(01-31-2016 10:34 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 11:57 PM)subflea Wrote:  Pretty sure it was announced that no seats would be removed for the first season of FC Cincinnati.

So if they can already fit a soccer field in the current configuration why tear up the stadium in the first place? I seem to recall that if this team succeeds, the bylaws of their league required them to eventually have their own stadium anyway. Why potentially ruin the character of Nippert for a short term tenant?

Seems pretty clear that nothing is finalized and UC won't agree to do anything that it doesn't believe will benefit the UC program and the University overall. Pretty much all we've heard is unsubstantiated speculation from people incredibly worried about what could possibly happen. All we really know is that there will be a soccer team playing at Nippert and there will be new turf that is able to be altered for football and soccer.

I firmly believe more people going to campus is good. I firmly believe partnering with this local sports team will have benefits, many unforeseen. I personally believe getting more use out of a stadium we just sunk a lot of money into is a good thing as well. I'm excited to see what happens with this going forward.

(01-31-2016 12:17 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 10:34 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 11:57 PM)subflea Wrote:  Pretty sure it was announced that no seats would be removed for the first season of FC Cincinnati.

So if they can already fit a soccer field in the current configuration why tear up the stadium in the first place? I seem to recall that if this team succeeds, the bylaws of their league required them to eventually have their own stadium anyway. Why potentially ruin the character of Nippert for a short term tenant?

Seems pretty clear that nothing is finalized and UC won't agree to do anything that it doesn't believe will benefit the UC program and the University overall. Pretty much all we've heard is unsubstantiated speculation from people incredibly worried about what could possibly happen. All we really know is that there will be a soccer team playing at Nippert and there will be new turf that is able to be altered for football and soccer.

I firmly believe more people going to campus is good. I firmly believe partnering with this local sports team will have benefits, many unforeseen. I personally believe getting more use out of a stadium we just sunk a lot of money into is a good thing as well. I'm excited to see what happens with this going forward.

Someone in the AD already told me they were gonna install what they called "washable" turf, so they can easily change the logos and lines for different sports. I have no problem with them playing there as long as long as they don't permanently butcher the character of the stadium.

(01-31-2016 12:27 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 12:17 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 10:34 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 11:57 PM)subflea Wrote:  Pretty sure it was announced that no seats would be removed for the first season of FC Cincinnati.

So if they can already fit a soccer field in the current configuration why tear up the stadium in the first place? I seem to recall that if this team succeeds, the bylaws of their league required them to eventually have their own stadium anyway. Why potentially ruin the character of Nippert for a short term tenant?

Seems pretty clear that nothing is finalized and UC won't agree to do anything that it doesn't believe will benefit the UC program and the University overall. Pretty much all we've heard is unsubstantiated speculation from people incredibly worried about what could possibly happen. All we really know is that there will be a soccer team playing at Nippert and there will be new turf that is able to be altered for football and soccer.

I firmly believe more people going to campus is good. I firmly believe partnering with this local sports team will have benefits, many unforeseen. I personally believe getting more use out of a stadium we just sunk a lot of money into is a good thing as well. I'm excited to see what happens with this going forward.

Someone in the AD already told me they were gonna install what they called "washable" turf, so they can easily change the logos and lines for different sports. I have no problem with them playing there as long as long as they don't permanently butcher the character of the stadium.

I haven't heard ANYONE say that they are opposed to FC Cincinnati playing at Nippert just because...

I have heard concerns over the lines on the turf. (ie. people objecting to the possibility of soccer lines on the FB surface.) This has been addressed by the "washable turf" angle.

I have heard people object to the idea of making structural changes to Nippert that would make the inside, playing surface, a soccer regulation size. The main reassurances at this point is that only the "crappy" seats would be removed and that nobody should be bothered by this.

But I haven't heard one person say "Well, if they can do this with no inconvenience to UC football, I still don't want FC Cincinnati at Nippert." That's a "straw man" argument to slander those who aren't jumping up and down over the announcement.

(01-31-2016 01:30 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  But I haven't heard one person say "Well, if they can do this with no inconvenience to UC football, I still don't want FC Cincinnati at Nippert." That's a "straw man" argument to slander those who aren't jumping up and down over the announcement.

Thought you were upset that playing soccer in a football stadium screams small time?

(01-31-2016 01:30 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 12:27 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 12:17 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 10:34 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 11:57 PM)subflea Wrote:  Pretty sure it was announced that no seats would be removed for the first season of FC Cincinnati.

So if they can already fit a soccer field in the current configuration why tear up the stadium in the first place? I seem to recall that if this team succeeds, the bylaws of their league required them to eventually have their own stadium anyway. Why potentially ruin the character of Nippert for a short term tenant?

