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

(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.

why doesn't it?

(06-09-2021 08:09 AM)doss2 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:31 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:27 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:18 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:14 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  There is no way the CFP committee is going to automatically allow any undefeated team into the playoff. If three or four or five G5 teams go undefeated in one year due to weak scheduling and are all put in the playoffs, the P5 schools will go bonkers.

If adding BYU, Boise, etc turns the AAC into an actual P6 conference with a better TV deal and an autobid to the playoff then I'm all for it.

There have been TWO in the last 24 years with multiple G5 undefeated teams, last year where Covid killed OOC schedules for most teams, and I'm including 2009 in that with us and TCU...I think people fail to realize how unlikely even having one undefeated G5 team is.

If you change the rules to allow any undefeated team to make the playoffs you'll see a dramatic shift in scheduling and thus the amount of undefeated teams each year. What incentive would any G5 team have to schedule a high or mid-tier P5 teams if going undefeated is the goal.

The fact that those buy games float their operating budgets...there was an article in a Higher Ed journal that outlined just how much those support smaller ADs last year during the pandemic. In 2019, there were 36 FBS programs who had over 30% of their unencumbered operating budgets (non-student fee related revenue) supported by buy game payouts. Dump those bad boys and you may as well move the MAC, Sun Belt, and CUSA to FCS.

Fine, how about you allow entry for any any undefeated team with at least two wins against auto-bid conference teams. Done. That's essentially as convoluted as the BCS entry rules for the Big East and we were fine with those.

Does anyone have stats on the number of undefeated in conference teams occurred in the last 10 or so years? That would gives us an idea if scheduling down would create a lot more undefeated teams.

Excluding the AAC and teams who are currently in a P5 conferece in this exercise and team who were undefeated including a Conference Championship Games into the count of conference records (with OOC loses in parenthesis). I think if you have the 2 A6 games qualifier you don't have to worry about anything.

2019: Boise State (who lost to BYU, Finished #18, argument could've been made)
2018: No one
2017: FAU (who lost to Navy, Buffalo, and Wisconsin)
2016: Western Michigan (#10 in the country, deserving of a spot on merit)
2015: Western Kentucky (who lost to Indiana and LSU) and San Diego State (who lost to Call, South Alabama, and Penn State)
2014: No one
2013: No one
2012: Northern Illinois (who lost to Iowa, #10 in the country, deserving of a spot on merit)
2011: Arkansas State (who lost to Virginia Tech and Illinois)
2010: No one
2009: Central Michigan (who lost to Arizona and Boston College) and Boise State (#4 in the country, deserving of a spot on merit)
2008: Boise State (#9 in the country, deserving of a spot on merit)
2007: Hawaii (#10 in the country, deserving of a spot on merit), BYU (lost to
2006: Boise State (#9 in the country, deserving of a spot on merit)
2005: No one
2004: Boise State (#10 in the country, deserving of a spot on merit)
2003: Miami OH (#11 in country, deserving of a spot on merit), Boise State (lost to Oregon State, finished #16 in country with argument to be made)
2002: Boise State (lost to Arkansas, finished #14 with argument to be made)
2001: BYU (lost at Hawaii in Week 14 as the #9 team in the country, argument to be made)

So, in the last two decades, given a normal circumstance, I would say that if the G4 played an FCS OOC and stayed inside their conference, there would've only been 5 undeserving teams (4 years) if you strictly went with the undefeated with no caveats approach, FAU in '17, WKU and SDSU in '15, Arkansas State in '11, and CMU in '09. Going by the "highest ranked team" mantra in the undefeated champs model, you can only get one per year unless more than one are deserving.

So you're putting in ****** teams strictly by saying undefeated conference champions in 4 years, and two of those examples played other G4 teams and lost in OOC, so really, you're sitting at a more likely 2 years out of 20, or a 10% error...and that's without the caveat of playing at least 2 P6 games or having to be ranked above 20 in a computer poll or something. I'd take that. Still gives a shot to deserving teams, while mitigating the fallout of having a ****** team in there.

And before any asks why Georgia State or North Texas aren't in there...they played in a 7 team conference without a CCG, so I didn't include them because that isn't how this scenario would work moving forward (CCG mandatory with a certain amount of conference games [8-9]).

(06-09-2021 09:13 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 08:36 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 08:33 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  The late President Steger, when speaking to alumni or donor groups, talked about his ambitious campus rebuild saying the new buildings were all great but once erected, they made the adjoining ones look bad. He was only half joking--when UC became a full state institution it was quickly evident that the Clifton campus was decades behind the rest of the state universities in terms of needing both new and remodeled buildings.

The billion dollars plus represented in that rebuild created what Forbes and other national publications described as one of the world's most beautiful campuses.
https://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/re...orbes.html

While UC won't ever have a marina or golf course as some others do, it is interesting to think about what is still needed; a wish list so to speak. So I'll share three and will be curious if others might add to the list:
1. A large, modern Alumni Center to host visitors, conduct large events, and be a center for alumni life when returning to campus. If you've seen Ohio State's it's very impressive. I don't think it needs to rise to that level but UCAA has no visible presence on campus today. And if some parking, either adjacent or in very close proximity, could be part of the plan I could see alumni wanting to rent space there for their own reunion events, weddings, graduations celebrations, etc..
2. More outdoor student recreation spaces. I understand (but disagree with) the Park Board not wanting varsity sports in Burnet Woods. But UC and the city could collaborate to create shared use facilities for tennis, volleyball or soccer that would make the park better for all.
3. Beyond the campus footprint, bring the streetcar up the hill to UC, Short Vine, the Medical Center, and Children's Hospitals. One reason the streetcar has failed as a transportation link is its limited utility running only from the Banks to OTR. It needed to connect Uptown, OTR, and downtown to be fully functional. Linked to campus, it would be unique in all of Ohio, if not the entire Midwest. And students could easily access jobs, entertainment, and the best of our city without needing a car on the hilltop.

I'm still baffled how that was in every proposal, and was clearly the way to self-sufficiency, but ended up on the cutting room floor. It was clear as day the only way they were going to get enough riders to make that a money maker or at least not a balance sheet anvil was to get students on there.

Baffled? After being approved by the voters TWICE, Kasich (With the urging of Comb Over Chabot ) took federal funds allocated to the project and sent it elsewhere. Lack of funds caused the Clifton leg of the line to be scrapped.

I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.

Bolded, I think you're right. When we lived in IN, it was abundantly clear that all money flowed to its state capital in Indianapolis for pretty much whatever that city/county wanted to build. To a lesser extent, we see that with Columbus.

I don't want to "derail" this thread but I will add from what I know, the build out would have also been cheaper in Columbus flatlands with the pathway you described. I don't think the federal funding would have come close to covering the total cost with Cincinnati's topography. As I recall, powering electric streetcars up that big hill into Clifton was going to incur enormous infrastructure spending for Duke Energy and others, re-engineering underground services before the first section of track ever appeared. Duke Energy wasn't going to donate their work; the city didn't have money for that, the county and state weren't interested.

So here we sit with half a loaf: a streetcar that doesn't fulfill much of any transportation need when OTR folks report they can walk or bike to work in the central business district faster. And if it can't run when the temperatures dip below freezing, it's not a reliable year round conveyance in this climate either. Fix that 12 month reliability issue; run it to Uptown and suddenly it's a viable transportation system. Will that ever happen in our lifetimes? Who knows...

Resurrect the Mt. Adams incline and route the line past the old Rookwood Pottery, the Blind Lemon (Is it still there? I have fond memories from my courtship days in the early 1960s) ), Eden Park, the Art Museum, the Conservatory, past the OMI iteration, and then on to Short Vine and the main campus, with a loop down to Ludlow, or...

Build a new incline directly to Clifton Heights.

Whatever the alignment, the novelty of an incline would be an attraction in its own right. If to Mt. Adams, the other attractions up there would sweeten the pot even more.

