Clevelander17

This may be a football town, but it's an Ohio State town first and foremost right now. Schools like Ohio U., Kent, Akron, and many of the DIII schools have trouble drawing when Ohio State is playing. And those schools are all more residential in character than CSU, meaning they have more students that could easily walk to games. I don't know that Cleveland State will do any better slotted against the Buckeyes. If Cleveland State fields a football team, I think Division I-AA non-scholarship is probably their best bet, and playing at Lakewood High School Stadium or maybe CWRU would make sense. Heck those locations would probably be closer for many CSU students than an actual on-campus stadium. The only problem is that D-IAA non-scholarship (and I've had this debate about my UD Flyer before) is a weak sauce division with very few teams and no real national championship.

There seem to be about 12-15, sometimes more, St. Ignatius kids going to Dayton every year. Heck there was almost that many in my dorm freshman year (about a decade ago) at UD.

Good points. Unfortunately "said person" has used his fame and soapbox to propagate the idea that there is a big separation between the two areas, and it seems that a lot of people from outside of the region (media members included) are taking his word for it.

Yeah, I consider Akron a part of the larger region in which I live, but I'll freely admit that I don't know the city that well. In fact, you hit the nail on the head--I know parts of Macedonia and northern Summit County fairly well, but anything south of that may as well be another planet. I guess this is more of a study of human geography. You put a dot on the map where one lives, and draw circles around it. Past a certain circle, you'll find that most people start becoming very unfamiliar with those areas unless they have a specific reason to frequent a certain area. So you may have "regions" that are interconnected, but a lot of people in those regions unfamiliar with many other parts of the region.

None of the above? Your question is interesting, but I don't really know how to answer it. Unfortunately I think you'll find that the top kids in their respective high school classes are "flocking" out of the region to the Ivies or schools like Michigan or Notre Dame. The next tier of kids will look to Ohio State or Miami.

I just don't see where the University funding or space would come from, let alone the commitment to putting together a football program that can justify a 15,000-20,000 seat stadium (which is the bare minimum necessary to host an MLS team). And although there was a strong movement for an MLS team in Cleveland/Akron in the mid-2000s, I think all of that momentum has been lost. We had a very good chance at a team that would have played in Macedonia (I believe), but the voters said no, and we lost out. We've been lapped by other candidate cities for expansion.

This is wrong. Cleveland-Akron is already a "combined statistical area," which means they are in a lot of ways already connected (though not regarded as closely-knit as a metropolitan statistical area, though there is some debate that they should be). The Cincinnati-Dayton "merger" is a discussion of those two just now becoming considered one combined statistical area. So in other words, Cleveland and Akron are already a step ahead of their southwestern Ohio brethren in regards to being considered connected as far as Census Bureau is concerned. Interestingly enough, the Canton-Massillon MSA is on its own island according to the Census Bureau, not connected to Akron in the sense of sharing a metropolitan area. Just thought I'd clarify that.

Does a divide exist between these two cities? Is there resentment coming from one towards the other, or vice versa? The reason I'm asking is because I've been hearing a lot about a "divide" between the two cities, especially in the weeks since a certain former basketball player left Northeast Ohio. Thoughts? Also, do Akronites tend to associate more closely with Canton or Cleveland (I've asked this specific question on another website before and gotten mixed results)? Seems there are a lot of Akron-Canton shared institutions.

Probably not. Northern Summit County was very close to building a soccer-specific stadium for an MLS expansion team, but voters turned down a tax increase to pay for it.

I don't see how one small (University Heights) and one medium (Shaker Heights) suburb are going to be able to swing the elections of much larger districts. Further, I don't know that it makes sense to assume that every resident in those cities is going to be voting for people with some sort of a nebulous "Heights-centric" viewpoint, whatever that even means. Even if there is a "Heights area" conspiracy to dominate county-wide politics, it wouldn't work, because they would only have three seats (assuming everything else above is true, which it's not) on an 11 seat board.

Unfortunately, yes, but I don't see how that's relevant. Things like that are hardly ever (rightly so) taken in to consideration when it comes to electoral district on other levels (county, state, etc.).

Explain what those are please Explain what what are?

They've outperformed their run differential by one game, while the Cardinals have underperformed by five games (worst amongst teams that are in contention). I'd say that the Reds are a little bit "lucky" in regards to the latter. I think technically you'd say that the Cardinals have been "unlucky" in that regard--the Reds record is pretty much where it should be according to the math. I guess you could say the Reds are lucky that the Cards have been unlucky, but the Reds own record is not "lucky." Run differential is an interesting thing--witness yesterday's 9-0 win by the Cards. What does that give them, plus 1 or 2 wins just based on that one game? I think that it is obviously pretty predictive in the long run, but doesn't necessarily take into account completely (or well) those sort of swings. Just my two cents, though. (Not that you care, but I think a lot of the Cards' problems are their own doing. I have to believe that the current lineup they have been using--Pedro Feliz batting 5th! Are you kidding me!--is one of the weakest offensive lineups of any contending team. It is almost a crime that they have two number ones (Wainwright and Carpenter), a solid 3 pitching like a 2 (Garcia), the best player in baseball, and Holliday, and aren't a playoff lock. I blame LaRussa and the management for that. Though as a Reds fan, I am not complaining.) Yeah, I was saying that the Reds are lucky that the team they're battling with for the NL Central crown has had some of the worst luck (in regards to run differential) in MLB. Run differential is a great predictor, but it's imperfect. However it works pretty well over large sample sizes. Glad to someone else at least familiar with the concept. So many baseball fans seem completely oblivious to such great, newer forms of statistical analysis! I agree it does work well over large sample sizes--but even then, you can see how quickly it can change in just a couple of days. The Cards have picked up 26 runs in RD on the Reds in the past three games, basically. A pretty big swing. But it will even out. I'm ok with most of the SABR stuff. I am pretty skeptical of defensive measurements just because they are absolutely all over the board. I will be interested to see how Pujols and Votto end up stats-wise--they are neck and neck in so many of the key categories, it could be the best MVP race in a while. It's so close you almost simply have to give it to the guy whose team wins the division.