Seems pretty clear that nothing is finalized and UC won't agree to do anything that it doesn't believe will benefit the UC program and the University overall. Pretty much all we've heard is unsubstantiated speculation from people incredibly worried about what could possibly happen. All we really know is that there will be a soccer team playing at Nippert and there will be new turf that is able to be altered for football and soccer.

I firmly believe more people going to campus is good. I firmly believe partnering with this local sports team will have benefits, many unforeseen. I personally believe getting more use out of a stadium we just sunk a lot of money into is a good thing as well. I'm excited to see what happens with this going forward.

Someone in the AD already told me they were gonna install what they called "washable" turf, so they can easily change the logos and lines for different sports. I have no problem with them playing there as long as long as they don't permanently butcher the character of the stadium.

I haven't heard ANYONE say that they are opposed to FC Cincinnati playing at Nippert just because...

I have heard concerns over the lines on the turf. (ie. people objecting to the possibility of soccer lines on the FB surface.) This has been addressed by the "washable turf" angle.

I have heard people object to the idea of making structural changes to Nippert that would make the inside, playing surface, a soccer regulation size. The main reassurances at this point is that only the "crappy" seats would be removed and that nobody should be bothered by this.

But I haven't heard one person say "Well, if they can do this with no inconvenience to UC football, I still don't want FC Cincinnati at Nippert." That's a "straw man" argument to slander those who aren't jumping up and down over the announcement.

I think you framed it nicely.

(02-01-2016 09:48 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 01:30 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  But I haven't heard one person say "Well, if they can do this with no inconvenience to UC football, I still don't want FC Cincinnati at Nippert." That's a "straw man" argument to slander those who aren't jumping up and down over the announcement.

Thought you were upset that playing soccer in a football stadium screams small time?

My exact words were:
"Nothing screams "Big Time College Football" like playing in a soccer stadium..."
And has to do with changing Nippert from a football stadium into a soccer venue. If you make structural changes to Nippert, at least as some have proposed, you are not "hosting a soccer match in a football stadium", but rather have made soccer the primary purpose for Nippert. You'd be in the opposite position then, you'd be "playing a football game on a soccer pitch." At least that's my contention.

But it's not worth arguing about. Really. As my friend, the "T-Shirt" points out, it's happening one way or another.

(02-01-2016 09:53 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 01:30 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I haven't heard ANYONE say that they are opposed to FC Cincinnati playing at Nippert just because...

I have heard concerns over the lines on the turf. (ie. people objecting to the possibility of soccer lines on the FB surface.) This has been addressed by the "washable turf" angle.

I have heard people object to the idea of making structural changes to Nippert that would make the inside, playing surface, a soccer regulation size. The main reassurances at this point is that only the "crappy" seats would be removed and that nobody should be bothered by this.

But I haven't heard one person say "Well, if they can do this with no inconvenience to UC football, I still don't want FC Cincinnati at Nippert." That's a "straw man" argument to slander those who aren't jumping up and down over the announcement.

I think you framed it nicely.

The straw man argument is all the people take issues with things that have not been announced, that we have no idea are actually going to happen (such as say reduction of capacity, specific reconfiguration of Nippert). We do know that Bohn specifically said there will be no changes to Nippert that don't enhance the football fan experience. That seems good.

People saw some blog post about a potential changing of Nippert and freaked out. As I've stated... all we actually KNOW is we are getting another tenant at Nippert to bring in more money to campus and perhaps get more people to our campus. We are getting new turf to allow for removing and drawing lines easily so that it can be used for both sports while looking specific for each sport.

UC has implied that there has been no approved renovation and has indicated any renovation will have to enhance the fan experience. There have also been reports that there will be a new scoreboard and alteration to the visitors locker room. That's really about it. People are freaking out about their own strawman arguments and then getting annoyed when they get called on it.

(01-30-2016 04:52 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Nothing screams "Big Time College Football" like playing in a soccer stadium...

I wonder why Villanova didn't think of this.

This seems like a pretty clear condemning of even the idea of playing soccer at Nippert regardless of what happens.

(02-01-2016 11:17 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 09:53 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 01:30 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I haven't heard ANYONE say that they are opposed to FC Cincinnati playing at Nippert just because...

I have heard concerns over the lines on the turf. (ie. people objecting to the possibility of soccer lines on the FB surface.) This has been addressed by the "washable turf" angle.

I have heard people object to the idea of making structural changes to Nippert that would make the inside, playing surface, a soccer regulation size. The main reassurances at this point is that only the "crappy" seats would be removed and that nobody should be bothered by this.

