initial findings Report

Because the proposed arena project would be one of the largest capital investment projects in Miami University’s history, an interdisciplinary team of undergraduate students, graduate students, alumni, and faculty came together to ensure all relevant stakeholders had a voice in this historic decision. We collected empirically robust and actionable social scientific data to capture stakeholders’ perspectives in a way that, ideally, can help inform project planning and decision-making.

This project sought to answer four research questions, according to which the findings (basic counts/frequencies) in this initial executive summary report are presented:

1. How frequently and in what ways do members of the greater Miami University community use Cook Field and Millett Hall (and how important are they to the Miami experience)?

2. How would significant changes to existing facilities impact their current and future use (and with what tradeoffs/opportunity costs)?

3. What do stakeholders consider Miami University’s identity and core values (and to what extent do they align with the proposed Arena District project)?

4. What do members of the greater Miami University community want/prefer for Cook Field and Millett Hall (and how might such decisions impact Miami stakeholders’ future relationship to and support for the university)?

A key reason for these questions is that the various stakeholders we surveyed are not only members of the Miami University community but also the potential “customers” (for events, as prospective students and hires, etc.) and donors. Answering these questions with the perspectives of Miami’s various stakeholders is essential for ensuring the university most effectively uses its limited resources in ways that reflect and align with its stakeholders’ practices, preferences, and values—and Miami’s “brand”—while also ensuring their current and future support.

The online survey was open for three weeks (10/20/25–11/10/25). We used various outreach strategies to recruit current undergraduate and graduate students (and their parents/guardians), alumni, faculty, staff, and Oxford residents and business owners/employees in order to ensure that all members of the “greater Miami University community” had the opportunity to share their perspectives through our survey. Using snowball/convenience sampling techniques, these strategies included social media posts in Miami University groups, flyers posted around campus (dorms, academic buildings, common areas) and town (business storefronts/message boards), tabling in common areas (e.g. Armstrong Student Center) and at events (e.g. Parents Weekend football tailgates, Uptown Halloween, etc.), advertisements and stories in local newspapers (Oxford Free Press and The Miami Student), various email listservs (shared by, e.g., student groups, departments and programs, community groups/organizations, etc.), and word of mouth. Over 4,100 unique survey IDs were generated, and, after data cleaning, resulted in a final sample of 3,347 respondents. 3

Without the use of incentives for recruitment or well-defined population parameters, there is not an adequate methodological basis to determine the representativeness of our final sample. Nonetheless, our final sample size and the distribution of respondent types indicate a well-rounded sample with substantial statistical power. This means that, although we have statistical confidence in our analyses, we cannot say with certainty that (or to what extent) these findings accurately reflect the beliefs and sentiments of all members of the greater Miami University/Oxford community.

The survey asked respondents about their existing use of the facilities in question; potential impacts of proposals on use of facilities and athletic event attendance; core values and identity of Miami University; preferences for how these facilities and resources should be used; and how the proposed project may impact Miami University community members’ relationship to Miami. This project was approved for human subjects research by the Miami University Institutional Review Board (#05223e).

We are immensely grateful, humbled, and inspired by the robust participation in this grassroots survey. One of this project’s clearest findings is how deeply members of the ‘greater Miami University community’ care about this university and community. Thank you to everyone who took the survey and helped spread the word; we couldn’t have done it without you.

This ‘initial findings’ report (and its accompanying public announcement document) provides basic frequencies (or counts) of reported survey items. While we will release more detailed analyses in our full report, the goal of releasing these ‘initial findings’ is to provide timely and transparent communication to the community who entrusted us with their voices. Additionally, we found a large, statistically significant amount of agreement (or ‘convergence’) on survey items across respondent groups (i.e. connection to Miami). Nonetheless, there are important variations and nuances that we detail with our analyses in the full report. For that reason, we refrain from making conclusions in this initial report. Instead, following a description of findings from relevant survey items, we provide a bullet-point list of “takeaways” for how they address each research question. The frequency tables for each survey item are on our website.

We plan to release the full report in January 2026. The full report includes additional background information about the proposed Arena District project, which we contextualize with a brief review of relevant research on the social and economic impacts of comparable arena development projects. It also includes analysis of open-ended survey responses, a detailed description of our methodology, as well as cross-tabulation and correlational analyses to provide a clearer breakdown and more nuanced understanding of relationships among survey items. We also plan to release the cleaned, unidentified dataset (not including open-ended responses) with the full report. Please check out our website and social media for updates and more information about this project.

In our sample, respondents varied in age from 18 (minimum age allowed) to 94 years. The average age of respondents was 32.5 years and median age of 22 years (standard deviation: 17.15).