But wait, we're talking about ever-conservative Cincinnati. whose mantra is, "Let's dither while the folks in northern Kentucky steal our thunder."

I have kids in Denver. Many of you would be amazed by the light-rail system that's been built and flourishes in that progressive metro area.

(06-09-2021 09:26 AM)Lush Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.

why doesn't it?

Unlike Cincinnati, Columbus voters turned it down.

(06-09-2021 05:07 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:13 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 08:36 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 08:33 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  The late President Steger, when speaking to alumni or donor groups, talked about his ambitious campus rebuild saying the new buildings were all great but once erected, they made the adjoining ones look bad. He was only half joking--when UC became a full state institution it was quickly evident that the Clifton campus was decades behind the rest of the state universities in terms of needing both new and remodeled buildings.

The billion dollars plus represented in that rebuild created what Forbes and other national publications described as one of the world's most beautiful campuses.
https://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/re...orbes.html

While UC won't ever have a marina or golf course as some others do, it is interesting to think about what is still needed; a wish list so to speak. So I'll share three and will be curious if others might add to the list:
1. A large, modern Alumni Center to host visitors, conduct large events, and be a center for alumni life when returning to campus. If you've seen Ohio State's it's very impressive. I don't think it needs to rise to that level but UCAA has no visible presence on campus today. And if some parking, either adjacent or in very close proximity, could be part of the plan I could see alumni wanting to rent space there for their own reunion events, weddings, graduations celebrations, etc..
2. More outdoor student recreation spaces. I understand (but disagree with) the Park Board not wanting varsity sports in Burnet Woods. But UC and the city could collaborate to create shared use facilities for tennis, volleyball or soccer that would make the park better for all.
3. Beyond the campus footprint, bring the streetcar up the hill to UC, Short Vine, the Medical Center, and Children's Hospitals. One reason the streetcar has failed as a transportation link is its limited utility running only from the Banks to OTR. It needed to connect Uptown, OTR, and downtown to be fully functional. Linked to campus, it would be unique in all of Ohio, if not the entire Midwest. And students could easily access jobs, entertainment, and the best of our city without needing a car on the hilltop.

I'm still baffled how that was in every proposal, and was clearly the way to self-sufficiency, but ended up on the cutting room floor. It was clear as day the only way they were going to get enough riders to make that a money maker or at least not a balance sheet anvil was to get students on there.

Baffled? After being approved by the voters TWICE, Kasich (With the urging of Comb Over Chabot ) took federal funds allocated to the project and sent it elsewhere. Lack of funds caused the Clifton leg of the line to be scrapped.

I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.

Bolded, I think you're right. When we lived in IN, it was abundantly clear that all money flowed to its state capital in Indianapolis for pretty much whatever that city/county wanted to build. To a lesser extent, we see that with Columbus.

I don't want to "derail" this thread but I will add from what I know, the build out would have also been cheaper in Columbus flatlands with the pathway you described. I don't think the federal funding would have come close to covering the total cost with Cincinnati's topography. As I recall, powering electric streetcars up that big hill into Clifton was going to incur enormous infrastructure spending for Duke Energy and others, re-engineering underground services before the first section of track ever appeared. Duke Energy wasn't going to donate their work; the city didn't have money for that, the county and state weren't interested.

So here we sit with half a loaf: a streetcar that doesn't fulfill much of any transportation need when OTR folks report they can walk or bike to work in the central business district faster. And if it can't run when the temperatures dip below freezing, it's not a reliable year round conveyance in this climate either. Fix that 12 month reliability issue; run it to Uptown and suddenly it's a viable transportation system. Will that ever happen in our lifetimes? Who knows...

Resurrect the Mt. Adams incline and route the line past the old Rookwood Pottery, the Blind Lemon (Is it still there? I have fond memories from my courtship days in the early 1960s) ), Eden Park, the Art Museum, the Conservatory, past the OMI iteration, and then on to Short Vine and the main campus, with a loop down to Ludlow, or...

Build a new incline directly to Clifton Heights.

