The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(09-06-2017 12:21 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:01 PM)Ahhhorsepoo Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 03:32 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  The Bearcat Lair/The Bailey's seats had taken a beating since the last UC homegame. It looked like a few bleachers needed replaced.

thats what happens when the Bailey becomes a tourist location full of people who want to drink and party more than cheer for a team.. i can;t tell you the number of times I have seen people that frankly should have been on their way to the hospital stumble out of there after games, or passed out after games.. the amount of drinks combined with other things by some people who view it as a party only is awful

Soccer hooligans have this effect.

These are new people enjoying our campus.

(09-06-2017 01:39 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  So, who pays to fix the seats?

I think that's UC.

(09-06-2017 10:01 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:39 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  So, who pays to fix the seats?

I think that's UC.

Of course you do.

(09-06-2017 10:28 PM)JJ_Bearcats Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:01 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:39 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  So, who pays to fix the seats?

I think that's UC.

Of course you do.

Because I read the contract. Read the contract and tell me if I got it wrong.

(09-06-2017 10:45 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:28 PM)JJ_Bearcats Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:01 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:39 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  So, who pays to fix the seats?

I think that's UC.

Of course you do.

Because I read the contract. Read the contract and tell me if I got it wrong.

You can copy paste the section if you'd like if that is indeed the case and show us you're right.

I didn't read it, I've never seen it, however I'm not assuming one way or the other here. You said "I think", so forgive my digital eye roll given the assumptions and assertions that this thread has a long history of.

(09-06-2017 10:54 PM)JJ_Bearcats Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:45 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:28 PM)JJ_Bearcats Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:01 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:39 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  So, who pays to fix the seats?

I think that's UC.

Of course you do.

Because I read the contract. Read the contract and tell me if I got it wrong.

You can copy paste the section if you'd like if that is indeed the case and show us you're right.

I didn't read it, I've never seen it, however I'm not assuming one way or the other here. You said "I think", so forgive my digital eye roll given the assumptions and assertions that this thread has a long history of.

I posted the contract on this board a while back.

I read it. You didn't. What I remember of the contract that I actually read and posted on this board leads me to believe that UC is on the hook. I suppose I could fetch the digital copy on my computer, but why discuss with someone who admits a position of ignorance.

Not sure how FCC pays if this is normal soccer wear and tear.

I'd rather get feedback from someone who cared enough to read for themselves.

Can anyone give a summary of the biz journal article on monies UC received from the FCC deal? I tried to access only on my phone but was unable to get in without paying.

(09-06-2017 11:00 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:54 PM)JJ_Bearcats Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:45 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:28 PM)JJ_Bearcats Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:01 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I think that's UC.

Of course you do.

Because I read the contract. Read the contract and tell me if I got it wrong.

You can copy paste the section if you'd like if that is indeed the case and show us you're right.

I didn't read it, I've never seen it, however I'm not assuming one way or the other here. You said "I think", so forgive my digital eye roll given the assumptions and assertions that this thread has a long history of.

I posted the contract on this board a while back.

I read it. You didn't. Do what I remember of the contract that I actually read and posted on this board leads me to believe that UC is on the hook. I suppose I could fetch the digital copy on my computer, but why discuss with someone who admits a position of ignorance.

I'd rather get feedback from someone who cared enough to read for themselves.

I've lurked for awhile, but haven't monitered to catch every post. I suppose never having seen it posted and having the chance to read it could pass for not caring. Hundreds of pages and thousands of posts are quite a bit to sift through to find your link.

Personally, if I had the vested interest you seem to have on your side of this long standing debate, I'd keep the language handy to quickly shoot down those who may be a little too optimistic.

Since you assumed that I "didnt care to read it", I'll gladly dispel that notion and say that I'd love to read the language of this deal. However, I DON'T care enough to hunt down your post amongst multiple FCC threads and countless related comments. (I'm sure this last sentence will be extrapolated out to be used against me that "clearly I don't care enough" or some twist and therefore the conversation with me is pointless.)

But if you can't see the humor when one of the staunchest detractors of this partnership says "I think it's UC", just like if one of the more vehement proponents of this deal were to come in and say "I think it's FCC that fixes it" would be equally humorous, then I don't know what else to tell you. Its just a kickoff to the cyclical trend this topic takes. Not belly laugh humor, but more mild chuckle with accompanying eye roll.

