Leaderboard

Because why would you? Besides, I thought you were going to leave this discussion until real evidence of a proposal surfaces. But I will say, those of us who support entertaining the idea of hold Browns camp on campus are not making wild assumptions without evidence, we're making them based upon inference and logic. You're begining to sound like a conspiracy theorist (pulling quotes and pointing to hearsay as if it were evidence)...and I know Zips fans like their conspiracy theories...but it's time to layoff. It absolutely make perfect sense to make this deal with the browns, under the assumption that the pitch is only used for 1-year, and that UA makes a profit. These assumptions are still assumptions (yes) but they're logically inferred ones. Again, an absolute no-brainer.

It's not that simple. Recruits go to schools for any number of reasons. Your reasoning ignores the ongoing and ever more creative ways the non-BCS conferences link the similarities between the way they manage their conferences and shooting yourself in the foot. Tuesday and Wednesday night football for example. The BCS conferences aren't forcing the MAClike conferences to enter into these horrible agreements with ESPN. We enter into it willingly and celebrate it at the conference management level. We get empty stadiums in November on a weeknight....ESPN gets three hours of air time filled up...ADs and commissioners get good looking lines for their resumes...recruits get to see our empty stadiums and add one more reason to not go to a MAC school. Money isn't going to prevent stupid decision making. We have met the enemy and we are us.

As I recall your source did not tell you that the Browns would only be using the soccer pitch for the first year and not after that. So I would question if your source gave you a totally accurate appraisal on the bleeding funds comment as well. If the deal bleeds funds from UA, then it's not a profit maker transfusing funds into UA. If it's not a profit maker then it's a bad business deal. If it's a bad business deal then it would be out of character for Dr. Scarborough and would cause a lot of people to reconsider whether he's the right person to lead UA.

CORRECTION: There is one interest of mine, and hopefully many of yours, that is worth discussing here. I started this thread about a soccer pitch that means a lot to me and others, but the real issue here is the bottom line. The same source that told me about this in the first place (which turned out to be true) also told me that the numbers show that hosting the Browns Training Camp will bleed more funds from an already constrained budget. I have a relative who is currently enrolled at and attending UA. I don't want to see his or anyone's tuition costs further increased because of someone's whim. There was a soccer alumni, Varsity A, and supporter's dinner Saturday night after the article came out that morning. Why didn't the UA President and AD, who were in attendance, share their vision with that group? They knew that group out of all of UA's donors, alumni, and supporters was the most likely to be upset. If the data supports it, be transparent; explain it. I think we're all entitled to see the data that shows the benefits to UA. If you want to debate that, have at it. I'd love to hear your logic.

I wouldn't take Buffalo or UMass too lightly. I have watched them each in a couple of games and believe if they get a couple of problems sorted out that each is going to beat multiple MAC teams this season.

Watching Penn State run the direct snap play and push us down the field raises a little concern for the Pitt game. I think Pitt is going to try a power running game. It'll be interesting to see what Amato does to counteract it. I think our DB's proved pretty capable against a solid QB on Saturday, so we should be able to put an extra body on the line and go single-coverage when necessary. But Marshall first...