Whatever the alignment, the novelty of an incline would be an attraction in its own right. If to Mt. Adams, the other attractions up there would sweeten the pot even more.

But wait, we're talking about ever-conservative Cincinnati. whose mantra is, "Let's dither while the folks in northern Kentucky steal our thunder."

I have kids in Denver. Many of you would be amazed by the light-rail system that's been built and flourishes in that progressive metro area.

I think the Cincinnati side has long surpassed the KY side.

I mean...I guess you can realign rail tracks...so begrudgingly this isn't OT...

(06-09-2021 06:28 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I mean...I guess you can realign rail tracks...so begrudgingly this isn't OT...

Yeah, this is really off topic and I apologize for perpetuating it. truth be told, I wasn’t a streetcar supporter, but once it survived two ballot assaults, I opposed those who were hellbent on making sure it would not succeed. They were still trying to stop it in the middle of construction even when it was determined that would be more expensive than proceeding.

(06-09-2021 05:29 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:26 AM)Lush Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.

why doesn't it?

Unlike Cincinnati, Columbus voters turned it down.

Which proves Columbus voters understand return on investment.

(06-10-2021 04:56 AM)doss2 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 05:29 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:26 AM)Lush Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.

why doesn't it?

Unlike Cincinnati, Columbus voters turned it down.

Which proves Columbus voters understand return on investment.

I want to point out that a streetcar along High St does not alleviate any need for Columbus. I moved out of Cincinnati as the streetcar was under construction, which I always thought was a bad plan as well.

A Street car on the High St corridor would not alleviate traffic. I am a huge fan of public transport, and believe we should have invested in it decades earlier, but I don't believe it works unless you are bringing folks in from the suburbs and reducing traffic from the burbs to the city. A street car along high street would be nothing more than a way to shuttle drunk college kids who are bar hopping between downtown and campus. The short north is a high income area, and likely residents are not waiting for public transport for their daily commute.

(06-10-2021 07:32 AM)Banter Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 04:56 AM)doss2 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 05:29 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:26 AM)Lush Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.

why doesn't it?

Unlike Cincinnati, Columbus voters turned it down.

Which proves Columbus voters understand return on investment.

I want to point out that a streetcar along High St does not alleviate any need for Columbus. I moved out of Cincinnati as the streetcar was under construction, which I always thought was a bad plan as well.

A Street car on the High St corridor would not alleviate traffic. I am a huge fan of public transport, and believe we should have invested in it decades earlier, but I don't believe it works unless you are bringing folks in from the suburbs and reducing traffic from the burbs to the city. A street car along high street would be nothing more than a way to shuttle drunk college kids who are bar hopping between downtown and campus. The short north is a high income area, and likely residents are not waiting for public transport for their daily commute.

If light rail ran from the burbs such as West Chester, Liberty, Mason, Montgomery, IH, etc. to the hood (OTR, UC, Downtown) would I use it? Perhaps once. I go to the hood only for UC FB, to Aronoff for Broadway Series, Music Hall, to our Dermatologist and seldom more. So for me it is worthless.

So I am supposed to want to drive to a terminal near 275 & 75 or 71 then park, wait for a light rail to downtown, then get on a street car to UC, walk to the game and then reverse it home. My alternative is I drive my Genesis G90 or BMW X7 to UC and park in my assigned garage.

I will continue doing the car tripping!

(06-10-2021 04:56 AM)doss2 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 05:29 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:26 AM)Lush Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.

why doesn't it?

Unlike Cincinnati, Columbus voters turned it down.

Which proves Columbus voters understand return on investment.

IIRC, two council members won their seats, by promising to vote against the streetcar. as soon as they were on council, they both voted for it. so, i do think the people voted againstit - the f#&^n politcians did the usual - lie to get elected

(06-09-2021 05:07 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:13 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 08:36 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 08:33 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  The late President Steger, when speaking to alumni or donor groups, talked about his ambitious campus rebuild saying the new buildings were all great but once erected, they made the adjoining ones look bad. He was only half joking--when UC became a full state institution it was quickly evident that the Clifton campus was decades behind the rest of the state universities in terms of needing both new and remodeled buildings.

