 Kentucky 63 (at UCLA) 1979-80 AIAW PLAYOFFS Wayland Baptist 79, UCLA 75* West Regional Semifi nal West Regionals at San Jose State #3 UCLA 77, #2 Colorado St. 68 (Sports Arena) UCLA 81, San Jose St. 66 1975-76 AIAW PLAYOFFS West Regional Final Long Beach St. 89, UCLA 88 West Regional at San Jose St. #1 La. Tech 88, #3 UCLA 62 (Sports Arena) USF 74, UCLA 60 (3rd place) Long Beach St. 78, UCLA 77 UCLA 97, UNLV 77 1997-98 NCAA TOURNAMENT 1978-79 AIAW PLAYOFFS NWIT at Amarillo, TX 1st Round Midwest Regional West Regional at UCSB UCLA 76, West Texas St. 63 #7 UCLA 65, #10 Michigan 58 (at Alabama) UCLA 85, Stanford 68 UCLA 80, Belmont 71 2nd Round Midwest Regional UCLA 97, USC 81 Wayland Baptist 90, UCLA 77* #2 Alabama 75, #7 UCLA 74 (at Alabama) UCLA 96, Long Beach St. 80* Sectionals at Stanford 1974-75 SCWIAC CONF. TOURN. 1991-92 NCAA TOURNAMENT UCLA 105, Oregon St. 70 UCLA 67, UCSB 54 at Riverside 1st Round Midwest Regional UCLA 92, Wayland Baptist 73* UCLA 62,Cal Poly Pomona 50 at Riverside #5 UCLA 93, #12 Notre Dame 72 (at UCLA) Final Four at Greensboro, NC Cal St. Fullerton 63, UCLA 62* at Riverside 2nd Round Midwest Regional Old Dominion 87, UCLA 82 (Semis) NWIT at Amarillo, TX #5 UCLA 82, #4 Texas 81 (at Texas) Tennessee 104, UCLA 86 (3rd place) UCLA 74, Indiana 61 Midwest Regional Semifi nal UCLA 62, Mercer 50 # 8 SW Missouri St. 83, #5 UCLA 57 (at Colorado) Wayland Baptist 79, UCLA 41* * indicates championship game 1989-90 NCAA TOURNAMENT 1st Round West Regional #7 Arkansas 90, #10 UCLA 80, ot (at Arkansas) FUTURE NCAA TOURNAMENT SITES 2007 First / Second Rounds (Mar. 17 & 19, 18 & 20 ) Mar. 17 + 19 - Erwin Center, Austin, TX (U.Texas); Williams Arena, Minneapolis, MN (U. Minnesota); Maples Pavilion, Stanford, CA (Stan- ford); Galen Center, Los Angeles, CA (USC); Mar. 18 + 20 - Breslin Student Events Center, East Lansing, MI (Mich.St.); Hartford Civic Center, Hartford, CT (UConn); Petersen Events Center, Pittsburgh, PA (U. Pittsburgh); RBC Center, Raleigh, NC (North Carolina St.) 2007 Regionals (Mar. 24 & 26, 25 & 27 ) Mar. 24 + 26 - Greensboro, NC Regional-Greensboro Coliseum (Atlantic Coast Conf.); Fresno, CA Regional-Save Mart Center, (Fresno St.); Mar. 25 + 27 - Dallas, TX Regional-Reunion Arena (Conf. USA / SMU);Dayton, OH Regional-U. of Dayton Arena, (U. Dayton); 2007 Final Four (April 1 & 3) Quicken Loans Arena (Cleveland State / Mid-American Conf.), Cleveland, OH 2008 First / Second Rounds (Mar. 22 & 24, 23 & 25) Mar. 22 + 24 - The Pit/King Court, Albuquerque, NM (U. New Mexico); Maravich Assembly Center, Baton Rouge, LA (LSU); Bridgeport Arena at Harbor Yard, Bridgeport, CT (Fairfi eld U.); Comcast Center, College Park, MD (U. Maryland); Mar. 23 +25 - Wells Fargo Arena at Iowa Events Center, Ames, IA (Iowa State); Constant Convocation Center, Norfolk, VA (Old Dominion U.); Maples Pavilion, Stanford, CA (Stanford); Mackey Arena, West Lafayette, IN (Purdue) 2008 Regionals (Mar. 29 & 31, Mar. 30 & Apr. 1 ) Mar. 29 + 31 - Greensboro, NC Regional-Greensboro Coliseum (Atlantic Coast Conf.); New Orleans,LA Regional-New Orleans Arena, (U. New Orleans); Mar. 30 + Apr. 1 - Oklahoma City, OK Regional-Ford Center (U. Oklahoma); Spokane, WA Regional-Veterans Memo- rial Arena (Washington State U.) 2008 Final Four (April 2 & 4) St. Pete Times Forum, Tampa, FL (Univ. of South Florida) Future Final Four Sites ̶ 2009: Edward Jones Dome, St. Louis, MO (Missouri Valley Conf.); 2010: Alamodome, San Antonio, TX (Univ. of Texas, San Antonio); 2011: RCA Dome, Indianapolis, IN (Butler U. / Horizon League) 2006-07 UCLA WOMEN’S BASKETBALL 101 NCAA TOURNAMENT BOX SCORES 2005-06 1997-98 Mar. 19, 2006: NCAA Cleveland, OH Regional fi rst round game at West Mar. 13, 1998: NCAA Midwest Regional fi rst round game at Tuscaloosa, Lafayette, IN (Mackey Arena - Purdue University) AL (Coleman Coliseum-University of Alabama) UCLA 74 ̶ Livingston 4, Pluimer 8, Quinn 21, Blue 7, Willis 23, Oren 2, UCLA 65 ̶ Philman 3, Martin 16, Hubbard 12, Grimes 6, Gomez 4, Pearson Ibekwe 6, Pedersen 3, Henderson 0, Zaidi 0, Lezcano 0. 