The Cleveland Browns could ruin our soccer pitch

[Zip_ME87]

Now wait a minute! Nobody said anything about visible football lines on the field! That is why I want to see the details of this arrangement.

The presumption is that FE/CC would be completely re-sodded, removing all evidence of the Browns practicing there.

The beauty of FE/CC is a recruiting tool for the soccer programs, and is therefore critical to these programs' success. The Athletic Department should not lose sight of that fact.

Sorry. I meant visible football lines only while the Browns are using it for the 20 days in Year 1. If the President's and AD's assertions are correct, I will see this on tv during interviews from training camp during sports news broadcasts. Even though I won't go to see it in person because it would trouble me so much, I won't be able to miss it on the evening news under those assertions. I'm trying to choose my words more carefully as I've realized through some debate about this topic that written words can easily be misinterpreted. I'll strive to do a better job next time so I don't have to follow up.

[Dave in Green]

... 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. ...

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.

[Zip_ME87]

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.

I'll give you that the Browns use of the soccer pitch is not a done deal yet. the AD, as characterized in Marla's artice:

If UA is the Browns’ choice, Wistrcill said the Browns might have to use the soccer field in 2015.

“We would look at it as ‘Here’s all of our available grass space for year one.’ Would the soccer field be in play? It could be. If that’s the case, that’s a one-year situation,” Wistrcill said in an interview in his office Tuesday. “The great thing about that soccer stadium, the grass is off the charts, it’s strong, it drains really well, it repairs itself quickly.

1 mistatement...The soccer pitch doesn't drain well in the east end is a known and observed fact.

Tom Wistrcill, December 2009:

“We are extremely excited to name Rob Ianello as our new head football coach,” Wistrcill said. “Rob’s experience with some of the top programs in the country, coupled with his recruiting prowess, made him stand out among a great group of candidates. “He demonstrated to us a clear plan on how to build a complete championship program – one that has been successfully tested at other University’s around the country – and we are excited to help him execute that plan. He will be a great leader for the young men on our football team and a great part of the Akron community.”

WOW, how can I not be confident in what Tom says or does?

Now comes a new President who loves football and who sees an outstanding football coach currently in place, with awesome facilites that previous ADs built. The Browns and Jimmy Haslam visit for a day and bring lots of fans to our beautiful campus and Jimmy makes some great statements while our new prez rubs elbows with an NFL owner and is wowed by Johnny Football. Do you think President Scarborough bothered to ask AD Wistrcill how all of this came about. I doubt it because he was so wide-eyed like a little kid in a candy store. I know, this is all conjecture and my opinion. But come on, we're all human. You really don't think the new preseident could be so overtaken by this as to not really give it due diligence.

Again, this is my opinion...reason to request the data.

Please give me your conjecture of why the new president & our illustrious AD didn't bring this Browns training Camp proposal up with the soccer attendees Saturday night.

[Balsy]

Please give me your conjecture of why the new president & our illustrious AD didn't bring this Browns training Camp proposal up with the soccer attendees Saturday night.

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.

[Dave in Green]

... Please give me your conjecture of why the new president & our illustrious AD didn't bring this Browns training Camp proposal up with the soccer attendees Saturday night.

I normally don't spend time conjecturing over what people didn't say because there are so many different things that could be said that a lot is always left out. Since you ask, I'll take a wild guess that they don't believe it's a major issue to a lot of people and that they believe when the final disposition is publicly announced that all but a few militant protestors will be satisfied.

[Spin]

Has anyone calculated the price of the publicity and "eyes on campus" that such an event (check that, 14 events) would provide?

Each one in Berea had >8000 eyes. A camp with more capacity and centrally located in the market could draw a lot more daily.

Or are we still ignoring the concept?

[K92]

Here's my deal. I'm going to post this then I am done.

I couldn't care less about the soccer pitch. Never been to a soccer game. Never will. Don't care. I understand a lot of you do care about it and I respect that, but that is beside the point for me.

The advocates for Cleveland Browns Training Camp being held at UA claim exposure to our campus will be a real boon for our school. I couldn't disagree more. While at first blush it may seem logical that this would be so, I think not.

If UA hosts NFL training camp, we will join this prestigious list:

St. John Fisher College

Wofford College

Olivet Nazarene University

St. Norbert College

Anderson University

Missouri Western State University

Minnesota State University

SUNY at Cortland

St. Vincent College

I don't want to fight or get into a back & forth about this and I certainly don't fault the advocates that want something positive for UA,

but if the rewards of hosting were what the advocates would have me believe, I don't think this group of schools would be hosting.

We are 3 weeks into the college football season and the hottest topic on our board is about Cleveland Browns training camp.

Speaks volumes.

[Spin]

I thought it was great having the LeBron welcome party and the Browns Family Night on campus. I think it would be awesome having thousands of people who would not otherwise see what UA really is, walking on campus every day for two weeks. I want to see enrollment start trending upward again. I want to see the U break the community college stigma it has in NEOhio. I look for ways of getting asses on campus, that's why I believe in an on-campus arena that hosts many other events, getting asses on campus and creating revenue on an otherwise money pit for the U. (Just like the Browns training camp could).

I'm proud of where I graduated. I'm proud of the National Championship too, but I am not convinced having training camp here would ruin the program forever.

BTW there are threads about this week's football and soccer games. But most people are like minded in those threads. It's where there's a difference of opinion that a thread often takes off.

[Zip_ME87]

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 hearsay if it comes from a good source. Watergate is a good example.

You know what they say about assumptions...

[Dave in Green]

Anyone who isn't familiar with Vision 2020, the blueprint for UA's future, should take a closer look. Hosting the Browns training camp fits well into the following three Strategic Pathway sections:

* Connectivity for Economic Vitality (This involves working with the local community to enhance economic vitality for the whole area and not just UA. It's well documented that Berea businesses get a positive economic bump from the thousands of Browns fans who flock there for training camp. That enhancement could be transferred to benefit the Akron area's economic vitality.)

* Campus and Community Enhancement and Engagement (This involves engaging community members by attracting them to various activities on campus. The Akron Beacon Journal has documented that there is more interest among Akron citizens in the Browns than in Zips athletics. If UA brings the Browns on campus for the benefit of local citizens, it would represent one of the biggest and most popular examples of community enhancement and engagement. Part of the positive spinoff may be more local interest generated for UA and Zips athletics.)

* Enhancing Revenues to Support Growth (This involves broadening and diversifying UA's revenue sources. Renting facilities to the Browns during their training camp offers a new opportunity. It requires that the Browns pay a rental fee that more than covers UA's expenses. Someone in a single department at UA might see only the potential negative impact to their little world while those at the top with knowledge of the full impact on all aspects of UA would understand the overall benefit, i.e. the big picture. Revenue growth is an area where Dr. Scarborough has a reputation for being especially effective.)

[fknbuflobo]

Bring the Browns. Fine. Leave FE/CC alone! We like collecting rent from the Browns. We do not like sacrificing our soccer pitch to do it. Build a practice field for the Browns. Or don't. But leave FE/CC unmolested.

If there is a "full impact" or "big picture," I want to see it prior to any agreement. Show me the cost/benefit analysis.

Sorry, but the sad track record of UA Administrations have made me distrustful of them and their true motives, throughout the decades.

Professional administrators will move on to brighter stops in their careers within the next few years, but the decisions they make will remain with the folks in the UA community for much longer. They do not care about us; we would be foolish to imagine that they do.

[Zip_ME87]

A 2nd reliable source tells me there are no "rent' (payments) from the Browns in the proposal. Will funding from parking and concessions be enough to make this a worthwhile venture?

Crickets chirping from the records officer thus far. Not even a response stating he received my e-mail and will get back with me. Plenty of logical reasons why hasn't responded for me not to question his motives, and I do mean that. He could be on vacation or swamped with other things and my request is waiting in his queue for him to get to it. I will give him more time, and then call tomorrow to ensure he received it and find out if he needs clarficiation as to what I want.

As far as the AD, President, and others, even the best people can make mistakes when they don't give due diligence to what they're doing. Sometimes, they make mistakes even if they do, but at least they went into it with eyes wide open.

The purpose of my quotes from the AD was to point out that he is often wrong and has been BIG TIME wrong in the past. The things he stated about Rob Ianello were so far off the mark, I can't believe Tom still has his job. It also points out that it is completely possible to have a resume that may paint of picture of a person in one light, yet their actions prove otherwise. Trust and respect are earned. The new UA president may have an outstanding resume, but he has to earn my trust through his actions. I'm not giving it away so easily as some would just from reading a piece of paper. This president has already earned a demerit by saying one thing "We told Moody’s and Fitch that we would be a disciplined organization, with disciplined people engaged in disciplined thought and actions." and doing another ... having Tom put together a proposal in 2 weeks. Two weeks is not enough time for diligence, and Tom Wistricill has not demonstrated the leadership necessary to understand what he's putting together and all of it's potential repercussions.

Another well-meaning, Texas-born president of UA told us back in the 1980's that we were getting a great, new arena for the University of Akron. The result was the JAR. He also said that our first football coach from Notre Dame would bring glory to the Zips. Yeah, that turned out well. Took the Zips 23 years to return to the NCAA Basketball Tournament after Bob Huggins went to Cincinnati following that great decision.

Keener'92 had a good point. I don't want to join the illustrious ranks of the institutions that he listed. That group indicates this not to be the helpful venture it's thought to be. I suggest that members on this board heed the advice implied in Spin's signature line from Steven Covey. "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply." It could also be said that "Many people do not read with the intent to understand; they read with the intent to reply."

I sincerely thank everyone who has responded positively or negatively to my posts and I do mean that. It took me awhile, as I said in an earlier post, to understand that I started this thread over the wrong issue. The real issue is the effect of the Browns Training Camp on UA as a whole. That is the point I will continue to make to university officials in any correspondence I have with them.

I believe UA is on the verge of entering into an agreement of which they have not diligently explored all of the possible outcomes/repercussions. UA could get into an agreement with the Browns that doesn't fulfill the administratrations hopes and further strains an already overly constrained budget. How often have we seen politicans enact something, and it has an effect they didn't expect. Business owners have a real stake in their business because it is their livelihood, and they make decision based on business models, risk asessments, cost-benefit analyses, etc. Politicans, including university presidents, don't have the same motivation. If they make a mistake one place, they can move on to another. As fknbuflobo stated, UA students and alumni are the ones left with the mess.

I made the mistake of being satirical along the way and pissing off Browns fans and others with incendiary remarks. I apologize for that. I think most of us can agree that we love UA, or we wouldn't even be on this forum. I encourage all of you to demand more of UA's leaders than just assumptions and hope. Those of us who pay tuition or make donations to UA deserve it. That answers the question of why the president and AD should have brought this subject to light at Saturday night's soccer alumni event. There were many donors in that room who give significant yearly donations to UA. They deserve proper respect from the UA Administration who are only with UA temporarily.

EDIT: I bolded things not for emphasis or to shout them out but rather to point them out since this turned out to be "a novel". I think you can read the bold print and get most of my points if you don't want to read everything.

[Balsy]

it's not hearsay if it comes from a good source. Watergate is a good example.

You know what they say about assumptions...

There's a difference between wild assumptions and logically inferred assumptions (aka inferences).

It is hearsay, when there is (so far) no evidence to back up information that is reported through a secondary agent as opposed to the primary agent it comes from. Hearsay is not evidence. There was evidence to support the watergate leaks, so it wasn't just hearsay.

The Claim being made here is that "The Browns will ruin the soccer pitch". You have the burden of proof to support your claim. Hearsay is not evidence. (crickets start chirping). Provide evidence to support that contention. Provide evidence that Top of the line programs don't use their facilities for anything else BUT soccer (this being the second unsupported claim you've made here.) Just because the AD may have been wrong on a decision in the past, does not make EVERY decision made by that AD a bad one. That's a fallacy.

And so far the best argument supporting your claim is coming from Keener who posts a list of other Colleges that have hosted the Browns training camp, which is a really good counter argument to those of us claiming that it would be good for the University, we really haven't had a good response to that. However, to be completely honest, I don't think LZip, Spin and I are claiming that it will be good for the university (making us shoulder a level of burden of proof) but instead we're rejecting your claim that it won't be, and it has the potential to be good.

Until you really can provide solid evidence supporting your claims, we will continue to reject them. Because logically 1+1=2. Until you can show that it doesn't, those of us who are in favor of looking for a partnership between the Browns and UA will continue to reject what you're saying.

Perhaps we should wait until GT can dig up some real facts and information on this topic...but we may have to wait a long time for that.

[Zip_ME87]

There's a difference between wild assumptions and logically inferred assumptions (aka inferences).

It is hearsay, when there is (so far) no evidence to back up information that is reported through a secondary agent as opposed to the primary agent it comes from. Hearsay is not evidence. There was evidence to support the watergate leaks, so it wasn't just hearsay.