The billion dollars plus represented in that rebuild created what Forbes and other national publications described as one of the world's most beautiful campuses.
https://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/re...orbes.html

While UC won't ever have a marina or golf course as some others do, it is interesting to think about what is still needed; a wish list so to speak. So I'll share three and will be curious if others might add to the list:
1. A large, modern Alumni Center to host visitors, conduct large events, and be a center for alumni life when returning to campus. If you've seen Ohio State's it's very impressive. I don't think it needs to rise to that level but UCAA has no visible presence on campus today. And if some parking, either adjacent or in very close proximity, could be part of the plan I could see alumni wanting to rent space there for their own reunion events, weddings, graduations celebrations, etc..
2. More outdoor student recreation spaces. I understand (but disagree with) the Park Board not wanting varsity sports in Burnet Woods. But UC and the city could collaborate to create shared use facilities for tennis, volleyball or soccer that would make the park better for all.
3. Beyond the campus footprint, bring the streetcar up the hill to UC, Short Vine, the Medical Center, and Children's Hospitals. One reason the streetcar has failed as a transportation link is its limited utility running only from the Banks to OTR. It needed to connect Uptown, OTR, and downtown to be fully functional. Linked to campus, it would be unique in all of Ohio, if not the entire Midwest. And students could easily access jobs, entertainment, and the best of our city without needing a car on the hilltop.

I'm still baffled how that was in every proposal, and was clearly the way to self-sufficiency, but ended up on the cutting room floor. It was clear as day the only way they were going to get enough riders to make that a money maker or at least not a balance sheet anvil was to get students on there.

Baffled? After being approved by the voters TWICE, Kasich (With the urging of Comb Over Chabot ) took federal funds allocated to the project and sent it elsewhere. Lack of funds caused the Clifton leg of the line to be scrapped.

I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.

Bolded, I think you're right. When we lived in IN, it was abundantly clear that all money flowed to its state capital in Indianapolis for pretty much whatever that city/county wanted to build. To a lesser extent, we see that with Columbus.

I don't want to "derail" this thread but I will add from what I know, the build out would have also been cheaper in Columbus flatlands with the pathway you described. I don't think the federal funding would have come close to covering the total cost with Cincinnati's topography. As I recall, powering electric streetcars up that big hill into Clifton was going to incur enormous infrastructure spending for Duke Energy and others, re-engineering underground services before the first section of track ever appeared. Duke Energy wasn't going to donate their work; the city didn't have money for that, the county and state weren't interested.

So here we sit with half a loaf: a streetcar that doesn't fulfill much of any transportation need when OTR folks report they can walk or bike to work in the central business district faster. And if it can't run when the temperatures dip below freezing, it's not a reliable year round conveyance in this climate either. Fix that 12 month reliability issue; run it to Uptown and suddenly it's a viable transportation system. Will that ever happen in our lifetimes? Who knows...

Resurrect the Mt. Adams incline and route the line past the old Rookwood Pottery, the Blind Lemon (Is it still there? I have fond memories from my courtship days in the early 1960s) ), Eden Park, the Art Museum, the Conservatory, past the OMI iteration, and then on to Short Vine and the main campus, with a loop down to Ludlow, or...

Build a new incline directly to Clifton Heights.

Whatever the alignment, the novelty of an incline would be an attraction in its own right. If to Mt. Adams, the other attractions up there would sweeten the pot even more.

But wait, we're talking about ever-conservative Cincinnati. whose mantra is, "Let's dither while the folks in northern Kentucky steal our thunder."

I have kids in Denver. Many of you would be amazed by the light-rail system that's been built and flourishes in that progressive metro area.

I think the Mt. Adams incline would have had the greatest appeal; and not just for a small number of residents up there who commute to downtown. Mt. Adams would have become more of an entertainment destination with it's unique buildings, streetscapes, and views. Sadly, I don't think that incline could ever be restored given the exits and access lanes created for the I-471 bridge that required an elaborate retaining wall at the foot of Mt. Adams. So it will be remembered only in historical photos.