I didn't know you had read the contract when I made my initial comment, so when an occasional observer of this topic saw the words "I think", again, you can't blame them for assuming this topic is circling back around yet again. I do remember, however, a poster who outlined the cycles this topic goes through and the comments we'd see coming up. And wouldn't you know it he ended up being mostly correct. So to see it potentially kick back off again was both funny and exasperating.

Ugh, that was long winded and now everything is less fun.
TL;DR I found it funny, wasn't saying you were wrong. Condescension is a poor substitute for education. Explaining a funny makes it not funny :( .

(09-07-2017 12:04 AM)JJ_Bearcats Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:00 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:54 PM)JJ_Bearcats Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:45 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:28 PM)JJ_Bearcats Wrote:  Of course you do.

Because I read the contract. Read the contract and tell me if I got it wrong.

You can copy paste the section if you'd like if that is indeed the case and show us you're right.

I didn't read it, I've never seen it, however I'm not assuming one way or the other here. You said "I think", so forgive my digital eye roll given the assumptions and assertions that this thread has a long history of.

I posted the contract on this board a while back.

I read it. You didn't. Do what I remember of the contract that I actually read and posted on this board leads me to believe that UC is on the hook. I suppose I could fetch the digital copy on my computer, but why discuss with someone who admits a position of ignorance.

I'd rather get feedback from someone who cared enough to read for themselves.

I've lurked for awhile, but haven't monitered to catch every post. I suppose never having seen it posted and having the chance to read it could pass for not caring. Hundreds of pages and thousands of posts are quite a bit to sift through to find your link.

Personally, if I had the vested interest you seem to have on your side of this long standing debate, I'd keep the language handy to quickly shoot down those who may be a little too optimistic.

Since you assumed that I "didnt care to read it", I'll gladly dispel that notion and say that I'd love to read the language of this deal. However, I DON'T care enough to hunt down your post amongst multiple FCC threads and countless related comments. (I'm sure this last sentence will be extrapolated out to be used against me that "clearly I don't care enough" or some twist and therefore the conversation with me is pointless.)

But if you can't see the humor when one of the staunchest detractors of this partnership says "I think it's UC", just like if one of the more vehement proponents of this deal were to come in and say "I think it's FCC that fixes it" would be equally humorous, then I don't know what else to tell you. Its just a kickoff to the cyclical trend this topic takes. Not belly laugh humor, but more mild chuckle with accompanying eye roll.

I didn't know you had read the contract when I made my initial comment, so when an occasional observer of this topic saw the words "I think", again, you can't blame them for assuming this topic is circling back around yet again. I do remember, however, a poster who outlined the cycles this topic goes through and the comments we'd see coming up. And wouldn't you know it he ended up being mostly correct. So to see it potentially kick back off again was both funny and exasperating.

Ugh, that was long winded and now everything is less fun.
TL;DR I found it funny, wasn't saying you were wrong. Condescension is a poor substitute for education. Explaining a funny makes it not funny :( .

That was TodgeRodgian lol


but a quality post none the less

(07-28-2017 08:47 PM)BigDawg Wrote:  Didn't they say the proposed stadium would only hold like 30,000 (Maybe it as 35,000), but it was well below Nippert, so it isn't about the size.

(09-07-2017 06:27 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 12:04 AM)JJ_Bearcats Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:00 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:54 PM)JJ_Bearcats Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:45 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Because I read the contract. Read the contract and tell me if I got it wrong.

You can copy paste the section if you'd like if that is indeed the case and show us you're right.

I didn't read it, I've never seen it, however I'm not assuming one way or the other here. You said "I think", so forgive my digital eye roll given the assumptions and assertions that this thread has a long history of.

I posted the contract on this board a while back.

I read it. You didn't. Do what I remember of the contract that I actually read and posted on this board leads me to believe that UC is on the hook. I suppose I could fetch the digital copy on my computer, but why discuss with someone who admits a position of ignorance.

I'd rather get feedback from someone who cared enough to read for themselves.

I've lurked for awhile, but haven't monitered to catch every post. I suppose never having seen it posted and having the chance to read it could pass for not caring. Hundreds of pages and thousands of posts are quite a bit to sift through to find your link.

Personally, if I had the vested interest you seem to have on your side of this long standing debate, I'd keep the language handy to quickly shoot down those who may be a little too optimistic.

