natininja

Back to #7. This should be a good game Saturday vs. Louisville. Glad it's at home.

DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!! We have a winner! Sorry, I don't have a prize for you.

That was kind of a trick question, in that it was a more of a math problem. Also the debt/deficit thing made that answer look appealing. Thanks! Looks like ColDay and Ram did the same. Process of elimination helped a lot. Mother f'ers act like they forgot about Abe.

I got 32/33. Missed this one: What was the source of the following phrase: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”?

You actually believe that?

You won't be seeing any major NCAA/BCS events at Nippert. History & nostalgia makes a venue great for home team fans, but not for the NCAA.

^ Should include LRT right-of-way in the Brent Spence plan.... Really, they should include tracks from the riverfront transit center to somewhere near Mainstrasse. Might even be worth running service between just those two stops.

I've seen airport people movers travel farther than that. Imagine what a joint APM, Amtrak and commuter rail station on the Ohio side of the river could do to spur some development in that area. Assuming they don't use PFCs to pay for the station. Then they'd have to close it off to the area around, like the EWR station.

So I think we know who paid for the ad now!

Blame UC. According to OSU spokesman Jerry Emig, the trigger for the change occurred when Texas Christian joined the Big East Conference. That required Big East schools to modify their schedules, and Cincinnati approached Ohio State about changing the 2012 date. http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2011/10/31/osu-cincinnati.html Hm, guess I was wrong. Thought I read it was OSU canceling. Anyway, I'm done here...until September! Or until there's another funny prank.

What happened to the scheduled game in 2012? First OSU wants the game moved to Columbus, then they cancel it all together. Either they were afraid of bad publicity due to a loss, or they were afraid it would be a hit in strength of schedule. Either way, they shied away from it, which is what I said.

Fair enough. I didn't really understand what the screenshot was supposed to be saying, anyway.

ColDayMan-- UC has been in a BCS conference for a while. And rose to become an annual contender for the conference title during that time. That's playing w/ the big boys (even if Big East is not SEC). Kent State, BGSU, etc., are not comparable. In the 2009-2010 season, UC came within an inch of the National Championship; the Longhorns had to have the play clock reset to make a game-winning field goal, and UC finished the season ranked #3. Granted, they got their asses handed to them in the Sugar Bowl, but where were BGSU and Delaware State? Where was Ohio State? UC's Rodney Dangerfield attitude is justifiable IMO, as its peers (WVU, Pitt, Louisville) and even lesser teams (Rutgers, anyone?) have gotten a lifeboat out of the sinking Big East but not UC. Then there is pre-season ranking, where UC routinely out-performs or hits parity with conference rivals that get a preseason ranking, but UC never gets one. They outperform expectations almost every year. Kinda makes you wonder about those expectations, doesn't it? Yeah, a rivalry has to come from somewhere. The 1960s basketball championships could be a start. But mostly it has to come from actually playing each other, which UC has been wanting to do for several years, but OSU seems to shy away from. Finally they're playing this year, which I think is fantastic. And I think it would be hubristic for OSU fans to think the outcome of that match-up is predictable at the current time. I also think that hubris is alive and well.

It's a bit more like the UC-Miami games, I would think...minus the history. People at OSU know people who go to UC and vice-versa, unlike Delaware State. UC is an up-and-coming program and sees OSU as a measuring stick for making it. I guess OSU is content with the Michigan rivalry and doesn't care about getting an in-state rival. But UC is on the hunt for new rivalries, since the old ones are outdated (they are clearly in another league from Miami now) or lost due to conference reshuffling (Pitt, Louisville). Yes, UC has a bit of a Rodney Dangerfield outlook. Call it "little man syndrome" or whatever. But OSU would be wise not to sleep on UC, and to expect that UC will have years where they have a better team, and to not be surprised if UC's improvement continues to where there really is some parity.

It's not as though Jerry was publicly insulting a real person (Steve Norris) with the statement being made fun of... Intelligent and/or good-natured people can be purveyors of malapropisms. I still think GCrites80s's hypothesis is interesting.

O NOES, looks like I poked The Dragon.

Looks like someone made a little improvement to Ohio Stadium:

An ejection seat fit for a king. When the castle is under siege, he can just parachute to safety!

^ Looks like old ceramic beer bottles on the floor in that last pic. Though they could be modern glass bottles with a coating of dust. Cool stuff.

The reason I liked the phone idea was because it would have required hooking the meters into a network, which opened up the possibility of other improvements (e.g. variable, demand-based rates).

After re-reading Portune's editorial, it is indeed an open question whether Portune and Cranley know what the word 'transit' means.

I'm really going based off Portune's editorial, in which he touted the submit as a way for the public to review the regional transpo plan. It's possible I misinterpreted or he misrepresented what will actually be discussed. But judging by the "hosts," I don't think the discussion is going to be much about what the title would imply. I think I read that the Port Authority is looking at the intermodal river freight hub as part of their plan for Queensgate.

^ The summit is on "rail and transit integration" and will also address things like barges. Granted, that's beyond the scope of this thread. I think the only rail transit Portune is interested in is commuter rail, and Cranley is not interested in passenger rail at all so far as I can tell. They probably just want to address freight issues and pay some lip-service to commuter lines. (God knows why. Maybe Portune thinks it's good to have some "shovel-ready" projects to snatch up federal grants that might materialize. Maybe he just wants make-work for planners at OKI.)

And the other half will only remember due to faux-outrage induced by that Enquirer article.