15, Jackson 0, Flannigan 4, Veasley 5, Funicello 0. Bowling Green 61 ̶ Honegger 15, Mann 16, Thorburn 0, Horne 7, Achter Michigan 58 ̶ Murray 13, Thomas 17, Johns 9, Thorius 4, Lemire 5, 11, McDowell 8, Flynn 2, McCall 0, Goldsberry 0, Lause 2, Taylor 0, McKenzie Franklin 6, Walker 4, Willard 0. Halftime ̶ UCLA 33, Michigan 23. Attn. 0. Halftime ̶ UCLA 42, Bowling Green 28. Attn. ̶ 4,239. ̶ 3,025. Mar. 21, 2006: NCAA Cleveland, OH Regional second round game at West Mar. 15, 1998: NCAA Midwest Regional second round game at Tuscaloo- Lafayette, IN (Mackey Arena - Purdue University) sa, AL (Coleman Coliseum- University of Alabama) UCLA 54 ̶Livingston 0, Quinn 9, Pluimer 6, Blue 18, Willis 15, Ibe- UCLA 74 ̶ Philman 16, Martin 13, Hubbard 19, Grimes 9, Gomez 8, Pearson kwe 6, Pitts 0, Oren 0, Henderson 0, Zaidi 0. 2, Jackson 7, Veasley 0, Funicello 0, Flannigan 0. Purdue 61 ̶ Traore 11, Lawless 14, Wisdom-Hylton 14, Gearlds 15, Webb Alabama 75 ̶ Caudle 2, Mills 12, Canty 28, Goss 8, Ezell 19, Jones 4, Car- 6, Campbell 0, Howell 0, Bogdanova 0, Freeman 0, Duncan 1. Halftime ruth 0, Duncan 2. Halftime ̶ UCLA 41, Alabama 28. Attn. ̶ 3,250. ̶ UCLA 26, Purdue 24. Attn. ̶ 3,766. 1991-92 2003-04 Mar. 13, 1992: NCAA Midwest Regional fi rst round game at Los An- Mar. 21, 2004: NCAA Mideast Regional fi rst round game at Min- geles, CA (Pauley Pavilion - UCLA) neapolis, MN (Williams Arena-University of Minnesota) UCLA 93 ̶ Stephens 11, Williams 22, Kamrath 6, Anderson 16, Mosman 9, UCLA 81 ̶ Jones 3, Veasley 2, Blue 33, Willis 15, Quinn 15, Tarabochia 0, Lockhart 0, Jalewalia 21, Allen 0, Gische 0, VanOostveen 8. Oren 2, Arranaga 5, Livingston 6. Notre Dame 72 ̶ Bowen 18, Haysbert 0, Nowlin 14, Leary 0, Orlosky Minnesota 92 ̶ Bolden 5, Andersson 14, McCarville 19, Schonrock 15, 8, Knapp 0, Smith 2, Washington 7, Marciniak 21, Alexander 2, Rupe 0. Whalen 31, Roysland 2, Dimitroff 0, Broback 6, Collison 0, Podominick 0. Halftime ̶ UCLA 37, Notre Dame 24. Attn. ̶ 441. Halftime ̶ Minn. 38, UCLA 37. Attn. ̶ 12,357. Mar. 22, 1992: NCAA Midwest Regional second round game at Austin, TX (Erwin Events Center - University of Texas) 1999-00 UCLA 82 ̶Stephens 20, Kamrath 5, Williams 24, Anderson 4, Mosman Mar. 17, 2000: NCAA Mideast Regional fi rst round game at Notre 17, Lockhart 7, Jalewalia 3, VanOostveen 2. Dame, IN (Joyce Center-Notre Dame University) Texas 81 ̶ Meeks 19, Benton 7, C. Henderson 28, Pointer 12, N. Hen- UCLA 72 ̶ Philman 8, Martin 8, Hubbard 15, Gomez 9, Kaczmarski 13, derson 9, Jones 2, Kennedy 0, Clark 4, Pollard 0. Halftime ̶ Texas 47, Flannigan 9, Jackson 0, Greco 6, Funicello 4. UCLA 42. Attn. ̶ 4,990. George Washington 79 ̶ Lawrence 10, Jeff erson 2, Dubovcova 18, Egleston 5, Aguilar 23, Joens 5, Alexander 13, Baskova 0, Davidson 3, Mar. 26, 1992: NCAA Midwest Regional semifi nal game at Boulder, CO Carlson 0. Halftime ̶ GW 39, UCLA 26. Attn. ̶ 5,195. (Coors Events Center - University of Colorado) UCLA 57 ̶ Stephens 13, Kamrath 3, Williams 17, Anderson 8, Mos- man 7, Jalewalia 7, Lockhart 2, VanOostveen 0. 1998-99 SW Missouri State 83 ̶ Rapier 8, Winkfi eld 14, Baucom 10, Robbins Mar. 13, 1999: NCAA West Regional fi rst round game at Los Angeles, 13, M. Howard 18, Shira 10, Muller 8, J. Howard 1, Sumrall 1, Ediger 0. CA (Pauley Pavilion-UCLA) Halftime ̶ SW Miss. St. 37, UCLA 22. Attn. ̶ 2,739. UCLA 76 ̶ Philman 5, Martin 18, Hubbard 12, Gomez 15, Flannigan 16, Pearson 8, Greco 2, Rembert 0, Funicello 0.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Green V. Garrett: How the Economic Boom of Professional Sports Helped to Create, and Destroy, Baltimore's