Well I was talking about moderate Republican gubernatorial candidates.

Taft was fairly moderate, and he was a failure. I'm not really a fan of Kasich's views on the 3Gs, but I'll put up with it because I feel like his economic ideas are far superior to Strickland's, and anything Taft ever did.

I've actually heard of some promising moves being made towards the regionalization of fire departments around here. I think Pepper Pike and some neighboring Chagrin Valley suburbs are close to combining their departments. Also a few of the west shore suburbs were talking about doing the same, though I'm not sure if that's still likely to happen.

They've outperformed their run differential by one game, while the Cardinals have underperformed by five games (worst amongst teams that are in contention). I'd say that the Reds are a little bit "lucky" in regards to the latter. I think technically you'd say that the Cardinals have been "unlucky" in that regard--the Reds record is pretty much where it should be according to the math. I guess you could say the Reds are lucky that the Cards have been unlucky, but the Reds own record is not "lucky." Run differential is an interesting thing--witness yesterday's 9-0 win by the Cards. What does that give them, plus 1 or 2 wins just based on that one game? I think that it is obviously pretty predictive in the long run, but doesn't necessarily take into account completely (or well) those sort of swings. Just my two cents, though. (Not that you care, but I think a lot of the Cards' problems are their own doing. I have to believe that the current lineup they have been using--Pedro Feliz batting 5th! Are you kidding me!--is one of the weakest offensive lineups of any contending team. It is almost a crime that they have two number ones (Wainwright and Carpenter), a solid 3 pitching like a 2 (Garcia), the best player in baseball, and Holliday, and aren't a playoff lock. I blame LaRussa and the management for that. Though as a Reds fan, I am not complaining.) Yeah, I was saying that the Reds are lucky that the team they're battling with for the NL Central crown has had some of the worst luck (in regards to run differential) in MLB. Run differential is a great predictor, but it's imperfect. However it works pretty well over large sample sizes. Glad to someone else at least familiar with the concept. So many baseball fans seem completely oblivious to such great, newer forms of statistical analysis!

Great idea! Taxpayers who are funding the waste department having services denied to them. Is there a point upon which with trash piling up the city finally gives in? Admittedly this may not work everywhere. Given that I've only seen this system implemented in smaller towns in upstate NY, I don't know how successful it would be in a more densly urban environment. In the setting I saw it in, people didn't like trash piling up, so they adapted as necessary and began pulling out the recyclables so they could have the trash removed. This 'guilt based' system may not work as well where you have trash stored in an area away from your principal residence (back alley, or in a dumpster area, etc.) and/or you don't have a vested interest in ownership of the property, how it's maintained. All I know is that everyone started recycling before too long, and it didn't entail significant fines on the residents to do it. Whether it's carrot, stick, or other means such as guilt, I still take issue with the idea that city governments need to be pushing their residents to recycle, especially when the jury is still out about the efficacy of such programs.

They've outperformed their run differential by one game, while the Cardinals have underperformed by five games (worst amongst teams that are in contention). I'd say that the Reds are a little bit "lucky" in regards to the latter.

Great idea! Taxpayers who are funding the waste department having services denied to them. Is there a point upon which with trash piling up the city finally gives in?

Also good to see future Big Ten member Nebraska checking in at #8. Would love to see them win the Big XII in their final season there.

Boy, is this is a cliche or what? ....as I mentioned about the big ticket items are public safety and education. Tough sh!t if you can't address that. Wow, I was hammered when I made that post. But anyways, I still agree with the premise--it may be cliche, but it's the absolute truth. And besides, cities don't even deal with public education, that's the responsibility of school districts. Though I think an argument can be made against "public" education, or at the very least, what it's become here.

Will it really save money, though? I think people just assume that recycling is a money-saver, but in reality, there is conflicting research about it. http://www.allbusiness.com/finance/3584432-1.html Either way, this microchip is nonsense. I can't believe we're living in a day and age where a city government thinks it needs to be monitoring and digging through the trash of its residents. How much is it going to cost to pay the salaries of these garbage-diggers?

With all due respect, I think that it would be ridiculous to target teachers, firefighters, or police officers that are actually on the front lines. When talking about governmental waste, I think it's the pencil-pushing bureaucrats that need to go first and foremost.

Doesn't really make a difference when the golf course you own is actually two or three cities away. The City of Cleveland is running a golf course which isn't even within city limits. :clap: