If capacity were to be expanded at Ohiri, I think it would be built on the other sideline from where the stands are now. And in that link you shared (thanks, btw!), it looks like the long term plan for Ohiri Field is to put buildings on it: So, like I said, my mind says new FieldTurf without permanent lines.
Total sideline: Back in the day, I played against Chris Ohiri when he was at Harvard. He was pretty good.
544643143703207936 is not a valid tweet id Hopefully that proposal happens. Edit: hmm... 544649407887839234 is not a valid tweet id So maybe new FieldTurf for 2015 and expansion of something else for 2016?
I was in on those conversations. New turf maybe, no mention at all of no lines though. The second one was more interesting and leaves lots of room for conjecture.
That's true. Mostly wishful thinking. But you'd think with the Canons playing there too, Harvard might be more inclined to do it. Yeah, it's a very tantalizing tidbit. From what Lee said here, they are staying at Harvard long term, although not necessarily in Harvard Stadium. But what other options would there be at Harvard besides expanding Ohiri or Soldiers Field Soccer Stadium? SFSS is only 4 years old, so I don't see Harvard building another completely new SSS.
Their primary tenant is, rightly so, the Harvard football team. Cannons as the 1st tenant and Breakers as the 2nd are merely incremental income streams that will never make or break Harvard. I don't see them making a lot of concessions on a project like this for what are at present short term tenants and could impact their long term football operating costs and set-up. Soldiers Field and Ohiri remain attractive possibilities, but I have no idea what kind of permanent improvements are possible or feasible. Wiki shows Ohiri with a capacity of 1500, Soldiers Field 1000 expandable to 2500. It does note that Ohiri had 5200 at an NCAAA game but a permanent jump to even 5000 seems like a big leap for either, not to mention the lack of a permanent press box, adjacent locker rooms and bathrooms, and concessions accommodations. Not saying these can't be overcome, just don't know what kind of effort and expense would be involved, nor what the appetite would be on the part of either Harvard or the Breakers. Fun for conjecture though. Soldiers worked for a couple one-off events - WPS playoff game, and Revs USOC game- but weekly set-up/breakdown of the temporary accommodations would seem unrealistic. As noted above, Ohiri doesn't look to be in Harvard's long term (beyond ten years) plans anyway. As Lee points out in an earlier post, a team owned/controlled venue is a pipe dream, the scarcity of sites and associated land expense alone would be prohibitive in the forseeable future. Partnerships with a college/university may be the most cost effective at this point but comes with significant constraints on scheduling and secondary revenue streams like parking and concessions. Longer term, they may look to a municipal partnership where they could invest in the necessary upgrades in exchange for being the primary tenant?
Yes, Harvard football is the primary tenant. But here's my thinking: the soccer and lacrosse lines are already temporary lines that get painted on during the summer and removed for the football season. So the only added cost is painting on the football lines and removing them after the season (this could also be beneficial for wintertime when the bubble is up, and the Harvard lacrosse teams). It also doesn't really matter if the teams are only there short term, the actual lifespan of artificial turf is less than 10 years which is fairly short term too. If the Breakers and Cannons no longer play there when the time for the next replacement comes along, Harvard can install new FieldTurf with permanent lines again. Actually, this is one of the things that makes me think Ohiri could be possible for expansion. The 10 year plan for Ohiri still leaves the primary soccer pitch, it just takes off half of the total Ohiri field space. Thus leaving not enough usable space there for a 2nd pitch, but more than enough space to put up semi-temporary bleachers like they used for the Sacramento Republic field to increase capacity and add a press box. The "Institutional Master Plan" document says "The Long-Term Vision (also referred to here as the Vision) is included as planning context, but not for formal regulatory approval," so the Ohiri field buildings will still need to be approved at a later time. Meaning an expanded Ohiri should definitely be usable for at least 10 years if not more. The question is just whether Harvard has any incentive to put that sort of money into expansion there when they've already recently built SFSS. Which I really don't see them having. I don't think a team owned venue is a pipe dream if they could get a good deal on land. Lets say Harvard agreed to lease the Ohiri field land to the Breakers for 20 years. Then the Breakers could build a stadium there without the land costs. That is the most likely way I could see Ohiri being expanded, if the Breakers (or some other group) were willing to finance the cost of the stadium (and that's a big if). And the reason I frequently bring up the Sacramento Republic stadium is because they have shown, it doesn't have to be a fancy stadium. Just build something you can call your own at the lowest cost and it can still be successful. After the 20 year lease is up, if Harvard wants it back, the stadium can be easily dismantled.
OK, back to the original point of this thread and my original post.... recent communications with Lee Billard and Ryan Wood here and on Twitter leads me to soften my stance and my comments to some degree. They do exist, they are engaged, they do have a plan for coming seasons. Doesn't excuse what I still see as past failings but if they come through moving forward I can forgive that.
