+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Archives (/forum-400.html)
+----- Forum: AACbbs Archives (/forum-418.html)
+------ Forum: Cincinnati Archives (/forum-932.html)
+------ Thread: Jamelle Elliott (/thread-773668.html)
Pages: 1 2
Jamelle Elliott - CliftonAve - 03-11-2016 11:27 AM
Nice article from Chris Bains.
UCF fired this WBB coach earlier this week. I few other schools have also canned their coach. IIRC Elliott has a couple years left on her contract. Anyone hearing anything about whether UC intends to make a move or are they just going to let her coach through the expiration?
https://t.co/CBA8EqMAlu
RE: Jamelle Elliott - doss2 - 03-11-2016 07:03 PM
She is an embarrassment. Bring back Pirtle!
RE: Jamelle Elliott - bearcat54 - 03-12-2016 03:20 PM
(03-11-2016 07:03 PM)doss2 Wrote: She is an embarrassment. Bring back Pirtle!
all I can say is.....' GIVE US BARRABBAS !!!!!!!!
RE: Jamelle Elliott - doss2 - 03-13-2016 09:17 AM
Let's compare UC's WBB coach to UCF's:
UCF
9 years
2 NCAA
2 winning seasons
Record 114-163 Conference 59-91
UC
7 years
No NCAA
No winning seasons
Record 78-134 Conference 26-79
I doubt any of us GABRA except it does not look good in light of trying to get into a P5.
The trajectory is definitely downhill. Time to move on.
RE: Jamelle Elliott - Bearcats#1 - 03-13-2016 11:40 AM
(03-13-2016 09:17 AM)doss2 Wrote: Let's compare UC's WBB coach to UCF's:
UCF
9 years
2 NCAA
2 winning seasons
Record 114-163 Conference 59-91
UC
7 years
No NCAA
No winning seasons
Record 78-134 Conference 26-79
I doubt any of us GABRA except it does not look good in light of trying to get into a P5.
The trajectory is definitely downhill. Time to move on.
look, elliot needs to go, no doubt but....not really a fair comparison. Elliot did coach in the Big East for a while which was a lot tougher than the AAC. Rutgers, Depaul, and several other programs were really good yearly in women's hoops in addition to UCONN of course.
RE: Jamelle Elliott - QSECOFR - 03-13-2016 12:55 PM
If the UC women's team won 20 games per year and got to the NCAA tournament 50% of the time, would attendance increase? If not, it doesn't matter who the coach is.
RE: Jamelle Elliott - Bearcats#1 - 03-13-2016 12:59 PM
(03-13-2016 12:55 PM)QSECOFR Wrote: If the UC women's team won 20 games per year and got to the NCAA tournament 50% of the time, would attendance increase? If not, it doesn't matter who the coach is.
You never know. Off the cuff I say no, but again, you never know. I would say they would have to be good for a while (multiple 20 win seasons and maybe make a big run to grab attention) and then, yeah, I could see it. Would it ever get like at UCONN...eh, doubt it. Too many options for sports fans. They would have to be elite to start drawing even 5k-7k a game. When I say elite I mean final four multiple years in a row and big recruiting classes, etc.
edit: a good program to look at would be Depaul women's hoops. How do they draw? I don't know but might get an idea from that. Depaul is a really good woman's program in Chicago. Or even Rutgers women's team. How well do they draw? Using UCONN, or Tenn or La Tech isn't really a good comparison because they are in areas where there is zero to do.
edit2: I looked it up. The numbers, from 2014, show ave attendance nationally for women's hoops that year was ~1500. Depaul women's team averaged ~2600.
The really good attendance teams, UCONN, Tenn, UofL, ND, Mich St, Baylor, Neb, were all 6,000-11,000. Notice these schools are in areas where this isn't much to do, as I already said.
Rutgers wasn't on the list of top top 50 and the worst team on the top 50 was at ~2,000 which means RU was less than that. And they have a good women's program.
bottom line...eh, best we could probably hope for was 2,000 a game. Is it worth it? You make the call.
RE: Jamelle Elliott - bearcatmill - 03-13-2016 01:09 PM
Trying to have a good women's bball team is not a bad thing. I am sure there are younger girls in the local area, who would follow them. If they reached the level of success of a UConn, Rutgers,or TN some casual fans would check out a game or two. I know I would take my niece.
RE: Jamelle Elliott - doss2 - 03-13-2016 06:43 PM
Personally I think WBB should be a club sport but Title 9 says everyone must be equal. Liberal BS. Equal results, participation trophies, safe place, never say anything hurtful.
RE: Jamelle Elliott - doss2 - 03-13-2016 06:45 PM
Boehiem said they dug there way out of hole. Really? Losing 5 of last 6 is that digger out?
Jamelle Elliott - BearcatnKY - 03-13-2016 07:20 PM
Admission was free this year...what were the attendance numbers?
Meanwhile, TMC is on a 64 game win streak and I doubt anyone not involved with the school or team could tell you.
I just think this area doesn't have a great women's basketball desire on any level. No one grows up seeing anything close to a Uconn/ND/Tennessee.
Which sucks since I have a daughter that I would like to have play when she grows up.
RE: Jamelle Elliott - JackieTreehorn - 03-13-2016 07:46 PM
(03-13-2016 06:43 PM)doss2 Wrote: Personally I think WBB should be a club sport but Title 9 says everyone must be equal. Liberal BS. Equal results, participation trophies, safe place, never say anything hurtful.