The sample included a diverse range of stakeholders, many of which identified as having multiple connections to Miami/Oxford (thus this survey item’s reported percentages exceed 100%). Half (51%) identified as current Miami undergraduate students (and 7% as current graduate students), 21% as alumni, 13% as parents/guardians of current/recent students, 10% as current/former staff, 9% as current/former faculty, and 2% as local business owners/employees, as well as 16% identifying as local residents (an additional 1.5% identified as an “Other” connection to Miami).

Respondents reported that they regularly use Cook Field for a variety of activities. The most frequently reported uses of Cook Field were “leisure and green space” (49% “somewhat” or “very frequently”) and “informal physical activity” (39% “somewhat” or “very frequently”), followed by “parking lot” (32% “somewhat” or “very frequently”) and “organized sports competitions” (29% “somewhat” or “very frequently”). About eight in ten respondents (82%) indicated that Cook Field has been an important aspect of their experience at Miami University/Oxford.

In general, respondents reported using Millett Hall much less than Cook Field, and substantially fewer respondents considered Millett Hall important than Cook Field to their experience of Miami University/Oxford. Specifically, 10% of respondents said Millett Hall has been “very important,” 21% said “somewhat important,” 36% said “only a little important,” and 33% said “not at all important,” to their experience at Miami/Oxford The most frequently reported uses of Millett Hall were attending athletic events (20% “somewhat” or “very frequently”) and non-athletic events (15% “somewhat” or “very frequently”), such as job fairs, dances, concerts, etc. The least frequent uses of Millett Hall were class meetings (3% “somewhat” or “very frequently”) and student groups (4% “somewhat or “very frequently”).

As the primary host for Miami University basketball and volleyball games, we also asked respondents about their attendance at Miami athletic events in Millett Hall over the past 12 months. Respondents indicated low rates of athletic event attendance at Millett, with 54% attending none in the past 12 months, 27% attending 1-2 athletic events, 12% attending 3-5 athletic events, 4% attending 6-10 athletic events, and 3% attending 10+ athletic events.

The most important factors shaping respondents’ decisions to attend athletic events at Millett Hall were their overall interest in college sports (74% “somewhat” or “very important”), quality of the teams (62% “somewhat” or “very important”), and costs of attendance (60% “somewhat” or “very important”). The least important—though widely shared—factors were the convenience of location (50% “somewhat” or “very important”) and quality of the facilities (35% “somewhat” or “very important”). This data indicates that respondents take a variety of factors into consideration when deciding whether to attend a Miami University athletic event. Though respondents may give more weight to some factors than others, project planning could benefit from considering a diverse range of factors shaping attendance practices.

Takeaways

Similar to above, we asked individuals if how their use of Cook Field would change across four types of uses (leisure/green space, informal physical activity, organized sports competitions, and parking lot) if Cook Field were moved to the current location of Millet Hall. A clear majority said they would use Cook Field “a lot less” (range across uses: 78-88%; average: 84%) for all four types of uses. Only 1-3% of respondents said they would use it “somewhat more” or “a lot more” for the four types of uses if it were moved to the current location of Millett Hall (with a range of 10-20%—14% average—reporting it wouldn’t impact their usage for all four types). This appears to indicate that moving the facilities currently located at Cook Field to the current site of Millett Hall would substantially reduce its use among these stakeholders.

If Millet Hall were moved to the current location of Cook Field, a plurality and/or majority of respondents said they would use it “the same amount” for all four use types (“attending athletic events” was the only use type below 50%, with 47% indicating they would use it the same; the other three types were 50% or greater). Notably, the proportion of respondents who indicated that, if Millett Hall were moved to the current Cook Field site they would use Millett Hall either “somewhat” or “a lot less,” was larger than the portion who indicated they would use it either “somewhat” or “a lot more” for each of the four use types. This seems to indicate that, among respondents, moving Millett Hall to the current Cook Field site would either have no impact on or diminish its current uses.

The survey asked respondents about how four different proposed options—(1) renovation of Millett Hall; (2) new arena at/near current Millett Hall location; (3) new arena at the Cook Field location; and (4) new arena at Oak and Spring Street—would impact their attendance at relevant athletic events. A majority/plurality of respondents (average: 55%; range: 48-60%) indicated that all of the options except the one approved by the Board of Trustees—i.e. new arena at Cook Field location—would have no impact on their attendance. For respondents, building a new arena at the current Cook Field location would actually reduce attendance, with 41% saying they would attend “a lot less,” 9% saying they would attend “somewhat less,” and 37% saying it would not impact their attendance either way.