Interesting Q&A with Joe Cummings: http://www.socceramerica.com/article/62187/joe-cummings-ive-seen-what-i-dreamed-about.html
This is more a suggestion than a question. I was recently re-watching one of the home matches on YouTube. I was a little surprised that you guys don't take the opportunity to advertise your product during the webcast. During the pregame and halftime run through of advertisers you don't invite fans to buy tickets to a future game. Stating your lowest prices for individual and group tickets. Also if the next game is on the road you guys don't seem to advertise or mention to the fans where to find it online. It seems as though the broadcasters could also toss in a cheap plug to invite fans to the next game, seeing as they already plug their next webcast. If you look at a Flash webcast you can see an example of the pregame and halftime advertising you could do.
YouTube doesn't seem to show a geographic breakdown of where all the views are from anymore, but I would wager that the majority of views are from people outside of the Boston area and thus who are unlikely to purchase tickets. I think it's better to treat the game more as a national broadcast (so no homerism). They are promoting the league more than anything. All games are on YouTube, in the NWSL channel so if you're watching it there, you already know where to find the next one. Now if they had a local broadcast agreement, that would be an entirely different matter. And I would agree that they should promote those two things.
Lets say 1,000 people watch the game on YouTube. 100 are from the Boston area. Say 5 people from Boston decide to check out a game live based on an ad they saw online during the game. That is 5-10 more people you got in the stands that you may not have gotten otherwise per game. Over the season that is 45-90 additional people. From a money perspective that is an additional $450-$1,000 in revenue you got for the 2 hours of work it takes an intern to create the free ad. My point is even if you got 10 additional people in the stands total for the season it would be worth doing if it cost you almost nothing. True and this is obvious to most people, but not all of them.
So first I saw this: Breakers hoping to stay at Harvard Stadium despite summertime field renovations http://t.co/GxnlAkClaX #NWSL— Brian O'Connell (@BrianOConnell21) January 12, 2015 Then the NWSL schedule came out and I saw this: Maybe I'm reading too much in to it, but why does it say "Harvard University" and not "Harvard Stadium?"
When I first saw it I thought it was odd too. They must be working on an alternative at Harvard other than the stadium for at least some of the games. Must be the thing that Lee can't talk about yet.
Both Harvard Stadium (Soldier's Field) and Ohiri Field are located in Allston and belong to Harvard University. Presumably, the game will be at one or the other. Wouldn't a reasonable guess be that if the game can't be at Harvard Stadium due to renovations, it will be at Ohiri Field?
Well the problem with Ohiri Field is just that, it's a field more so than a stadium. There are bleachers (supposedly with seating up to 1500, which isn't enough) and a scoreboard, but no press box, lights, or other amenities. So it will need quite a few improvements to be usable. Not sure if they'll want to go through all that effort for something temporary*. Now if they were going move there permanently, that'd be another story and I'd say it would be fairly ideal location. *Though to be fair, the other likely location, Soldier's Field Soccer Stadium, will need a lot of improvements too. It just has a press box and lighting, so it would save on that cost and permitting. But it's not as if there's anywhere else that is ready as is.
I think Soldier's Field will lend itself to a temporary set up more readily that Ohiri. But that's just my guess, not my line of business. As a side note, the Cannons pro lacrosse team, co-tenant with the Breakers, just announced they will play at Gillette Stadium this season due to the Harvard renovations. Even though they draw 2-3 times what the Breakers did, those 7-8000 folks will be lost in Gillette.
Gillette is in Foxboro. The Breakers poster says Harvard University and Allston, MA. So, the game will be at a Harvard facility that is in Allston. I don't know the boundaries of Allston, but I think we can be pretty confident that the only two soccer-capable facilities Harvard has in Allston are Harvard Stadium and Ohiri Field. Well, there's also a practice field adjacent to Ohiri, but I imagine Ohiri would come before that field. My guess is that they're pretty sure it's going to be at Harvard Stadium, but they're leaving themselves some wiggle room to use Ohiri if the Soldier's Field project will make it not available. Boston's average home attendance for the 2014 season was 2033, according to Wikipedia, so doesn't sound far off from what Ohiri might be able to hold, especially with some portable bleachers brought in. And, according to Wikipedia, it has held as many as 5200 fans for NCAA tournament games. If 5,200 is a good number, then it might be preferable in any event to what seems to me an abysmal Harvard Stadium.
No, there is also Soldier's Field Soccer Stadium, which I already mentioned. It is an artificial turf pitch with permanent seating for 1000 (expandable to 2500), lights, and a press box opened in 2010. It is just west of Harvard Stadium. Wikipedia is wrong. They averaged 2437, with a max of 4191 and a minimum of 1263.
You are the expert on this. It actually looks like a pretty nice field. So, maybe all three fields are possibilities.
I'd have to imagine that if they plan to play at Harvard during the renovations that the choice would be Soldiers Field Soccer Stadium. That is where the Revs hosted an Open Cup game a couple years ago - http://www.revolutionsoccer.net/news/2013/06/revolution-roll-us-open-cup-harvard. That or Ohiri would be probably be just fine for their needs.