Northern Kentucky has leveraged one asset Cincinnati doesn't possess. It has the best views of the finest city in the Midwest and in recent decades has begun to fully realize that potential. To me it complements Greater Cincinnati. And sometimes their expediency in getting projects done shames Cincinnati & Hamilton County into clearing bureaucratic red tape to move forward on projects such as the new music venue at The Banks and the FC Cincinnati Stadium.

Okay, I've done my part to continue the derailment of this thread and for that I apologize (I think). Of course one could argue the realignment thread itself is a sideshow, but an enjoyable one for many.

(06-10-2021 07:32 AM)Banter Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 04:56 AM)doss2 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 05:29 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:26 AM)Lush Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.

why doesn't it?

Unlike Cincinnati, Columbus voters turned it down.

Which proves Columbus voters understand return on investment.

I want to point out that a streetcar along High St does not alleviate any need for Columbus. I moved out of Cincinnati as the streetcar was under construction, which I always thought was a bad plan as well.

A Street car on the High St corridor would not alleviate traffic. I am a huge fan of public transport, and believe we should have invested in it decades earlier, but I don't believe it works unless you are bringing folks in from the suburbs and reducing traffic from the burbs to the city. A street car along high street would be nothing more than a way to shuttle drunk college kids who are bar hopping between downtown and campus. The short north is a high income area, and likely residents are not waiting for public transport for their daily commute.

It was never about transportation. It was about a tourist attraction. That's why it didn't go up to UC.

If it was about transportation, it would have only been going both directions on the same street. Every urban planner will tell you that works better than having the outbound route 2 blocks away from the inbound route.

(06-10-2021 08:02 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 05:07 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:13 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 08:36 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I'm still baffled how that was in every proposal, and was clearly the way to self-sufficiency, but ended up on the cutting room floor. It was clear as day the only way they were going to get enough riders to make that a money maker or at least not a balance sheet anvil was to get students on there.

Baffled? After being approved by the voters TWICE, Kasich (With the urging of Comb Over Chabot ) took federal funds allocated to the project and sent it elsewhere. Lack of funds caused the Clifton leg of the line to be scrapped.

I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.

Bolded, I think you're right. When we lived in IN, it was abundantly clear that all money flowed to its state capital in Indianapolis for pretty much whatever that city/county wanted to build. To a lesser extent, we see that with Columbus.

I don't want to "derail" this thread but I will add from what I know, the build out would have also been cheaper in Columbus flatlands with the pathway you described. I don't think the federal funding would have come close to covering the total cost with Cincinnati's topography. As I recall, powering electric streetcars up that big hill into Clifton was going to incur enormous infrastructure spending for Duke Energy and others, re-engineering underground services before the first section of track ever appeared. Duke Energy wasn't going to donate their work; the city didn't have money for that, the county and state weren't interested.

So here we sit with half a loaf: a streetcar that doesn't fulfill much of any transportation need when OTR folks report they can walk or bike to work in the central business district faster. And if it can't run when the temperatures dip below freezing, it's not a reliable year round conveyance in this climate either. Fix that 12 month reliability issue; run it to Uptown and suddenly it's a viable transportation system. Will that ever happen in our lifetimes? Who knows...

Resurrect the Mt. Adams incline and route the line past the old Rookwood Pottery, the Blind Lemon (Is it still there? I have fond memories from my courtship days in the early 1960s) ), Eden Park, the Art Museum, the Conservatory, past the OMI iteration, and then on to Short Vine and the main campus, with a loop down to Ludlow, or...

Build a new incline directly to Clifton Heights.

Whatever the alignment, the novelty of an incline would be an attraction in its own right. If to Mt. Adams, the other attractions up there would sweeten the pot even more.

But wait, we're talking about ever-conservative Cincinnati. whose mantra is, "Let's dither while the folks in northern Kentucky steal our thunder."

I have kids in Denver. Many of you would be amazed by the light-rail system that's been built and flourishes in that progressive metro area.