Well, just a guess, but I would bet you think the 19th amendment is liberal BS as well.
RE: Jamelle Elliott - uchoops - 03-13-2016 07:51 PM
(03-13-2016 06:43 PM)doss2 Wrote: Personally I think WBB should be a club sport but Title 9 says everyone must be equal. Liberal BS. Equal results, participation trophies, safe place, never say anything hurtful.
Really????
RE: Jamelle Elliott - Captain Bearcat - 03-13-2016 09:55 PM
(03-13-2016 07:46 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:(03-13-2016 06:43 PM)doss2 Wrote: Personally I think WBB should be a club sport but Title 9 says everyone must be equal. Liberal BS. Equal results, participation trophies, safe place, never say anything hurtful.
Well, just a guess, but I would bet you think the 19th amendment is liberal BS as well.
Back then liberal meant something completely different. It meant laissez-faire economic policies and private ownership of the means of production.
RE: Jamelle Elliott - Captain Bearcat - 03-13-2016 09:57 PM
(03-13-2016 12:55 PM)QSECOFR Wrote: If the UC women's team won 20 games per year and got to the NCAA tournament 50% of the time, would attendance increase? If not, it doesn't matter who the coach is.
Yes, I think it would.
My brother used to date someone who had 3 sisters. Her Dad was sort of baffled over how to raise daughters, so he'd bring them to UC women's basketball games so that they'd have something in common. I'm pretty sure they would have gone to a lot more games during winning years than during losing years.
RE: Jamelle Elliott - CliftonAve - 03-13-2016 10:07 PM
Well, we are paying Elliott a lot of money. If it is not economically feasible to invest in the sport we could hire a high school coach for about a third of what we pay the current coach.
RE: Jamelle Elliott - jarr - 03-14-2016 05:12 AM
The way I look at is pretty simple. WBB is not a money maker and doesn't need to strive to be that. However, it should not be an embarrassment and a black eye. We are running a marathon to get into the P5, and WBB is like a dead cat chained to our ankle
RE: Jamelle Elliott - doss2 - 03-14-2016 07:40 AM
(03-13-2016 07:46 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:(03-13-2016 06:43 PM)doss2 Wrote: Personally I think WBB should be a club sport but Title 9 says everyone must be equal. Liberal BS. Equal results, participation trophies, safe place, never say anything hurtful.
Well, just a guess, but I would bet you think the 19th amendment is liberal BS as well.
My daughter was a High School Soccer and Softball player so I support women's sport but it needs to be in context. I support spending equally after consideration of the revenue generated.
So if a school spends $10,000,000 on men's sports and it generates $9,000,000 in revenues it should spend on women $1,000,000 + women's revenues.
RE: Jamelle Elliott - JackieTreehorn - 03-14-2016 08:16 AM
(03-14-2016 07:40 AM)doss2 Wrote:(03-13-2016 07:46 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:(03-13-2016 06:43 PM)doss2 Wrote: Personally I think WBB should be a club sport but Title 9 says everyone must be equal. Liberal BS. Equal results, participation trophies, safe place, never say anything hurtful.
Well, just a guess, but I would bet you think the 19th amendment is liberal BS as well.
My daughter was a High School Soccer and Softball player so I support women's sport but it needs to be in context. I support spending equally after consideration of the revenue generated.
So if a school spends $10,000,000 on men's sports and it generates $9,000,000 in revenues it should spend on women $1,000,000 + women's revenues.
I guess that's true if you judge the value of something based only on a price tag or the revenue it generates.
RE: Jamelle Elliott - richardk - 03-14-2016 10:59 AM
(03-14-2016 08:16 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:(03-14-2016 07:40 AM)doss2 Wrote:(03-13-2016 07:46 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:(03-13-2016 06:43 PM)doss2 Wrote: Personally I think WBB should be a club sport but Title 9 says everyone must be equal. Liberal BS. Equal results, participation trophies, safe place, never say anything hurtful.
Well, just a guess, but I would bet you think the 19th amendment is liberal BS as well.
My daughter was a High School Soccer and Softball player so I support women's sport but it needs to be in context. I support spending equally after consideration of the revenue generated.
So if a school spends $10,000,000 on men's sports and it generates $9,000,000 in revenues it should spend on women $1,000,000 + women's revenues.
I guess that's true if you judge the value of something based only on a price tag or the revenue it generates.
I don't want to speak for him but I don't think that is exactly what he/it means. First off, this whole business of insisting on everything being equal is silly. If there are 16 female students and 4 males in an English Lit class, do we get rid of 12 women or find 12 males that you force into the class? (Tongue in cheek). How about insisting on a "Male's Studies Department? There should be nothing wrong with taking into account what it costs to run athletics - and what activities generate the revenue that pays for most everything. Most colleges already have more female students than males, so by adding women's rowing there is nothing you are doing to counteract that imbalance, rather, if anything, you would just aggravate it. Need more women in the STEM areas - how about more men in the liberal arts areas? Look I have a daughter with 3 Ivy League degrees so I am hardly against women attending college, but this need for everything to always be absolutely equal is just downright silly - are there more scholarships given for students majoring in engineering or romance languages, women's studies or physics? If the Chem Department generated more revenue from patents, etc., than did archaeology, would there be an objection to Chem giving/having more scholarships?
OK off my soap box and on to the NCAA tourney.
