Brutus_buckeye

I remember that game. After the 94 Cup where the US did surprisingly well, it made soccer worth watching so I was excited to see how they would build on the 94 performance in 98. It was such a disappointment. The ESPN article was great at what went wrong. Poor coaching and scheme plus the whole issue with John Harkes, the captain and one of the best players for the US getting left off the roster for sleeping with Eric Wynalda's wife. There was a lot of chaos going on at that time. The 2002 World Cup would have been great to watch as the US did very well there, but it was in Korea so most of the games took place overnight or very odd hours. It is just exciting to see how US Soccer is growing. I am not a big soccer fan on the whole, but do enjoy being competitive in the world cup.

Reading the tea leaves going forward with the media deals, if you are not in the Big 10 or SEC you are a second class conference and will struggle to compete. Yes, the Big 12, ACC, and PAC (if still around in 5 years) will have access to the playoff and spots every year, but how competitive will they be? The Big and SEC will have close to a $50 million delta over the other power conferences. There is a lot you can do with that to separate yourselves in order to attract the top talent. It goes way beyond weight rooms and coaches salaries. Schools will start paying players directly through the conference (to avoid Title IX issues) as the Big 10 is developing currently, schools will be able to hire dozens of additional analysts to scrub all the fine data points on the game. Imagine a school like Ohio State having a team of 100 football analysts on staff earning $40-$60k per year whereas UC and other schools may be able to afford 5-10 of those positions. This is going to be the new reality of college football and I think Fickell recognizes this and why he is making the move now.

the Browns need to go back to their 1980s look. White facemask, slimmer helmet stripes, white pants with thin stripes on them, plain jerseys. Wear white all the time with brown as the secondary color. Channel their inner Frank Minnefield, Bernie kosar and Webster Slaughter.

Buffalo identifies as east coast, and is *slightly* less segregated than midwestern cities in Ohio. Buffalo's corporate community is EXTREMELY involved in the city. There is barely any event in Buffalo that doesn't have some kind of major corporate backing. That is true, Buffalo's business community is a lot more vested than many other cities and they have always punched above their weight. However, unfortunately, that weight has become a lot lighter than it was 30 years ago. As to Buffalo identifying as East Coast. That may be true, but that they have been hurt by a lot of the policies in New York designed to cater to Wall Street or even taxation policies designed to hit wealthy Manhattenites who work on or are affiliated with Wall Street. While in the same state NYC is a completely different animal than Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Binghampton and many of the policies geared toward NYC have really harmed some of those older industrial cities in Western New York.

Going through Buffalo a few months back made me think how majestic the city was back in its heyday that is no longer. There was certainly a lot of old money in Buffalo over the years that helped it continue to punch above its weight for a couple generations, but it seems like that those families have either sold out or moved on over the last 30 years. Buffalo is starting to find its way again, but it will be s shell of its former glory

I dont disagree with that, but some of it could be him reaching his peak this year. It also could be Stefanski is a QB whisperer who can maximize the potential of his QB's. Look at the fall of Mayfield as prime example #1

I would not go that far. Brissett is playing great this year, especially of late, but there have been many one hit wonders in the past that we have seen. remember Derek Anderson?

There are certainly plusses and minuses for selling or keeping the line. The plan for reallocating it into a more liquid asset is a good plan though. It would be a mistake if they were using the proceeds to plug budget holes or fix the pension or something along those lines. Keeping the funds reinvested in other assets is the best way to handle such a sale. Now, the biggest question is whether or not the price is reasonable or if it is too much of a discount. No matter what, the sale price is going to be discounted a bit from true market value if it were operated by a professional company in that business as they can get more economies of scale from it. That does not mean it is a bad deal though. Overall, I think it is probably a good deal even if they leave some money on the table.

Freight service is very viable. Passenger service is not as much unless you really operate in certain corridors. Passenger service has to be efficient and either get you there quicker or for much less money than alternative means. Passenger trains are slower than planes and not that much less than discount carriers to operate. For a long time Greyhound transported people more efficiently than trains. Greyhound is struggling now, maybe that opens the door for more train service? I just do not see passenger rail as the path forward for the majority of our country outside of dense population centers and then LRT/streetcar rail for cities unless the rail connects areas that are not efficiently connected otherwise by existing transportation nodules.