The Claim being made here is that "The Browns will ruin the soccer pitch". You have the burden of proof to support your claim. Hearsay is not evidence. (crickets start chirping). Provide evidence to support that contention. Provide evidence that Top of the line programs don't use their facilities for anything else BUT soccer (this being the second unsupported claim you've made here.) Just because the AD may have been wrong on a decision in the past, does not make EVERY decision made by that AD a bad one. That's a fallacy.

And so far the best argument supporting your claim is coming from Keener who posts a list of other Colleges that have hosted the Browns training camp, which is a really good counter argument to those of us claiming that it would be good for the University, we really haven't had a good response to that. However, to be completely honest, I don't think LZip, Spin and I are claiming that it will be good for the university (making us shoulder a level of burden of proof) but instead we're rejecting your claim that it won't be, and it has the potential to be good.

Until you really can provide solid evidence supporting your claims, we will continue to reject them. Because logically 1+1=2. Until you can show that it doesn't, those of us who are in favor of looking for a partnership between the Browns and UA will continue to reject what you're saying.

Perhaps we should wait until GT can dig up some real facts and information on this topic...but we may have to wait a long time for that.

We don't have to wait on GT. The University of Akron is a public institution and as such, they have to make public records available to the residents of the State of Ohio. Ask for the data yourself.

Because why would you?

Because the people in that room are not only donors, but taxpayers and residents of the State of Ohio. The University of Akron is a public institution. They have to make public records viewable by the public. The Administration is supposed to be "transparent". Why does everyone seems to be so timid about asking for public records? Oh, I have to have the ABJ do it for me.

I got my degree at The University of Akron. I don't have to have a PhD to know who to trust and who to question and when 1+1 isn't adding to 2 as in this case. Yours is a fallacy of believing that because the new president and Tom Wistrcill say it's good and you love the Browns and want it to be good, then it must be good.

The UA President and AD are public employees who have to answer to us. Ask them. I certainly was prepared to ask Tom at the Soccer match Sunday afternoon, but he chose not to show up.

Do you bother to read all of the posts here? I gave of the soccer pitch thing up a number of posts back. Bad me in the way I started this debate. It still bothers me about the soccer pitch, and I still don't want them to use it, but that's not the REAL issue. The REAL issue is what are the potential outcomes and pitfalls of this deal and what is the likelihood UA will realize a benefit or bleed more red ink. Follow the advice implied by Spin's signature. It applies to written as well as verbal communication.

[zippy5]

Keep fightin the good fight man

[fknbuflobo]

There's a difference between wild assumptions and logically inferred assumptions (aka inferences).

It is hearsay, when there is (so far) no evidence to back up information that is reported through a secondary agent as opposed to the primary agent it comes from. Hearsay is not evidence. There was evidence to support the watergate leaks, so it wasn't just hearsay.

The Claim being made here is that "The Browns will ruin the soccer pitch". You have the burden of proof to support your claim. Hearsay is not evidence. (crickets start chirping). Provide evidence to support that contention. Provide evidence that Top of the line programs don't use their facilities for anything else BUT soccer (this being the second unsupported claim you've made here.) Just because the AD may have been wrong on a decision in the past, does not make EVERY decision made by that AD a bad one. That's a fallacy.

And so far the best argument supporting your claim is coming from Keener who posts a list of other Colleges that have hosted the Browns training camp, which is a really good counter argument to those of us claiming that it would be good for the University, we really haven't had a good response to that. However, to be completely honest, I don't think LZip, Spin and I are claiming that it will be good for the university (making us shoulder a level of burden of proof) but instead we're rejecting your claim that it won't be, and it has the potential to be good.

Until you really can provide solid evidence supporting your claims, we will continue to reject them. Because logically 1+1=2. Until you can show that it doesn't, those of us who are in favor of looking for a partnership between the Browns and UA will continue to reject what you're saying.

Perhaps we should wait until GT can dig up some real facts and information on this topic...but we may have to wait a long time for that.

Exposure is not a tangible benefit unto itself. It is not easily measured. Those working in advertising will readily concede that point.

Yes, there is a burden of proof for someone to bear. Prove that Browns training camp will benefit the University of Akron. Until you can provide concrete evidence that Browns’ training camp will quantifiably benefit UA, your assumptions to that end will continue to be rejected.

