How did a conversation about Maryland getting bent out of shape about Georgetown go so far offbase, as if I didn't know?

(02-23-2012 09:21 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  How many times do i have to explain this? The SI ranking is based primarily on accomplishments from a half-century ago, and sadly for Cincy, that was well before college basketball became a big-time sport, so it doesn't help your brand identity much at all, if any,

There is simply no denying that as an athletic program, Cincy is clearly much lower-profile than UK, IU, or OS. And that is why they don't want to play you. You would gain more from those games in terms of building brand visibility than they would.

North Carolina played us three times in the 1990's, Indiana, Michigan State and Duke twice. Kentucky even did once (but they've been done with us ever since).

The only time OSU has played us in the last half-century was in 2006 - Mick Cronin's first year, where our program was obviously weakened.

Top shelf programs will play you when they think it is in their interest to play you. This should not be difficult to understand....

(02-23-2012 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ...the SI ranking is based primarily on accomplishments from a half-century ago, and sadly for Cincy, that was well before college basketball became a big-time sport, so it doesn't help your brand identity much at all, if any

Just to put this out there, speaking of a half-century ago in hoops... Ohio State has made only 1 non-vacated Final Four since the 60's (only 2 non-vacated Elite 8's in the past 40 years)... their only national title was before Cincy won their two... their #12 rank definitely feeds off the Havlicek/ Jerry Lucas era...

(02-23-2012 10:54 AM)billyjack Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ...the SI ranking is based primarily on accomplishments from a half-century ago, and sadly for Cincy, that was well before college basketball became a big-time sport, so it doesn't help your brand identity much at all, if any

Just to put this out there, speaking of a half-century ago in hoops... Ohio State has made only 1 non-vacated Final Four since the 60's... their only national title was before Cincy won their two... their #12 rank definitely feeds off the Havlicek/ Jerry Lucas era...

No question about that. But, thanks to football and their status as a major flagship university, Ohio State has always maintained a very high overall athletic profile, and this rubs off onto their basketball as well.

They therefore have "big time" status while Cincy does not, even though their actual historical and contemporary basketball accomplishments are similar.

(02-23-2012 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 10:54 AM)billyjack Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ...the SI ranking is based primarily on accomplishments from a half-century ago, and sadly for Cincy, that was well before college basketball became a big-time sport, so it doesn't help your brand identity much at all, if any

Just to put this out there, speaking of a half-century ago in hoops... Ohio State has made only 1 non-vacated Final Four since the 60's... their only national title was before Cincy won their two... their #12 rank definitely feeds off the Havlicek/ Jerry Lucas era...

No question about that. But, thanks to football and their status as a major flagship university, Ohio State has always maintained a very high overall athletic profile, and this rubs off onto their basketball as well.

There will always be people / programs who think there shi does not stink.

They therefore have "big time" status while Cincy does not, even though their actual historical and contemporary basketball accomplishments are similar.

(02-21-2012 02:37 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Maryland is cash-strapped in athletics, is dropping eight sports and after years of not wanting a series, now, they're supposedly all for it. Unfortunately, you don't negotiate by threats.

Follow the money.

http://dc.sbnation.com/maryland-terrapin...allace-loh

How is this even possible for a major conference flagship university?

(02-26-2012 01:26 AM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 02:37 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Maryland is cash-strapped in athletics, is dropping eight sports and after years of not wanting a series, now, they're supposedly all for it. Unfortunately, you don't negotiate by threats.

Follow the money.

http://dc.sbnation.com/maryland-terrapin...allace-loh

How is this even possible for a major conference flagship university?

Massive facilities upgrades in many sports whilst the football and basketball teams fell on hard times, reducing ticket revenue and donations from those breadwinner sports.

(02-23-2012 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 10:54 AM)billyjack Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ...the SI ranking is based primarily on accomplishments from a half-century ago, and sadly for Cincy, that was well before college basketball became a big-time sport, so it doesn't help your brand identity much at all, if any

Just to put this out there, speaking of a half-century ago in hoops... Ohio State has made only 1 non-vacated Final Four since the 60's... their only national title was before Cincy won their two... their #12 rank definitely feeds off the Havlicek/ Jerry Lucas era...

No question about that. But, thanks to football and their status as a major flagship university, Ohio State has always maintained a very high overall athletic profile, and this rubs off onto their basketball as well.

They therefore have "big time" status while Cincy does not, even though their actual historical and contemporary basketball accomplishments are similar.

yup and despite what you are trying to say, stats show you to be wrong...yet again.

You say we are not "big time" in hoops, yet Sports Illustrated rated us as #10 best basketball program all time. They came to that conclusion using stats....you on the other hand use your "gut", and a dart board....this is why nobody in this forum takes what you say seriously...you talk a lot, but usually stats disprove your points. But thanks for sharing your ideas on brand...so noted.