But I haven't heard one person say "Well, if they can do this with no inconvenience to UC football, I still don't want FC Cincinnati at Nippert." That's a "straw man" argument to slander those who aren't jumping up and down over the announcement.

I think you framed it nicely.

The straw man argument is all the people take issues with things that have not been announced, that we have no idea are actually going to happen (such as say reduction of capacity, specific reconfiguration of Nippert). We do know that Bohn specifically said there will be no changes to Nippert that don't enhance the football fan experience. That seems good.

People saw some blog post about a potential changing of Nippert and freaked out. As I've stated... all we actually KNOW is we are getting another tenant at Nippert to bring in more money to campus and perhaps get more people to our campus. We are getting new turf to allow for removing and drawing lines easily so that it can be used for both sports while looking specific for each sport.

UC has implied that there has been no approved renovation and has indicated any renovation will have to enhance the fan experience. There have also been reports that there will be a new scoreboard and alteration to the visitors locker room. That's really about it. People are freaking out about their own strawman arguments and then getting annoyed when they get called on it.

(01-30-2016 04:52 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Nothing screams "Big Time College Football" like playing in a soccer stadium...

I wonder why Villanova didn't think of this.

This seems like a pretty clear condemning of even the idea of playing soccer at Nippert regardless of what happens.

You know what? I've explained exactly what I said and what I meant... That obviously isn't good enough for you, Mark. So, whatever man. You obviously have your mind made up, obviously I do too.

(02-01-2016 11:17 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 09:53 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 01:30 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I haven't heard ANYONE say that they are opposed to FC Cincinnati playing at Nippert just because...

I have heard concerns over the lines on the turf. (ie. people objecting to the possibility of soccer lines on the FB surface.) This has been addressed by the "washable turf" angle.

I have heard people object to the idea of making structural changes to Nippert that would make the inside, playing surface, a soccer regulation size. The main reassurances at this point is that only the "crappy" seats would be removed and that nobody should be bothered by this.

But I haven't heard one person say "Well, if they can do this with no inconvenience to UC football, I still don't want FC Cincinnati at Nippert." That's a "straw man" argument to slander those who aren't jumping up and down over the announcement.

I think you framed it nicely.

The straw man argument is all the people take issues with things that have not been announced, that we have no idea are actually going to happen (such as say reduction of capacity, specific reconfiguration of Nippert). We do know that Bohn specifically said there will be no changes to Nippert that don't enhance the football fan experience. That seems good.

People saw some blog post about a potential changing of Nippert and freaked out. As I've stated... all we actually KNOW is we are getting another tenant at Nippert to bring in more money to campus and perhaps get more people to our campus. We are getting new turf to allow for removing and drawing lines easily so that it can be used for both sports while looking specific for each sport.

UC has implied that there has been no approved renovation and has indicated any renovation will have to enhance the fan experience. There have also been reports that there will be a new scoreboard and alteration to the visitors locker room. That's really about it. People are freaking out about their own strawman arguments and then getting annoyed when they get called on it.

(01-30-2016 04:52 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Nothing screams "Big Time College Football" like playing in a soccer stadium...

I wonder why Villanova didn't think of this.

This seems like a pretty clear condemning of even the idea of playing soccer at Nippert regardless of what happens.

I'm glad you finally came clean that you don't know what's going to happen. We're two months from soccer and you don't know what's going to happen.

But last August those who dared question the lack of details are sitting here thinking that this is panning out exactly the way we thought it would, and those who got all excited about the bonanza of benefits minor league soccer was going to bring us (New scoreboard! New locker rooms! Moving the turf to the practice field!) are sitting their twiddling there thumbs conveniently forgetting that they were selling this crap even though there's no proof that anything has been put in writing.

Liking minor league soccer isn't a valid reason for tearing out seats, no matter how crappy they are. It's not enough.

There's no evidence of any long-term commitment of soccer or of any specific revenue to the university.

Until we get some type of favorable cost-benefit, soccer can play in Nippert as it is currently, beautifully designed.

I trust that Ono and Bohn will do what's best for the University. I don't trust Lindner and his use of influence. For the soccer group, this is a business venture. This isn't a swipe against Lindner; it's nothing more than an acknowledgment of business people trying to make things work on their end, even if it's at odds for what's best for UC.

Has there ever been a real source of information that says this soccer franchise is definitely going to pay for upgrading some areas of Nippert (scoreboard, sound system, etc?)

(02-01-2016 11:36 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I'm glad you finally came clean that you don't know what's going to happen. We're two months from soccer and you don't know what's going to happen.

