I think that they practiced during the day at Travis Field a lot. They would probably do that again since the field would be getting used until the evening.tbone94 said:
Where will the bombers hold their practices?
Brazos Valley Bombers - COCS baseball diamond.[Staff edit 5/29/25]
40,063 Views |
327 Replies |
Last: 24 days ago by EBrazosAg
Once the season starts, not a lot of practicing going on.
BCSWguru said:
Once the season starts, not a lot of practicing going on.
As I understand it these summer ball leagues are just for the kids to get reps and scouts to have a place to go watch them play. Not much coaching outside of in-game or practicing going on.
Yep. I remember they had early morning and afternoon throwing, infield, and hitting sessions. It seemed like they just worked on what they felt like. Not a lot of structure.Tailgate88 said:BCSWguru said:
Once the season starts, not a lot of practicing going on.
As I understand it these summer ball leagues are just for the kids to get reps and scouts to have a place to go watch them play. Not much coaching outside of in-game or practicing going on.
Unfamiliar with the GPA's of most college baseball players, huh?AggiePhil said:
I've never liked the name. Doesn't make any sense, IMO. Sounds like there's a stigma too. Maybe it's time for a total rename and rebrand. Call them the Aggieland Academics.
Gig 'Em
maroon barchetta
Joined:
Sep 28, 2021
Posts:
41,748
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's not nice
Incoming....
College Station Engineers
It has tie ins to both the railroad history of the town, and A&M as an engineering school. Also a little less on the nose than "Academics".
College Station Taj Mahal's
I still like the Bombers and don't think a name change is necessary. I just felt clever with the hypothetical.
CStat Big Spenders
Municipal Realtors
CS OPMs
High Appraisals
Utility Taxers
Take your pick.
Municipal Realtors
CS OPMs
High Appraisals
Utility Taxers
Take your pick.
Pro College Station Convention Center
I don't dislike it! You know, we call ourselves "The heart of the research valley" but you'd think we were "The heart of prairies, forests, creeks, and groves inhabited exclusively by big cats and birds of prey," based on the names of our schools and mascots. Would be neat to have some names that give a subtle nod to the reason for our existence.Sub4 said:
College Station Engineers
It has tie ins to both the railroad history of the town, and A&M as an engineering school. Also a little less on the nose than "Academics".
Sub4 said:
College Station Engineers
It has tie ins to both the railroad history of the town, and A&M as an engineering school. Also a little less on the nose than "Academics".
The Spirit of '02, the Cannon fired at football games, offers history, alliteration, and the double entendre of a Cannon, and a pitcher's arm.
I hold to the College Station Cannons :-)
But the Bombers is cool, too
Respectfully
Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
trouble said:
That's not nice
It is accurate….
They look better than most football players
Basketball were the worst when I was a tutor. We had one that could not read. Like he could sound it out, but zero reading comprehension.
Renames are bad for a brand and only done if it's no longer politically correct to call them that (Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Rebels, etc.), if there's some sort of pending lawsuit, or, in some cases, the existing stigma is so bad that a rename could only improve things.AggiePhil said:
I've never liked the name. Doesn't make any sense, IMO. Sounds like there's a stigma too. Maybe it's time for a total rename and rebrand. Call them the Aggieland Academics.
The Brazos Valley Bombers have had four different names throughout the years.PS3D said:Renames are bad for a brand and only done if it's no longer politically correct to call them that (Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Rebels, etc.), if there's some sort of pending lawsuit, or, in some cases, the existing stigma is so bad that a rename could only improve things.AggiePhil said:
I've never liked the name. Doesn't make any sense, IMO. Sounds like there's a stigma too. Maybe it's time for a total rename and rebrand. Call them the Aggieland Academics.
The 1950s incarnation of the Bombers changed from the Greenville Majors to Bryan Bombers to Bryan Indians to Del Rio Bombers all within a period of two years; unsurprisingly they folded soon after.AggiePhil said:The Brazos Valley Bombers have had four different names throughout the years.PS3D said:Renames are bad for a brand and only done if it's no longer politically correct to call them that (Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Rebels, etc.), if there's some sort of pending lawsuit, or, in some cases, the existing stigma is so bad that a rename could only improve things.AggiePhil said:
I've never liked the name. Doesn't make any sense, IMO. Sounds like there's a stigma too. Maybe it's time for a total rename and rebrand. Call them the Aggieland Academics.
In either case, renames are bad for brands and if the Bombers were rebranded you'd get three theories as to why they did that:
1) "Bombers" as a name is somehow offensive
2) There was some sort of trademark dispute
3) Uri Geva is pulling some sort of stunt with ulterior motives
It doesn't matter if the answer is none of these, but you'll never get the public to believe otherwise.