100% agree with you on this. Personally, I am on the fence if this is a good idea or not. In one sense, you are getting out of an asset ownership where the city may not be an expert in owning (whereas N&S understand running a railroad much better) and the city is taking a lump sum of money and depositing it into a trust/endowment. In one sense, we should not look at this as the city selling an asset. Yes, they would be selling the railroad asset, but they would essentially be transferring the proceeds into another asset (in this case investible funds held in a trust). Just like the hard asset value of the railroad, the investible funds (in an ideal situation) cannot be invaded, and only the interest is used (just like the railroad paying $25million a year under their lease). So in that sense, you are not "selling" an asset, but rather "trading" it for a different asset. The bigger question is whether the $1.6 billion is sufficient value for the asset. Clearly, N&S sees value in the line to justify the price and given their expertise in running the line, they can create more value out of the line than the city of Cincinnati ever could by continued ownership. On the flip side, the benchmark they are stating is that we currently get $25/million per year under the lease and upon sale we would get $50-$60 million. While that seems like a no brainer, they gloss over the fact that there are 3 years on the lease and if/when it would be renewed, how much more per year would the city receive under a new lease?? I do not think it would be fair to look back 5-10 years after the sale and see that N&S is generating $XX from the purchase of the railway and saying the city was fleeced on the value simply because N&S could maximize the value of the asset much better than Cincy could. So of course they will be able to generate more value by owning the line than the city. However, as the city needs to be upfront about and not spin the taxpayers on is that the delta from the sale is not an additional $25-$30 million to the city, and they need to represent the estimated delta in funds to the city that would be realized after a new lease would be executed. My guess is that the city would get less money over time than they would get for continued ownership. However, that does not necessarily mean that selling now is the wrong decision. Reallocating those funds to a different, easier to manage asset class, even if they would produce a lower income, could still be the prudent decision.

Yes there were other teams that were willing to pay just as much or similar, but the main competition was (Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans) not in the same position as Cleveland to compete in 2022. Watson was much more of a long term play and neither of those teams were going to viably compete in 2022, even with Watson. Watson will be a huge improvement, but just not in 2022, which means another wasted year with the Browns talent. I dont think you can look at anything in a vacuum. Could the defense's struggles have any relation to the chaos in the offseason?? I dont know if you could connect those two items together, but who knows how a football team pscyhie is. Back in 1995 the Browns were in first place until they said they were moving to Baltimore and the team fell apart. I do not think in week 12 he starts and puts up 40 points. He has not played in 2 years or has he had much time to develop any continuity with his receivers and line. Maybe by week 15 he finds is groove, but at that point of the season it does not get you anything.

Which poses a different question. Does a Nashville/Louisville route offer more potential than the LExington Cincy Route. You may need to connect through Dayton too to bolster the Cincy potential.

You would probably want to throw in Indy and Chicago if you were going to do such a route because such a connection from Cincy - Atlanta would not draw much interest, It would have to connect to Chicago or you could add (Dayton/Toledo/Detroit) or (Columbus/Cleveland). It would be much longer, but you would probably need a route like that to even consider it something viable (and I dont even think you get there adding those markets)

I would never agree with such a statement. However, as a society, I think the goal is go create transportation systems where we can travel to places quicker and more efficiently than we did in the past. Cars have replaced horse and buggies, trains have replaced riverboats and barges as the chief way to ship goods around the inland of the country. Now there are still places where barges are more economical and make sense, but trains carry the biggest amount of freight now. Planes have replaced trains as the method to move people fastest across long distances. Let's not pretend that high speed rail in this country is going to be some huge technological leap forward than what we currently have. If anything, it is a step back (yes, faster than normal rail, but still a step back). Passenger rail across the country and connecting cities 500 miles a way is the thing of a romance novel. It sounds pretty and nostalgic but not a viable way to move people efficiently between their markets on the scale you would need for it to be economically viable. Most rational people would choose a 1-2 hour plane ride over a 5-6 hour plane ride if given the choice for a similar price point. It is a heavy lift of infrastructure to justify projects like this as economic development. There are certainly times where rail makes sense. Certainly, in densely populated areas it has proven to be viable and an alternative method of transport that is easier than flying and roughly takes the same time/or not much longer and is cheaper and less hassle. Outside of those few corridors it does not fit that model. Rail in cities as a LRT model I think is a viable idea because it creates efficient transportation to move people in a dense environment where plans or other methods of transportation cant compete. These long distance rail projects are never going to be viable and just the stuff of romantics. If people want rail, focus on the projects that are actually viable.

But would people actually ride it? Allegiant, Spirit, Frontier, Jet Blue, Breeze are all offering competitive prices and compelling reasons to use them over a high speed train that is still going to be much slower.

Outside of passenger rail romantics, I really do not see why people would be seriously considering passenger rail as an option anyway. It is really just a pipe dream of a few and not really viable as a commercial enterprise outside of the Northeast/MidAtlantic corridor, or Chicago/Milwaukee corridor. It is much slower, does not provide significant connectivity, and would not be the preferred travel of the masses. If you want proof, look no further than Greyhound which has long been struggling as a bus business in this country. When you have discount airlines that are offering fares to fly from Atlanta to Chicago or Cincinnati to Florida for $60-$80 per ticket, busses and trains cannot compete with that for the average middle class traveler. An Amtrak route from Cincinnati to Atlanta or Chicago to Atlanta is never going to be viable when you can fly a discount airline for the same price or less than a train ticket and get there 1-2 days sooner. People need to acknowledge that reality.

I think they showed a good united front in their presentation to sell the deal to the public. Of course Tom Brinkman is against it, but otherwise it seems as if everyone who is knowledgeable and familiar with the situation is aligned. I do not think it is a huge issue to get through the legislature, but you never know what to expect when you have to put it before the voters.