It is perfectly reasonable, bearing witness to the physical laws of the universe, to assume that large bodies laboring strenuously will dramatically, perhaps irrevocably, impact a grass surface. To argue otherwise is plain silly.

[fknbuflobo]

Are other athletic fields considered in this stupid idea? Baseball, Softball, Track?

[zen]

Exposure is not a tangible benefit unto itself. It is not easily measured. Those working in advertising will readily concede that point.

This, of course, is not proof either. It's anecdotal. But I selected Akron over other regional choices because I had been on campus when I was in HS visiting people I knew who were already going to UA. It was more than just exposure/familiarity. I knew more about what I was getting when I picked Akron then some of my other options.

I know others who did the same.

Getting kids on campus for Browns family day or for things that might bring people who otherwise would not have been here sounds like a good concept to me.

Now, ruining the soccer pitch? That's a different can of worms.

[Zip_ME87]

Are other athletic fields considered in this stupid idea? Baseball, Softball, Track?

Reading Marla's article, track, yes...indoor & outdoor.

Baseball & Softball aren't mentioned unless I somehow overlooked them. The Browns used to play in Municipal Stadium where they shared the field with the Indians for several weeks a year. I don't see why they couldn't do that for practice for Year 1. If you're going to wreck one field, wreck them all. Since all those local politicians signed on, the Browns should use Canal Park, too. Spread those Browns fans out all over the city. They'll see so much more it will add to our profits!

[zippy5]

Akron was last on my list until I came to campus for the Honors interview.

[fknbuflobo]

Akron was last on my list until I came to campus for the Honors interview.

How would the Browns' training camp have affected your decision to attend UA?

[zippy5]

How would the Browns' training camp have affected your decision to attend UA?

It wouldn't have as I am a Steeler fan, and you couldn't pay me to watch a Browns' practice. Hypothetically speaking, I could have been a 17 year old Browns fan with no intentions of even applying to UA, and seeing campus would definitely have persuaded me to apply at the very least. I literally had 0 intention of going to Akron until I saw campus. I'm positive I'm not the only one.

[Zip_ME87]

It wouldn't have as I am a Steeler fan, and you couldn't pay me to watch a Browns' practice. Hypothetically speaking, I could have been a 17 year old Browns fan with no intentions of even applying to UA, and seeing campus would definitely have persuaded me to apply at the very least. I literally had 0 intention of going to Akron until I saw campus. I'm positive I'm not the only one.

Thanks. That's what I thought you were saying. Good to have a tangible piece of evidence, whichever way it leans. I wonder if UA officials ever bothered to poll the current student population about this among other demographics. It would be interesting to have some sense of the impact of the look/feel of the campus on student selection of UA. It's interesting that when I attended UA, it was an "urban" campus with Buchtel and Carroll Streets open, yet enrollment was 26k - 28k. Spring 2014 shows 23,342 at Akron main campus. I'm trying to verify my figure for 1987, but the page won't load from UA's website.

EDIT: Of course, when I started at Akron in 1982, the cost was ~$37/credit hour with open enrollment. I think the tuition cost was the lowest in the state. That would trump a lot of factors especially with local commuting students who didn't have to add room and board. Gasoline was also in the $1/gallon range. Can't compare enrollment then vs now. Data is skewed.

[Balsy]

When I was in highschool looking at colleges UA was dead last on my list as well. The first time I ever saw the campus by going to my sister's graduation which just so happened to be on the campus of The University of Akron. I remember how impressed I was, thinking "this isn't as bad as I heard it was".

Never looked back.

As for the burden of proof fknbuflobo, we don't have a burden of proof, or rather the "burden" has already been solved and explained logically.

[Spin]

When I was in highschool looking at colleges UA was dead last on my list as well. The first time I ever saw the campus by going to my sister's graduation which just so happened to be on the campus of The University of Akron. I remember how impressed I was, thinking "this isn't as bad as I heard it was".

Never looked back.

But I selected Akron over other regional choices because I had been on campus when I was in HS visiting people I knew who were already going to UA. It was more than just exposure/familiarity. I knew more about what I was getting when I picked Akron then some of my other options.

I literally had 0 intention of going to Akron until I saw campus. I'm positive I'm not the only one.

I personally was accepted into three different schools. We all know which one I picked.

Don't hold your breath waiting on them to answer you. I've brought that up three times now and they skate right around it.