I think the Mt. Adams incline would have had the greatest appeal; and not just for a small number of residents up there who commute to downtown. Mt. Adams would have become more of an entertainment destination with it's unique buildings, streetscapes, and views. Sadly, I don't think that incline could ever be restored given the exits and access lanes created for the I-471 bridge that required an elaborate retaining wall at the foot of Mt. Adams. So it will be remembered only in historical photos.

Northern Kentucky has leveraged one asset Cincinnati doesn't possess. It has the best views of the finest city in the Midwest and in recent decades has begun to fully realize that potential. To me it complements Greater Cincinnati. And sometimes their expediency in getting projects done shames Cincinnati & Hamilton County into clearing bureaucratic red tape to move forward on projects such as the new music venue at The Banks and the FC Cincinnati Stadium.

Okay, I've done my part to continue the derailment of this thread and for that I apologize (I think). Of course one could argue the realignment thread itself is a sideshow, but an enjoyable one for many.

ironic that you said how expedient nky is. Their new music venue is smack dab in the middle of what was supposed to be a multi high-rise development called “Ovation,” which sat undone for years. Keep in mind that the Cincinnati and NKY venues are opening at the same time.

For years we heard how wonderful NkY was at getting things done. But I havent seen much built in Covington for years, and Riverboat Row is long gone. Newport’ s star attraction - The Levee - is just now getting a reboot, has never fulfilled its intended destiny, and its time as the “it” thing to do has long passed.

And, yes, the KY side has the benefit of the much better view.

(06-09-2021 05:31 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 05:07 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:13 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 08:36 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I'm still baffled how that was in every proposal, and was clearly the way to self-sufficiency, but ended up on the cutting room floor. It was clear as day the only way they were going to get enough riders to make that a money maker or at least not a balance sheet anvil was to get students on there.

Baffled? After being approved by the voters TWICE, Kasich (With the urging of Comb Over Chabot ) took federal funds allocated to the project and sent it elsewhere. Lack of funds caused the Clifton leg of the line to be scrapped.

I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.

Bolded, I think you're right. When we lived in IN, it was abundantly clear that all money flowed to its state capital in Indianapolis for pretty much whatever that city/county wanted to build. To a lesser extent, we see that with Columbus.

I don't want to "derail" this thread but I will add from what I know, the build out would have also been cheaper in Columbus flatlands with the pathway you described. I don't think the federal funding would have come close to covering the total cost with Cincinnati's topography. As I recall, powering electric streetcars up that big hill into Clifton was going to incur enormous infrastructure spending for Duke Energy and others, re-engineering underground services before the first section of track ever appeared. Duke Energy wasn't going to donate their work; the city didn't have money for that, the county and state weren't interested.

So here we sit with half a loaf: a streetcar that doesn't fulfill much of any transportation need when OTR folks report they can walk or bike to work in the central business district faster. And if it can't run when the temperatures dip below freezing, it's not a reliable year round conveyance in this climate either. Fix that 12 month reliability issue; run it to Uptown and suddenly it's a viable transportation system. Will that ever happen in our lifetimes? Who knows...

Resurrect the Mt. Adams incline and route the line past the old Rookwood Pottery, the Blind Lemon (Is it still there? I have fond memories from my courtship days in the early 1960s) ), Eden Park, the Art Museum, the Conservatory, past the OMI iteration, and then on to Short Vine and the main campus, with a loop down to Ludlow, or...

Build a new incline directly to Clifton Heights.

Whatever the alignment, the novelty of an incline would be an attraction in its own right. If to Mt. Adams, the other attractions up there would sweeten the pot even more.

But wait, we're talking about ever-conservative Cincinnati. whose mantra is, "Let's dither while the folks in northern Kentucky steal our thunder."

I have kids in Denver. Many of you would be amazed by the light-rail system that's been built and flourishes in that progressive metro area.

I think the Cincinnati side has long surpassed the KY side.

Yeah, and it certainly has nothing to do with conservative vs liberal.