Since you assumed that I "didnt care to read it", I'll gladly dispel that notion and say that I'd love to read the language of this deal. However, I DON'T care enough to hunt down your post amongst multiple FCC threads and countless related comments. (I'm sure this last sentence will be extrapolated out to be used against me that "clearly I don't care enough" or some twist and therefore the conversation with me is pointless.)

But if you can't see the humor when one of the staunchest detractors of this partnership says "I think it's UC", just like if one of the more vehement proponents of this deal were to come in and say "I think it's FCC that fixes it" would be equally humorous, then I don't know what else to tell you. Its just a kickoff to the cyclical trend this topic takes. Not belly laugh humor, but more mild chuckle with accompanying eye roll.

I didn't know you had read the contract when I made my initial comment, so when an occasional observer of this topic saw the words "I think", again, you can't blame them for assuming this topic is circling back around yet again. I do remember, however, a poster who outlined the cycles this topic goes through and the comments we'd see coming up. And wouldn't you know it he ended up being mostly correct. So to see it potentially kick back off again was both funny and exasperating.

Ugh, that was long winded and now everything is less fun.
TL;DR I found it funny, wasn't saying you were wrong. Condescension is a poor substitute for education. Explaining a funny makes it not funny :( .

That was TodgeRodgian lol


but a quality post none the less

No racial slurs lobbed at Houston.... Not Todge

(09-06-2017 01:13 PM)gerhard911 Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:41 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:01 PM)Ahhhorsepoo Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 03:32 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  The Bearcat Lair/The Bailey's seats had taken a beating since the last UC homegame. It looked like a few bleachers needed replaced.

thats what happens when the Bailey becomes a tourist location full of people who want to drink and party more than cheer for a team.. i can;t tell you the number of times I have seen people that frankly should have been on their way to the hospital stumble out of there after games, or passed out after games.. the amount of drinks combined with other things by some people who view it as a party only is awful

Just think... UC is making a ton of money off of those people through concessions.

Doubtful. Nobody can afford to get that drunk at conce$$ion prices. I bet they come in plastered and carry in enough to keep the buzz going.

you'd think.. but the guy who stands behind me was bragging about how nice his OT is when he makes 18$ an hour working an extra shift on weekends to his buddies. Over the last 2 years he has gone through at least 3 or 4 beers a game(so 2,3 or even 4 hours of work for normal time for him).. There is no chance I would spend that much on beer of my weekly pay.. but there are many who do.. imagine people who made 35-50$ an hour spending a similar portion of their income and the beer flows freely..

You have to remember with a younger crowd, there are many who are a little more liberal with their money even if they don't have it. AT FCC games I'd guarantee the average age is less than UC football. Specifically the portion % of the crowd that is between legal age of 21 and 40ish, which is the prime spend demo for most people.

(09-06-2017 12:41 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:01 PM)Ahhhorsepoo Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 03:32 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  The Bearcat Lair/The Bailey's seats had taken a beating since the last UC homegame. It looked like a few bleachers needed replaced.

thats what happens when the Bailey becomes a tourist location full of people who want to drink and party more than cheer for a team.. i can;t tell you the number of times I have seen people that frankly should have been on their way to the hospital stumble out of there after games, or passed out after games.. the amount of drinks combined with other things by some people who view it as a party only is awful

I really don't think that a lot of people who attend are really much into the games. No one seems to care that they've only won 9 of their 26 games. If the Bengals had only 9 wins over a 26 game period, I would imagine the reaction would be a combination of abject apathy and burning Mike Brown in effigy. Yet, at 9-9-8, Berding and Lindner are the toasts of the town.

Their US Open Cup run (and victories over Columbus & Chicago from MLS) bought a tremendous amount of political capital for the team. I guess the functional equivalent would be if UC football went .500 in AAC conference play but won against Ohio State and Louisville in non-conference schedule and then took Oklahoma to the ropes before losing.

People would be somewhat frustrated by the performance (how can you play so well against great teams and then absolutely crap the bed against mediocre ones?), but there wouldn't be calls for firings or anything like that.

(09-07-2017 12:04 AM)JJ_Bearcats Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 11:00 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:54 PM)JJ_Bearcats Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:45 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 10:28 PM)JJ_Bearcats Wrote:  Of course you do.

Because I read the contract. Read the contract and tell me if I got it wrong.

You can copy paste the section if you'd like if that is indeed the case and show us you're right.

I didn't read it, I've never seen it, however I'm not assuming one way or the other here. You said "I think", so forgive my digital eye roll given the assumptions and assertions that this thread has a long history of.