    Green v. Garrett: How the Economic Boom of Professional Sports Helped to Create, and Destroy, Baltimore’s Memorial Stadium 1953 Renovation and upper deck construction of Memorial Stadium1 Jordan Vardon J.D. Candidate, May 2011 University of Maryland School of Law Legal History Seminar: Building Baltimore 1 Kneische. Stadium Baltimore. 1953. Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore. Courtesy of Enoch Pratt Free Library, Maryland’s State Library Resource Center, Baltimore, Maryland. Table of Contents I. Introduction........................................................................................................3 II. Historical Background: A Brief History of the Location of Memorial Stadium..............................................................................................................6 A. Ednor Gardens.............................................................................................8 B. Venable Park..............................................................................................10 C. Mount Royal Reservoir..............................................................................12 III. Venable Stadium..............................................................................................16 A. Financial History of Venable Stadium.......................................................19 IV. Baseball in Baltimore.......................................................................................24 V. The Case – Not a Temporary Arrangement.....................................................26
    [Show full text]
  • Attendance and Sites
    ATTENDANCE AND SITES Attendance History 174 All-Time Site and Arena History 177 Future Dates and Sites 195 Amalie Arena, site of the 2019 Women’s Final Four 173 ATTENDANCE HISTORY 1982-2019 First/Second Round Regionals Finals Totals Year Sessions Total Avg. Sessions Total Avg. Sessions Total Avg. Sessions Total Avg. *Attend. Session *Attend. Session *Attend. Session *Attend. Session 1982 16 32,737 2,046 8 18,656 2,332 2 15,531 7,766 26 66,924 2,574 1983 20 32,876 1,644 8 24,558 3,070 2 16,253 8,127 30 73,687 2,456 1984 15 36,678 2,445 8 36,943 4,618 2 11,537 5,769 25 85,158 3,406 1985 16 44,517 2,782 8 39,042 4,880 2 15,245 7,623 26 98,804 3,800 1986 24 50,780 2,116 8 30,486 3,811 2 15,556 7,778 34 96,822 2,848 1987 24 61,740 2,573 8 28,942 3,618 2 31,230 15,615 34 121,912 3,586 1988 24 82,068 3,420 8 34,507 4,313 2 17,167 8,584 34 133,742 3,934 1989 32 101,848 3,183 8 46,949 5,869 2 18,788 9,394 42 167,585 3,990 1990 32 102,621 3,207 8 49,408 6,176 2 39,490 19,745 42 191,519 4,560 1991 32 109,553 3,424 8 28,590 3,574 2 15,796 7,898 42 153,939 3,665 1992 32 131,097 4,097 8 42,074 5,259 2 24,493 12,247 42 197,664 4,706 1993 32 135,198 4,225 8 63,887 7,986 2 32,282 16,141 42 231,367 5,509 1994 48 212,812 4,434 8 43,750 5,469 2 23,932 11,966 58 280,494 4,836 1995 32 152,968 4,780 8 59,490 7,436 2 36,076 18,038 42 248,534 5,917 1996 32 173,284 5,415 8 54,510 6,814 2 46,582 23,291 42 274,376 6,533 1997 32 158,476 4,952 8 34,019 4,252 2 33,428 16,714 42 225,923 5,379 1998 32 177,423 5,544 8 72,053 9,007 2 35,952 17,976 42 285,428 6,796 1999
    [Show full text]
  • HOOP HISTORIANS NEWS Committed to Promoting Goodwill for Basketball Volume # 21 – January, 2006