My biggest issue with the Texans deal is that you make such a deal when the goal is to win immediately. If you know you have a good team and just need that QB to get you over the top, it is justified to mortgage the future on the increased chance that 2022 is your year. Just like the Rams did in 2022 when they went all in on Stafford, it would have been reasonable for the Browns to give up that draft capital if they could have that franchise QB for 2022. The problem was that at the very minimum, the Browns KNEW he would be gone for a likely 6 games before tehy even made the deal and chances are he could have been gone longer (which we now know is 11 games), they knew that once he returns from a near 2 year layoff, he would likely be rusty and take a while to get back to speed (Heck look at Joe Burrow in Cincinnati for the first 3-4 weeks of the year compared to Burrow now). So at the very best, you waste half a season without a franchise QB in the effort to win TODAY. It just made no sense.

Except the service stations carrying the gas may no longer be viable to operate.

But you have to question the long term viability of USL with MLSNext ramping up. MLSNext is almost like the true Minor League. Also, while unlikely, it positions Cleveland to eventually land an MLS team at some point should a team look to relocate. With MLSNext you are starting to build your MLS infrastructure and prepares you for when an opportunity arises as you would know how to navigate in the MLS realm. (Now I think there is zero chance Cleveland would ever get an expansion team at this point with Columbus and Cincinnati closing off that option, but you never know if the Haslems will get a wild hair up their A$$es and on a whim move the Crew to Cleveland, lol)

There are also a lot of trucks that should be considered in this. As you mentioned, there are a lot of medical device reps out there who may be on call and need to drive 90 minutes to their surgery when the doctor is available. When you take the summer trip and you can no longer do the 12 hour drive in a day because the charging time (or risk using the DC charger and hurting the battery life on your car) There are a lot of good things EV's can do, but it should be acknowledged that they should not be thrust on everyone yet as the only option. Many people do not drive as much as me in a given week. From my own personal standpoint, there are sometimes where I need to drive 3 hours round trip in a day, there are times where i do not have time to plan my trip a week in advance and have to get in the car and go. There are a decent amount of people like this and should be part of the equation when mandating the end of the ICE. I have family and friends with Teslas and they like them, but they are not for everyone. We need to keep that in mind.

If you drive locally and can charge your car at night you are fine. But that is also not realistic for many people and could place people in a bind in many cases if they have to drive over long distances frequently. If you drive 12 hours on a trip, it is going to be a challenge for people and that is the blindspot that a lot of the EV proponents are forgetting about. In 10 years CA and a couple other states will ban the sale of ICE vehicles. The trickle down is that it will pretty much force everyone into an EV even those for whom an EV would not make sense. Based on the limitations on the EV batteries, that a solution has not been invented to overcome them, it really makes no sense to embrace the technology to the extreme that some of the politicians in CA and NY have by completely banning ICE vehicles in their states. When the technology is strong enough, you will not need to pass such a law because the public will already be there.

You are welcome to drive your EV. I have no issue with it. You seem to have an issue with the fact I like my gas car. Otherwise, why would you care to try and encourage laws to ban them? Let the market decide. When the market has the infrastructure to demand it, then great everyone can co-exist. When the technology becomes better, then let's talk. Right now it is not there. That is cherrypicking your info. Also, pretty much all these studies fail to take into account taxes and road usage costs. As gas taxes no longer offer the revenue to repair the roads you have to start to factor in the rising burden EV's will need to pay at that point. Most of the current studies do not account for that. There are also a number of studies that show EV ownership is not cheaper. You may dispute them, that is fine, but to say that there is no study out there is false. It is pretty comical how anytime someone attacks your worldview your first line is to shoot the messenger. You are very predictable. My post was simply how the technology was not there yet, and somehow you feel the need to try and turn it into a personal attack. I get it, that is all you got.

But you also have a lot of tax incentives to try and grease the skids. Furthermore, some of this is large fleet sales as local governments subject to the "green gospel" race, sometimes against their best interests, to electrify their fleet. It will be interesting to see if EV's would still grow at the same pace if you removed a lot of the gov incentives to grease the skids and as some states start charging EV registration fees to make up for the lost gas taxes they would otherwise receive from a gas powered vehicle.

That is a very flawed statement. EV advocates may complain about chicken v egg dilemma, but the problem is that the technology for the eV infrastructure is not there yet. For trips, or those who need to drive a lot, it does not make sense to own an EV. What you are trying to say is that, we know EV's are inferior products and not quite up to the task, so lets race to the bottom and force it upon everyone, because you personally like EV's better than gas vehicles. I am all for owning an EV when it makes economic sense and there is appropriate infrastructure to support it. Right now, outside of the cities there is not. Even in the cities and locally, a 6-8 hour charge to drive your vehicle 300 miles is not economically feasible either. The goal is to create efficiencies and get people and products to places quicker, not slow things down.