I posted the contract on this board a while back.

I read it. You didn't. Do what I remember of the contract that I actually read and posted on this board leads me to believe that UC is on the hook. I suppose I could fetch the digital copy on my computer, but why discuss with someone who admits a position of ignorance.

I'd rather get feedback from someone who cared enough to read for themselves.

I've lurked for awhile, but haven't monitered to catch every post. I suppose never having seen it posted and having the chance to read it could pass for not caring. Hundreds of pages and thousands of posts are quite a bit to sift through to find your link.

Personally, if I had the vested interest you seem to have on your side of this long standing debate, I'd keep the language handy to quickly shoot down those who may be a little too optimistic.

Since you assumed that I "didnt care to read it", I'll gladly dispel that notion and say that I'd love to read the language of this deal. However, I DON'T care enough to hunt down your post amongst multiple FCC threads and countless related comments. (I'm sure this last sentence will be extrapolated out to be used against me that "clearly I don't care enough" or some twist and therefore the conversation with me is pointless.)

But if you can't see the humor when one of the staunchest detractors of this partnership says "I think it's UC", just like if one of the more vehement proponents of this deal were to come in and say "I think it's FCC that fixes it" would be equally humorous, then I don't know what else to tell you. Its just a kickoff to the cyclical trend this topic takes. Not belly laugh humor, but more mild chuckle with accompanying eye roll.

I didn't know you had read the contract when I made my initial comment, so when an occasional observer of this topic saw the words "I think", again, you can't blame them for assuming this topic is circling back around yet again. I do remember, however, a poster who outlined the cycles this topic goes through and the comments we'd see coming up. And wouldn't you know it he ended up being mostly correct. So to see it potentially kick back off again was both funny and exasperating.

Ugh, that was long winded and now everything is less fun.
TL;DR I found it funny, wasn't saying you were wrong. Condescension is a poor substitute for education. Explaining a funny makes it not funny :( .

That's a lot for, "I think that's UC."

Why not revive everyone's favorite thread!?!? Looks like we'll find out how cincinnati feels about spending more to see pro soccer. Here's a tweet from CincySoccerTalk about the new prices.

Biggest changes see the Bailey increase $50 to $170 (STILL CHEAP), Zone 1 up $45 to $340, Zone 2 up $34 to $289, Family up $15 to $185...

(09-29-2017 06:52 AM)BeerCat Wrote:  Why not revive everyone's favorite thread!?!? Looks like we'll find out how cincinnati feels about spending more to see pro soccer. Here's a tweet from CincySoccerTalk about the new prices.

Biggest changes see the Bailey increase $50 to $170 (STILL CHEAP), Zone 1 up $45 to $340, Zone 2 up $34 to $289, Family up $15 to $185...

Eh...the Bailey are raving lunatics, so they'll pay it. And as far as the others, that's really only an increase of <$5/game, so I doubt it'll matter.

UPDATE: Columbus Crew SC owner explains his interest in moving to Austin
http://www.statesman.com/sports/soccer/u...LuFuUGWPP/

Congrats on your new inevitable move to the MLS. I am gutted, and don't believe I can support any american soccer team, nor the USMNT after the MLS pulls this stunt. Absolutely devastated...

(10-17-2017 09:02 AM)Banter Wrote:  Congrats on your new inevitable move to the MLS. I am gutted, and don't believe I can support any american soccer team, nor the USMNT after the MLS pulls this stunt. Absolutely devastated...

Looks like Garber is 100% for the relocation.

Even if the Crew move, FCC still needs to get its stadium situation straightened out per MLS mandate.

(10-17-2017 09:01 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  UPDATE: Columbus Crew SC owner explains his interest in moving to Austin
http://www.statesman.com/sports/soccer/u...LuFuUGWPP/

What a sh!t, slimy move. Without Columbus and that stadium, MLS probably looks totally different right now.

Why Austin? Move from one college obsessed market to a smaller college obsessed market...

It seems inevitable that Columbus moves, and that actually makes our potential move to MLS... much less enticing. That would have been a huge, entertaining rivalry. If they move, I'd rather FCC stay in USL so we can play Louisville, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Nashville, maybe a Columbus USL team, hopefully Indy Eleven once NASL finally burns to the ground. Much like college football, rivalries make soccer all the more fun. I think it would be a shame to lose an MLS FCC-Columbus matchup.