    HOOP HISTORIANS NEWS Committed to promoting goodwill for basketball Volume # 21 – January, 2006 HOOP HISTORIAN COACH ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL HOT STOVE LEAGUE KEEPS ON WINNING HOLIDAY TOURNAMENT BACK ON THE BURNER Savanna High School is on a roll, recently winning its own Katella (CA) Classic for their second tournament title of the year, and raffled off 11 straight victories – including a recent 64-51 win against Orange League rival Century High – as the Rebels improved to an 18-2 record. Hoop Historian Steve Bennett is the head coach of Savanna High and recently As March Madness looms right had a contingent of fellow Hoop around the corner, one of the Hoop Historians attend their game. Record setting crowds attended this Historians favorite pastimes also is Continued success to the Rebels and years 45th Annual Proviso West not too far away – Baseball. The off- Coach Steve Bennett! Be sure to Holiday Tournament in which Hoop season got off on the right foot at the th check back to the Hoop Historians Historian Joe Spagnolo returned to 60 Pitch & Hit Club Awards Evening News for updates on the success of the position of Executive Tournament in suburban Chicago this month. A the Savanna basketball team. Director. This year’s Christmas number of the Midwest contingent Classic had over 20,000 spectators Hoop Historians were in attendance over the four day event and was won for the annual gala. Among those by perennial power Saint Joseph High being recognized was Friend of the School. The tournament could be Hoop Historians Charlie Hum, who th viewed over the internet on its website was recognized for his 50 year with at www.pwhoops.com which had over the organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Considerations for Retractable-Roof Stadia
    Design Considerations for Retractable-roof Stadia by Andrew H. Frazer S.B. Civil Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004 Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of AASSACHUSETTS INSTiTUTE MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN OF TECHNOLOGY CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING MAY 3 12005 AT THE LIBRARIES MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2005 © 2005 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved Signature of Author:.................. ............... .......... Department of Civil Environmental Engineering May 20, 2005 C ertified by:................... ................................................ Jerome J. Connor Professor, Dep tnt of CZvil and Environment Engineering Thesis Supervisor Accepted by:................................................... Andrew J. Whittle Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Studies BARKER Design Considerations for Retractable-roof Stadia by Andrew H. Frazer Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on May 20, 2005 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering ABSTRACT As existing open-air or fully enclosed stadia are reaching their life expectancies, cities are choosing to replace them with structures with moving roofs. This kind of facility provides protection from weather for spectators, a natural grass playing surface for players, and new sources of revenue for owners. The first retractable-roof stadium in North America, the Rogers Centre, has hosted numerous successful events but cost the city of Toronto over CA$500 million. Today, there are five retractable-roof stadia in use in America. Each has very different structural features designed to accommodate the conditions under which they are placed, and their individual costs reflect the sophistication of these features.
    [Show full text]
  • Chargers Stadium-Convention Center
    REPORT ON PROPOSED JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF A STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER Chargers Stadium-Convention Center SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO:EXISTING PREPARED BY: Mr. Brian Hughes HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment San Diego Tourism Marketing District Facilities Consulting Corporation 205 West Randolph 8880 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 800 Suite 1650 San Diego, California, 92108 Chicago, Illinois 60606 [email protected] +1 (312) 587-9900 +1 (619) 209-6108 September 22, 2016 Convention, Sports & Entertainment Facilities Consulting Chicago, Illinois September 22, 2016 Mr. Brian Hughes 205 West Randolph San Diego Tourism Marketing District Corporation Suite 1650 8880 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 800 Chicago, Illinois 60606 San Diego, California, 92108 +1 312-587-9900 [email protected] +1 312-488-3631 FAX www.hvs.com Re: Chargers Stadium-Convention Center San Diego, California Atlanta Boston Dear Mr. Hughes: Boulder Chicago Attached you will find our Report on the Proposed Joint Development of a Chargers Dallas Stadium-Convention Center (“Stadium-Convention Center”). As you requested, we Denver Las Vegas have evaluated the impact of the proposed venue on San Diego’s ability to attract Mexico City convention center business. Miami Nassau The Chargers propose a $1.8 billion investment over half of which, $1.15 billion, New York would come from public sources. Our review of the Chargers’ proposal assessed Newport whether that proposed level of public investment in a Stadium-Convention Center San Francisco would advance San Diego’s position in the convention industry. Toronto Vancouver Our approach to this study involved gathering event planner opinions on the Washington project, comparisons with similar convention center and stadium developments, Athens Buenos Aires and thorough analysis of all available data on convention business in San Diego.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the American Outdoor Sport Facility: Developing an Ideal Type on the Evolution of Professional Baseball and Football Structures
    AN ANALYSIS OF THE AMERICAN OUTDOOR SPORT FACILITY: DEVELOPING AN IDEAL TYPE ON THE EVOLUTION OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL AND FOOTBALL STRUCTURES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Chad S. Seifried, B.S., M.Ed. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Donna Pastore, Advisor Professor Melvin Adelman _________________________________ Professor Janet Fink Advisor College of Education Copyright by Chad Seifried 2005 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to analyze the physical layout of the American baseball and football professional sport facility from 1850 to present and design an ideal-type appropriate for its evolution. Specifically, this study attempts to establish a logical expansion and adaptation of Bale’s Four-Stage Ideal-type on the Evolution of the Modern English Soccer Stadium appropriate for the history of professional baseball and football and that predicts future changes in American sport facilities. In essence, it is the author’s intention to provide a more coherent and comprehensive account of the evolving professional baseball and football sport facility and where it appears to be headed. This investigation concludes eight stages exist concerning the evolution of the professional baseball and football sport facility. Stages one through four primarily appeared before the beginning of the 20th century and existed as temporary structures which were small and cheaply built. Stages five and six materialize as the first permanent professional baseball and football facilities. Stage seven surfaces as a multi-purpose facility which attempted to accommodate both professional football and baseball equally.