Does anyone legitimately believe the Championship Field is being built to add capacity for little leaguers?
Brian Alg
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
No
Brian Alg said:
Does anyone legitimately believe the Championship Field is being built to add capacity for little leaguers?
No idea on Little League but there have been many requests to increase capacity so we could host tournaments for older kids. There is a lot of baseball played between LL and college.
Is it seriously being built to subsidize tournament hosting? Do tournaments need a field with amenities like they are talking about with the Championship Field? Are there other tournament venues that have that kind of thing?Tailgate88 said:Brian Alg said:
Does anyone legitimately believe the Championship Field is being built to add capacity for little leaguers?
No idea on Little League but there have been many requests to increase capacity so we could host tournaments for older kids. There is a lot of baseball played between LL and college.
Brian Alg
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
Brian Alg said:
Does anyone legitimately believe the Championship Field is being built to add capacity for little leaguers?
Mayors interview: increased capacity for little league because older teams will be playing on the new fields freeing up other fields for little league play.
So no. Also, it is counter to the plan of bringing in more games for those fields (starting with bombers). If the fields are used by new games and not used for shifting games from other little league fields, there will not be extra capacity for little league.
That's the thing that I find so odd about this. Proponents are saying (these are paraphrase attempts)
But they are the ones who get priority access to what appears to be a built-to-spec Championship Field. Why else are they building a ~$10 mil facility without solid plans of how it is going to be used? Who the hell commits to that kind of an investment and says "Hey, in two years we are going to have this $10 mil facility laying around and we haven't figured out what to do with it yet. Want to rent it?" I find that story hard to believe
It doesn't add up. They aren't bothering to make a coherent case. It feels very Macy's-like where the decision makers are going forward to spend a boatload of taxpayer money to acquire the asset without making any commitments with respect to what it will be used for (except for the Bombers).
I don't see why they are not willing to give a more solid idea of what the benefits of the thing are before moving forward.
Quote:
We're not building it for the Bombers
But they are the ones who get priority access to what appears to be a built-to-spec Championship Field. Why else are they building a ~$10 mil facility without solid plans of how it is going to be used? Who the hell commits to that kind of an investment and says "Hey, in two years we are going to have this $10 mil facility laying around and we haven't figured out what to do with it yet. Want to rent it?" I find that story hard to believe
But tournaments don't bring in much money to the general fund where all this is coming from. Why are taxpayers subsidizing them? If anyone legit disputes this, I'd be excited to analyze the numbers with you. I might be missing something. But everything from the city and everything I can find online points that direction.Quote:
This is for tournaments.
But they are talking about bringing in tournaments which apparently are currently pushing little leaguers out of the fields we have. If community access, which is treated as invaluable, is a priority, why aren't the resources spent in a way that targets community needs (little leaguer fields) with priority access given to community needs (instead of Bombers and tournaments for non-residents, etc.)?Quote:
This is for little leaguers
It doesn't add up. They aren't bothering to make a coherent case. It feels very Macy's-like where the decision makers are going forward to spend a boatload of taxpayer money to acquire the asset without making any commitments with respect to what it will be used for (except for the Bombers).
I don't see why they are not willing to give a more solid idea of what the benefits of the thing are before moving forward.
Brian Alg
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
This is kind of where I am at with this whole thing too. I have said the same thing; "It doesn't add up."Brian Alg said:
It doesn't add up. They aren't bothering to make a coherent case. It feels very Macy's-like where the decision makers are going forward to spend a boatload of taxpayer money to acquire the asset without making any commitments with respect to what it will be used for (except for the Bombers).
I don't see why they are not willing to give a more solid idea of what the benefits of the thing are before moving forward.
With the ball field in Bryan renovated for the new team coming in; will the Bombers even survive? I was at the Chamber of Commerce Founders night a week ago and they had fireworks going on at the ballpark in Bryan. I still think we had more cars in the parking lot of Legends Event Center for the chamber event.
How does another team coming in to Bryan affect ticket sales and concessions when that may be a part of the calculated revenue stream from having the Bombers, if they can stay afloat.
My kids played on the Calvary traveling soccer team in addition to high school soccer. While we do have the capacity to host large scale soccer tournaments here; the majority of Calvary games were played in the big soccer complexes in Tomball and Round Rock. That is because the number of participants from BCS are nowhere near the amount of teams that come from the larger metro's.
If there are 5x more teams in the Houston or Austin metro; we go to them, versus the other way around. And traveling baseball is more expensive than soccer. So I would imagine all those parents trying to save extra travel expenses have a much louder voice than the smaller numbers up here.
After watching the KBTX story that dubi posted; the guy representing the new team said something that got my attention. The guy said (paraphrasing) 'When I saw the RFP; I jumped on it..." That made me wonder how long the City of Bryan had an official Request for Proposal out there to the public for development of the ballpark.
I couldn't find out too much, but I found an article from May 23 and after reading it, some of the information that came out at the beginning has a bit of a different context now. The first paragraph pasted reminds me that College Station already had a deal done. When did all this take place and who was involved?
The second paragraph just contrasts the actions of the two cities. - Bryan at last had public feedback, at a council meeting I assume. Then it amended its agreement and generated an RFP for a private entity to invest in the new ballpark. College Station on the other hand; seems to have had a deal in place before any public announcement. And the first announcement seems to be from the Bomber social media versus our city officials. How long did everyone on the council and staff know about this, and when was the deal done -- also when did negotiations with the City of College Station start ?
Two paragraphs and link below:
"As part of the development, College Station has already sanctioned a $1.6 million contract to design three new baseball fields, including a dedicated "championship facility." This facility is set to replicate many of the amenities found in the Bombers' existing venue at Travis Field in Bryan."
"Currently, the Bombers operate under an exclusive use agreement at Bryan's Travis Field. However, this arrangement faced scrutiny earlier this year when the Bryan City Council contemplated its termination. Following public feedback, the council modified the agreement instead. The new terms permit the city to solicit requests for proposals (RFPs) to secure a permanent operator for Travis Field while still allowing the Bombers to continue utilizing the field."
https://www.herecollegestation.com/brazos-valley-bombers-relocation/
From the proposed budget. KBTX reported that the new budget includes "$8.4 million for new baseball fields."
That isn't exactly wrong, but it leaves room for confusion.
Page 11 of the Proposed Budget for FY26 says "Parks projects, including new City Baseball Fields, need $8.4M in appropriations." which is where I think KBTX got their number from.
Page 106 shows that there is $12MM committed to the ballfields in the FY25 budget and an additional $8 million budgeted for FY26 for a total of $20MM. I suspect some of that includes the ~$1.5 million in design costs.
The Proposed Budget (185 page PDF warning):
https://blog.cstx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FY26-Proposed-Budget-Document.pdf
That isn't exactly wrong, but it leaves room for confusion.
Page 11 of the Proposed Budget for FY26 says "Parks projects, including new City Baseball Fields, need $8.4M in appropriations." which is where I think KBTX got their number from.
Page 106 shows that there is $12MM committed to the ballfields in the FY25 budget and an additional $8 million budgeted for FY26 for a total of $20MM. I suspect some of that includes the ~$1.5 million in design costs.
The Proposed Budget (185 page PDF warning):
https://blog.cstx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FY26-Proposed-Budget-Document.pdf
Brian Alg
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
Bryan should wait till the team moves to CS and becomes the College Station Cannons. Bryan should then name the new team coming to Bryan's Travis Field as the Bryan Bombers on Bomber Drive. Bryan Bombers was the name of the pro team that played in the same park, Bomber Park in the late 40's and early 50's, now Travis Field.
The new team coming to Bryan was written about in the Eagle newspaper in the last couple days. Bryan was pretty shrewd to get rid of the Cannons and replace them with a new team on better terms. And good riddance to the "Cannons," a financial liability, who are now on to what they think will be greener tax payer funded pastures in CS.
The new team coming to Bryan was written about in the Eagle newspaper in the last couple days. Bryan was pretty shrewd to get rid of the Cannons and replace them with a new team on better terms. And good riddance to the "Cannons," a financial liability, who are now on to what they think will be greener tax payer funded pastures in CS.
Went to a Bombers game over the weekend and it was sparsely attended. You would have thought from the public outcry that the stands would have been packed, but they weren't. Also, the fields and the facility were in pretty rough shape almost to the point you wanted to make sure your tetanus shot was current. Not sure what College Station thinks its gaining but maybe the greater fool theory will prevail.
Rusty posted about the potential new team in Bryan and the owner's history of legal issues…
The comments on his post are pretty good.
Being A&M's military history and current Corps, I think staying with the Bombers would be best.Bob Yancy said:Sub4 said:
College Station Engineers
It has tie ins to both the railroad history of the town, and A&M as an engineering school. Also a little less on the nose than "Academics".
The Spirit of '02, the Cannon fired at football games, offers history, alliteration, and the double entendre of a Cannon, and a pitcher's arm.
I hold to the College Station Cannons :-)
But the Bombers is cool, too
Respectfully
Yancy '95
Smells like a hit piece dropped in Rusty's lap from the Bombers owner.