But last August those who dared question the lack of details are sitting here thinking that this is panning out exactly the way we thought it would, and those who got all excited about the bonanza of benefits minor league soccer was going to bring us (New scoreboard! New locker rooms! Moving the turf to the practice field!) are sitting there twiddling there thumbs conveniently forgetting that they were selling this crap even though there's no proof that anything has been put in writing.

Liking minor league soccer isn't a valid reason for tearing out seats, no matter how crappy they are. It's not enough.

There's no evidence of any long-term commitment of soccer or of any specific revenue to the university.

Until we get some type of favorable cost-benefit, soccer can play in Nippert as it is currently, beautifully designed.

I trust that Ono and Bohn will do what's best for the University. I don't trust Lindner and his use of influence. For the soccer group, this is a business venture. This isn't a swipe against Lindner; it's nothing more than an acknowledgment of business people trying to make things work on their end, even if it's at odds for what's best for UC.

Come clean? My point has been the same all along. UC gets the benefit of more people on campus and more use/profit from a facility it has invested a bunch of money in. UC likely gets some other tangible benefits that they have stated FC Cincinnati will help in (such as locker rooms / scoreboard). All of that seems like a very good thing to me.

My point has been that everyone is worried about a Nippert reconfiguration that is absolutely pure speculation. They saw it on a blog and freaked out. From what has actually been said, it sounds like UC would need believe any changes to Nippert would benefit the football gameday experience before they are made. There is no approved plan of reconfiguration out there and everyone's speculation of worst case scenarios makes little sense as a result.

(02-01-2016 11:49 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:36 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I'm glad you finally came clean that you don't know what's going to happen. We're two months from soccer and you don't know what's going to happen.

But last August those who dared question the lack of details are sitting here thinking that this is panning out exactly the way we thought it would, and those who got all excited about the bonanza of benefits minor league soccer was going to bring us (New scoreboard! New locker rooms! Moving the turf to the practice field!) are sitting there twiddling there thumbs conveniently forgetting that they were selling this crap even though there's no proof that anything has been put in writing.

Liking minor league soccer isn't a valid reason for tearing out seats, no matter how crappy they are. It's not enough.

There's no evidence of any long-term commitment of soccer or of any specific revenue to the university.

Until we get some type of favorable cost-benefit, soccer can play in Nippert as it is currently, beautifully designed.

I trust that Ono and Bohn will do what's best for the University. I don't trust Lindner and his use of influence. For the soccer group, this is a business venture. This isn't a swipe against Lindner; it's nothing more than an acknowledgment of business people trying to make things work on their end, even if it's at odds for what's best for UC.

Come clean? My point has been the same all along. UC gets the benefit of more people on campus and more use/profit from a facility it has invested a bunch of money in. UC likely gets some other tangible benefits that they have stated FC Cincinnati will help in (such as locker rooms / scoreboard). All of that seems like a very good thing to me.

My point has been that everyone is worried about a Nippert reconfiguration that is absolutely pure speculation. They saw it on a blog and freaked out. From what has actually been said, it sounds like UC would need believe any changes to Nippert would benefit the football gameday experience before they are made. There is no approved plan of reconfiguration out there and everyone's speculation of worst case scenarios makes little sense as a result.

Thing is, you don't really know if those things are for sure true - other than that there may be a few thousand people on campus for game day. I mean, you don't even know for sure what, if any, profit UC will gain from this.

Let's look at this from the positive side for football...there will be an additional 3-4 yards of room behind each very cramped space behind the benches. Sounds good to me.

FYI: Per today's Enquirer, Nippert's existing 2 year-old turf sold to a Missouri high school for $450,000.

(02-03-2016 12:47 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  FYI: Per today's Enquirer, Nippert's existing 2 year-old turf sold to a Missouri high school for $450,000.

Yeah saw that yesterday. I find it interesting because I heard Mike Bohn say a month ago the turf was going to Higher Ground to replace the turf there.

I assume UC must be making $$ on the deal.

(02-03-2016 12:52 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:47 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  FYI: Per today's Enquirer, Nippert's existing 2 year-old turf sold to a Missouri high school for $450,000.

Yeah saw that yesterday. I find it interesting because I heard Mike Bohn say a month ago the turf was going to Higher Ground to replace the turf there.

I assume UC must be making $$ on the deal.

Well, I assume that UC is getting new turf installed at no cost, leaving the "old" turf without a home. The article says they sold the old turf for $450,000 (original price I think they said was $1.1M, but I'm not sure if that includes installation or not - I would think it does). What's involved with that $450,000, I don't know, like who pays for shipping. I assume the purchaser pays the cost of installation which is a fairly large portion of artificial turf cost.