    [Show full text]
  • Sports Facilities, Redevelopment, and the Centrality of Downtown Areas: Observations and Lessons from Experiences in a Rustbelt and Sunbelt City Mark S
    Marquette Sports Law Review Volume 10 Article 7 Issue 2 Spring Sports Facilities, Redevelopment, and the Centrality of Downtown Areas: Observations and Lessons from Experiences in a Rustbelt and Sunbelt City Mark S. Rosentraub Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw Part of the Entertainment and Sports Law Commons Repository Citation Mark S. Rosentraub, Sports Facilities, Redevelopment, and the Centrality of Downtown Areas: Observations and Lessons from Experiences in a Rustbelt and Sunbelt City, 10 Marq. Sports L. J. 219 (2000) Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol10/iss2/7 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPORTS FACILITIES, REDEVELOPMENT, AND THE CENTRALITY OF DOWNTOWN AREAS: OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS FROM EXPERIENCES IN A RUSTBELT AND SUNBELT CITY MARK S. ROSENTRAUB* I. INTRODUCTION The engines of wealth and economic activity for cities have changed. In the past, center cities were manufacturing, industrial, retail, and ser- vice centers. Today, while industrial output is still important for the eco- nomic health of some cities, consumption, recreation, tourism, and the provision of services are now the principal engines of urban wealth.' In- surance, banking, legal and financial services joined with experiential consumption, traditional retailing, and various forms of entertainment define the new focus for core cities that try to maintain their centrality in a regional economy. This transformation has been continental in scope, as center cities have dedicated substantial amounts of their urban space to these activi- ties.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Increment Financing and Major League Venues
    Tax Increment Financing and Major League Venues by Robert P.E. Sroka A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Sport Management) in the University of Michigan 2020 Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Judith Grant Long, Chair Professor Sherman Clark Professor Richard Norton Professor Stefan Szymanski Robert P.E. Sroka [email protected] ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6310-4016 © Robert P.E. Sroka 2020 DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, John Sroka and Marie Sroka, as well as George, Lucy, and Ricky. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to my parents, John and Marie Sroka, for their love and support. Thank you to my advisor, Judith Grant Long, and my committee members (Sherman Clark, Richard Norton, and Stefan Szymanski) for their guidance, support, and service. This dissertation was funded in part by the Government of Canada through a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Doctoral Fellowship, by the Institute for Human Studies PhD Fellowship, and by the Charles Koch Foundation Dissertation Grant. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vii ABSTRACT viii CHAPTER 1. Introduction 1 2. Literature and Theory Review 20 3. Venue TIF Use Inventory 100 4. A Survey and Discussion of TIF Statutes and Major League Venues 181 5. TIF, But-for, and Developer Capture in the Dallas Arena District 234 6. Does the Arena Matter? Comparing Redevelopment Outcomes in 274 Central Dallas TIF Districts 7. Louisville’s KFC Yum! Center, Sales Tax Increment Financing, and 305 Megaproject Underperformance 8. A Hot-N-Ready Disappointment: Little Caesars Arena and 339 The District Detroit 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Geiger Engineers Page 8 Selected Tensile Membrane and Cable Structures
    Geiger Engineers Page 8 Selected Tensile Membrane and Cable Structures King Fahd International Stadium, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The 64,000 seat, Olympics-standard, soccer, track and field stadium is open with a unique "tribune" canopy covering the entire seating and concourse areas. The canopy roof, with a total 550,000 square foot area, is a single tensile membrane structure of twenty-four modules arranged in circular ring configuration with an outer diameter of 950 feet. The stadium is used for a wide variety of sporting events. The roof structure was engineered by Geiger Berger Associates. Construction Cost: $320 million Completion Date: 1985 The RCA Dome/ Indiana Convention Center, Indianapolis, Indiana. Home of the NFL's Indianapolis Colts, the domed multi-purpose facility seats 65,000 for football. The RCA Dome can accommodate 102,000 square feet of convention space on its main activity floor, supplementing the adjacent Indiana Convention/Exposition Center. The facility has been designed to accommodate Major League Baseball. Geiger Associates engineered the long-span roof and consulted on the mechanical and electrical system design of the facility. Completion Date: 1984 Construction Cost: $65 million John A. Sibley Horticultural Center, Callaway Gardens, Pine Mountain, Georgia. Design of a series of enclosed modular membrane tension structures to house botanical exhibitions as part of the largest resort facility in Georgia. The resort also includes golf courses; tennis courts, meeting rooms and conference facilities. Construction Cost: $4.0 million Completion Date: 1983 Haj Terminal at New Jeddah International Airport. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The Haj Terminal is covered by the world's largest tensile membrane roof, covering 105 acres.