California is super-liberal, and it takes much longer to get anything built there than Cincinnati. Just look at the mess around replacing SDSU's football stadium in San Diego - that took 15+ years and included 2 public referendums.

Houston and Atlanta get things built faster than any other city in the country - I wouldn't call them "liberal."

Cincinnati isn’t conservative anymore— well, out in the outlying counties but in the city and on a county level you won’t find one holding an office, with the exception of three recent appointments made after the three elected officials had to resign due to corruption. The biggest problem with local politics is not their political ideology, it’s that they are lining their own pockets instead of governing.

(06-10-2021 08:42 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 05:31 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 05:07 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:13 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Baffled? After being approved by the voters TWICE, Kasich (With the urging of Comb Over Chabot ) took federal funds allocated to the project and sent it elsewhere. Lack of funds caused the Clifton leg of the line to be scrapped.

I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.

Bolded, I think you're right. When we lived in IN, it was abundantly clear that all money flowed to its state capital in Indianapolis for pretty much whatever that city/county wanted to build. To a lesser extent, we see that with Columbus.

I don't want to "derail" this thread but I will add from what I know, the build out would have also been cheaper in Columbus flatlands with the pathway you described. I don't think the federal funding would have come close to covering the total cost with Cincinnati's topography. As I recall, powering electric streetcars up that big hill into Clifton was going to incur enormous infrastructure spending for Duke Energy and others, re-engineering underground services before the first section of track ever appeared. Duke Energy wasn't going to donate their work; the city didn't have money for that, the county and state weren't interested.

So here we sit with half a loaf: a streetcar that doesn't fulfill much of any transportation need when OTR folks report they can walk or bike to work in the central business district faster. And if it can't run when the temperatures dip below freezing, it's not a reliable year round conveyance in this climate either. Fix that 12 month reliability issue; run it to Uptown and suddenly it's a viable transportation system. Will that ever happen in our lifetimes? Who knows...

Resurrect the Mt. Adams incline and route the line past the old Rookwood Pottery, the Blind Lemon (Is it still there? I have fond memories from my courtship days in the early 1960s) ), Eden Park, the Art Museum, the Conservatory, past the OMI iteration, and then on to Short Vine and the main campus, with a loop down to Ludlow, or...

Build a new incline directly to Clifton Heights.

Whatever the alignment, the novelty of an incline would be an attraction in its own right. If to Mt. Adams, the other attractions up there would sweeten the pot even more.

But wait, we're talking about ever-conservative Cincinnati. whose mantra is, "Let's dither while the folks in northern Kentucky steal our thunder."

I have kids in Denver. Many of you would be amazed by the light-rail system that's been built and flourishes in that progressive metro area.

I think the Cincinnati side has long surpassed the KY side.

Yeah, and it certainly has nothing to do with conservative vs liberal.

California is super-liberal, and it takes much longer to get anything built there than Cincinnati. Just look at the mess around replacing SDSU's football stadium in San Diego - that took 15+ years and included 2 public referendums.

Houston and Atlanta get things built faster than any other city in the country - I wouldn't call them "liberal."

Houston - the incredible sinking city - also builds entire neighborhoods in flood plains.

I didn't mean conservative and progressive in the political sense, but more in terms of second-guessing everything as opposed to finding a way to get things done.

Pat Forde
@ByPatForde
·
13m
Sources tell
@RossDellenger
and I: Expect news this afternoon from the College Football Playoff management committee. After a meeting today, a release is coming based on a recommendation for an expanded playoff.



Ross Dellenger
@RossDellenger
Replying to
@ByPatForde
Sources tell me &
@ByPatForde
that the CFP working group is recommending a 12-team playoff: 6 highest-ranked conference champs & 6 at-large.

The 4 highest-ranked champs get a bye while other 8 play 1st-round games on campus.

Long way from done, but this is the recommendation.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...eam-format

Per ESPN, that also means the 6 highest ranked conference champions would not be locked in as P5 vs. G5. Hypothetically multiple G5 champs could make it.