According to respondents, renovating Millett Hall or building a new arena at/near Millett Hall’s current location would most increase future athletic event attendance, with 35% of respondents saying they would attend “somewhat” or “a lot more” for both options. In comparison, 13% of respondents said a new arena at Cook Field would make them attend “somewhat” (9%) or “a lot more” (4%), and 23% said a new arena at Oak St. & Spring St. would make them attend “somewhat” or “a lot more.”

Takeaways

We used two different measures to assess respondents’ ideas about what makes Miami University unique and attractive—in other words, its identity and value(s). The first asked about the most important factors for respondents when deciding to attend or work at Miami University (and/or live in Oxford). 95% of respondents said the campus’ beauty/aesthetics were either “somewhat” or “very important,” followed by 90% indicating the same for Miami University’s academic reputation/prestige, 85% for the college town experience (Oxford), and 68% for Miami University non-athletic events/activities. The least important factors were Miami University athletics and the quality of its athletic facilities (25% of respondents said that both factors were either “somewhat” or “very important”).

The second measure asked about the qualities and values respondents most associate with Miami University. Respondents ranked the importance of six qualities/values: quality of education, campus beauty/aesthetics, institutional reputation/prestige, college town experience, professional/career preparedness, and collegiate athletics. 9 in 10 respondents described all of the qualities/values, except collegiate athletics, as “somewhat” or “very important” (average: 95%; range: 88-99). Conversely, 31% of respondents said collegiate athletics were “somewhat” or “very important” (with about one-third of respondents saying collegiate athletics were “not at all important”). Nearly triple the number of respondents most associate Miami with its academic reputation, beautiful (open, green) campus, the college town experience of Oxford, and non-athletic events/activities than those who most associate Miami University with its athletics and athletic facilities.

To assess how those values translate into priorities and preferences about Miami’s strategic investments and use of resources, we asked respondents to select and rank their top three investment priorities from a list of 13 items (with an open-ended “Other, specify” option). 4The following is based on what proportion of respondents included each strategic priority item in their top three. The most popular strategic priorities among respondents include investing in “the student experience and campus culture” (69%), “career preparation and experiential learning” (63%), “reducing costs of attendance” (62%), “instructional quality and facilities” (61%), and “research facilities and support” (54%). The least popular strategic priorities among respondents are investing in “marketing/branding and communication” (13%), “athletic programs and facilities” (14%), and “digital technology infrastructure and online learning” (17%). In the middle were “campus safety and accessibility” (46%), “campus sustainability” (45%), “expand offerings and facilities in high-growth fields” (35%), “a robust humanities and creative arts curriculum” (35%), and “community programming and events” (32%).

Takeaways

Respondents’ strategic investment priorities are reflected in their preferences for the future of Cook Field, with about 8 in 10 respondents (79%) preferring to preserve Cook Field as an open/green space. Conversely, 11% preferred redeveloping Cook Field with a mix of academic and open spaces, 5% preferred redeveloping Cook Field as an Arena District with some academic uses, 4% preferred to redevelop Cook Field as an Arena District, and 1% preferred redeveloping it as an academic quad (2% selected “Other”). With 82% of respondents indicating that Cook Field has been either “very” or “somewhat important” to their experience of Miami University, and nearly the same percentage (79%) preferring to preserve it as an open/green space, it appears that respondents greatly value Cook Field as it is now and prefer it not change. 

Respondents’ overwhelming preference to preserve Cook Field in its current form and location is reflected in their overall degree of support for/opposition to the Arena District development on Cook Field that the Board of Trustees approved in February 2025. About 9 in 10 respondents oppose the plan approved by the Board of Trustees (78% “strongly oppose;” 11% “somewhat oppose). Only 7% of respondents supported the plan (3.56% “strongly support;” 3.73% “somewhat support”), and 4% “neither oppose nor support.”

In addition to strongly opposing the plan approved by the Board of Trustees, most respondents indicated that moving forward with this plan would undermine their future financial support for Miami University. When asked how might a decision to construct an Arena District on Cook Field affect their likelihood of donating to Miami University in the future, about 7 in 10 respondents said they would be less likely to donate to Miami (50% “A lot less likely;” 19% “Somewhat less likely”), and 1 in 4 (25%) said it would have no impact. About 7% of respondents indicated it would make them more likely to donate to Miami in the future (3.23% “A lot more likely;” 3.28% “Somewhat more likely”). Notably, there are no statistically significant differences in responses to this question between respondents who have and have not previously donated to Miami.

Takeaways