    [Show full text]
  • San Diego Convention Center and Stadium Project Meetings Market and Impact Analysis
    San Diego Convention Center and Stadium Project Meetings Market and Impact Analysis Submitted to: Conventional Wisdom Corp. David O’Neal Chairman 2703 Rew Circle Ocoee, Florida 34761 August 23, 2016 August 23, 2016 Conventional Wisdom Corp. David O’Neal Chairman 2703 Rew Circle Ocoee, Florida 34761 Dear Mr. O’Neal, As you know, Conventional Wisdom Corp. engaged Hunden Strategic Partners (HSP) to perform a convention and meetings market analysis for the proposed San Diego Convention Center and Stadium Project initiated by the NFL San Diego Chargers franchise. The study has determined demand and projected impacts associated with the Project, specifically with relation to attendance, room nights generated, and potential incremental hotel rates associated with compression from the convention activity, as well as compression from NFL games. The attached is our final report. This deliverable has been prepared under the following general assumptions and limiting conditions: § The findings presented herein reflect analysis of primary and secondary sources of information that are assumed to be correct. HSP utilized sources deemed to be reliable, but cannot guarantee their accuracy. § No responsibility is taken for changes in market conditions after the date of this report and no obligation is assumed to revise this report to reflect events or conditions occurring after the date of this report. § HSP has no control over the timing of the Project opening. § Macroeconomic events affecting travel and the economy cannot be predicted and may impact the development and performance of the project. We have enjoyed serving you on this engagement and look forward to providing you with continuing service.
    [Show full text]
  • National Football League
    NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE {Appendix 3, to Sports Facility Reports, Volume 17} Research completed as of July 24, 2016 Arizona Cardinals Principal Owner: William Bidwell Year Established: 1898 Team Website Twitter: @AZCardinals Most Recent Purchase Price ($/Mil): $.05 (1932) Current Value ($/Mil): $1,540 Percent Change From Last Year: 54% Stadium: University of Phoenix Stadium Date Built: 2006 Facility Cost ($/Mil): $455 Percentage of Stadium Publicly Financed: 76% Facility Financing: The Arizona Sports & Tourism Authority contributed $346 million, most of which came from a 1% hotel/motel tax, a 3.25% car rental tax, and a stadium-related sales tax. The Arizona Cardinals contributed $109 million. The Cardinals purchased the land for the stadium for $18.5 million. Facility Website Twitter: @UOPXStadium UPDATE: Following the previous summer’s ruling from the Maricopa County Superior Court that the rental car tax was unconstitutional, the court has ruled the state must refund the rental car tax previously collected. The refunds could cost the State approximately $160 million. This would likely reduce the funding the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority receives from the State to use toward debt payments on the University of Phoenix Stadium. In June 2016, the University of Phoenix Stadium upgraded the sound system throughout the arena. Featuring state-of-the-art technology, the upgrade was funded by the Arizona Cardinals. © Copyright 2016, National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law School Page 1 On January 11, 2016, the University of Phoenix Stadium hosted the 2016 College Football Playoff National Championship Game. This event provided an estimated total economic impact of $273.6 million for the State of Arizona.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendations for Public Financing National Hockey League Arenas in North America
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies Master of Public Policy Capstone Projects 2019-08-31 The Price of the Puck: Recommendations for Public Financing National Hockey League Arenas in North America Puppa, Isabelle Puppa, I. (2019). The Price of the Puck: Recommendations for Public Financing National Hockey League Arenas in North America (Unpublished master's project). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/111842 report Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY CAPSTONE PROJECT The Price of the Puck: Recommendations for Public Financing National Hockey League Arenas in North America Submitted by: Isabelle Puppa Approved by Supervisor: Trevor Tombe Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of PPOL 623 and completion of the requirements for the Master of Public Policy degree 1 | Page Capstone Approval Page The undersigned, being the Capstone Project Supervisor, declares that Student Name: _________________Isabelle Puppa has successfully completed the Capstone Project within the Capstone Course PPOL 623 A&B ___________________________________Trevor Tombe (Name of supervisor) Signature August 31, 2019 (Supervisor’s signature) (Date) 2 | Page Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Trevor Tombe, for his support throughout the capstone process and enthusiasm throughout the academic year. Dr. Tombe, the time you spent providing feedback and guidance has been invaluable. You’ve allowed me to express creativity in approach. You’ve been a constant guide for how to tackle policy issues. Even from over 2000 miles away—or rather, 3218 km, you were always there to help me. To my MPP classmates, your friendship is something I will always cherish.
    [Show full text]