So I guess the most we know UC made off the transaction is $450,000. Better than nothing.

(02-03-2016 03:30 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:52 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:47 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  FYI: Per today's Enquirer, Nippert's existing 2 year-old turf sold to a Missouri high school for $450,000.

Yeah saw that yesterday. I find it interesting because I heard Mike Bohn say a month ago the turf was going to Higher Ground to replace the turf there.

I assume UC must be making $$ on the deal.

Well, I assume that UC is getting new turf installed at no cost, leaving the "old" turf without a home. The article says they sold the old turf for $450,000 (original price I think they said was $1.1M, but I'm not sure if that includes installation or not - I would think it does). What's involved with that $450,000, I don't know, like who pays for shipping. I assume the purchaser pays the cost of installation which is a fairly large portion of artificial turf cost.

So I guess the most we know UC made off the transaction is $450,000. Better than nothing.

How about install it at Higher Ground where the current carpet is more worn than a fleabag motel. That stuff can't be safe.

(02-03-2016 03:33 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 03:30 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:52 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:47 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  FYI: Per today's Enquirer, Nippert's existing 2 year-old turf sold to a Missouri high school for $450,000.

Yeah saw that yesterday. I find it interesting because I heard Mike Bohn say a month ago the turf was going to Higher Ground to replace the turf there.

I assume UC must be making $$ on the deal.

Well, I assume that UC is getting new turf installed at no cost, leaving the "old" turf without a home. The article says they sold the old turf for $450,000 (original price I think they said was $1.1M, but I'm not sure if that includes installation or not - I would think it does). What's involved with that $450,000, I don't know, like who pays for shipping. I assume the purchaser pays the cost of installation which is a fairly large portion of artificial turf cost.

So I guess the most we know UC made off the transaction is $450,000. Better than nothing.

How about install it at Higher Ground where the current carpet is more worn than a fleabag motel. That stuff can't be safe.

That's a good question.

Do you realize that this will be the second time in a row Nippert turf was not put to re-use at a UC facility? This is why I questioned the assumption that UC was going to take the two year-old turf and plant it on one of their practice fields.

(02-03-2016 03:33 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 03:30 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:52 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:47 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  FYI: Per today's Enquirer, Nippert's existing 2 year-old turf sold to a Missouri high school for $450,000.

Yeah saw that yesterday. I find it interesting because I heard Mike Bohn say a month ago the turf was going to Higher Ground to replace the turf there.

I assume UC must be making $$ on the deal.

Well, I assume that UC is getting new turf installed at no cost, leaving the "old" turf without a home. The article says they sold the old turf for $450,000 (original price I think they said was $1.1M, but I'm not sure if that includes installation or not - I would think it does). What's involved with that $450,000, I don't know, like who pays for shipping. I assume the purchaser pays the cost of installation which is a fairly large portion of artificial turf cost.

So I guess the most we know UC made off the transaction is $450,000. Better than nothing.

How about install it at Higher Ground where the current carpet is more worn than a fleabag motel. That stuff can't be safe.

The simple answer is that Higher Ground wasn't going to pay $450,000 for the turf.

(02-03-2016 05:29 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 03:33 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 03:30 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:52 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:47 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  FYI: Per today's Enquirer, Nippert's existing 2 year-old turf sold to a Missouri high school for $450,000.

Yeah saw that yesterday. I find it interesting because I heard Mike Bohn say a month ago the turf was going to Higher Ground to replace the turf there.

I assume UC must be making $$ on the deal.

Well, I assume that UC is getting new turf installed at no cost, leaving the "old" turf without a home. The article says they sold the old turf for $450,000 (original price I think they said was $1.1M, but I'm not sure if that includes installation or not - I would think it does). What's involved with that $450,000, I don't know, like who pays for shipping. I assume the purchaser pays the cost of installation which is a fairly large portion of artificial turf cost.

So I guess the most we know UC made off the transaction is $450,000. Better than nothing.

How about install it at Higher Ground where the current carpet is more worn than a fleabag motel. That stuff can't be safe.

The simple answer is that Higher Ground wasn't going to pay $450,000 for the turf.

I brought up that question back in August or September when people were saying the turf could end up at Higher Ground. UC only leases Higher Ground for a limited time during the summer, otherwise it's used by a number of other groups, I'm sure. Which made me wonder if UC was simply going to donate the turf or Higher Ground would pay for it.

We now know that answer.

It's apparent that FC Cincinnati didn't provide for installation of the 2-year old turf elsewhere and UC was left to figure out what to do with it.