At the end of they day we are two guys with two diffrerent opinions...the difference is, the opinion I hold also has the backing of stats, Sports Illustrated's opinion, and the opinion of most people while you hold a minority opinion based on your own idea of brand, stats and historical data aside. Which is fine...you are entitled to your own opinion. You say we are not big time, I say we are. The fact that OSU won't play us doesn't prove anything other than they are scared...they play most other schools in the state, so your point that they won't play us because they don't see the value is not valid because apparently they see the value in playing Akron, Toledo, and Youngstown state in hoops, but not a team in the Big East, which really doesn't make sense using your logic. It does however make perfect sense that they won't play us because they have had an "issue" with UC ever since we beat them two times in a row for the national title. That clearly shows a chicken%^& approach rather than they don't see "value".
Again, I say we are big time, you say we are not. We will have to agree to disagree....

(02-26-2012 12:05 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 10:54 AM)billyjack Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ...the SI ranking is based primarily on accomplishments from a half-century ago, and sadly for Cincy, that was well before college basketball became a big-time sport, so it doesn't help your brand identity much at all, if any

Just to put this out there, speaking of a half-century ago in hoops... Ohio State has made only 1 non-vacated Final Four since the 60's... their only national title was before Cincy won their two... their #12 rank definitely feeds off the Havlicek/ Jerry Lucas era...

No question about that. But, thanks to football and their status as a major flagship university, Ohio State has always maintained a very high overall athletic profile, and this rubs off onto their basketball as well.

They therefore have "big time" status while Cincy does not, even though their actual historical and contemporary basketball accomplishments are similar.

yup and despite what you are trying to say, stats show you to be wrong...yet again.

You say we are not "big time" in hoops, yet Sports Illustrated rated us as #10 best basketball program all time. They came to that conclusion using stats....you on the other hand use your "gut", and a dart board....this is why nobody in this forum takes what you say seriously...you talk a lot, but usually stats disprove your points. But thanks for sharing your ideas on brand...so noted.

At the end of they day we are two guys with two diffrerent opinions...the difference is, the opinion I hold also has the backing of stats, Sports Illustrated's opinion, and the opinion of most people ...

Why are you so willfully blind? Sports Illustrated rankings mean nothing because it is based on accomplishments from a half-century ago. That was already explained to you.

It is indisputably true that Cincinnati is simply not in the same class of big-time brand-name as is Ohio State. It doesn't matter how many times Bearcats fans tell themselves otherwise, that is the way it is.

And it explains Ohio State reticence about playing you: Akron is also not big time, but Akron also isn't a threat to win a game either. Cincy is, so there is no upside for Ohio State to play you.

(02-26-2012 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 12:05 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 10:54 AM)billyjack Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ...the SI ranking is based primarily on accomplishments from a half-century ago, and sadly for Cincy, that was well before college basketball became a big-time sport, so it doesn't help your brand identity much at all, if any

Just to put this out there, speaking of a half-century ago in hoops... Ohio State has made only 1 non-vacated Final Four since the 60's... their only national title was before Cincy won their two... their #12 rank definitely feeds off the Havlicek/ Jerry Lucas era...

No question about that. But, thanks to football and their status as a major flagship university, Ohio State has always maintained a very high overall athletic profile, and this rubs off onto their basketball as well.

They therefore have "big time" status while Cincy does not, even though their actual historical and contemporary basketball accomplishments are similar.

yup and despite what you are trying to say, stats show you to be wrong...yet again.

You say we are not "big time" in hoops, yet Sports Illustrated rated us as #10 best basketball program all time. They came to that conclusion using stats....you on the other hand use your "gut", and a dart board....this is why nobody in this forum takes what you say seriously...you talk a lot, but usually stats disprove your points. But thanks for sharing your ideas on brand...so noted.

At the end of they day we are two guys with two diffrerent opinions...the difference is, the opinion I hold also has the backing of stats, Sports Illustrated's opinion, and the opinion of most people ...

Why are you so willfully blind? Sports Illustrated rankings mean nothing because it is based on accomplishments from a half-century ago. That was already explained to you.

It is indisputably true that Cincinnati is simply not in the same class of big-time brand-name as is Ohio State. It doesn't matter how many times Bearcats fans tell themselves otherwise, that is the way it is.

And it explains Ohio State reticence about playing you: Akron is also not big time, but Akron also isn't a threat to win a game either. Cincy is, so there is no upside for Ohio State to play you.

actually they listed what metrics they used for the rankings...was things like ncaa tourny apperances over several decades, multiple final fours, national titles, all americans, etc. So it was a complete picture of what a program has done from the past to the present...but again, you don't know this so you pull crap out of your butt to prove your points...you are worse than that fat pig rush limbaugh

as for your osu comment: yet programs like UNC, Duke, Kansas, etc all don't have a problem playing us....nice try you lose

(02-26-2012 10:05 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 12:05 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 10:54 AM)billyjack Wrote:  Just to put this out there, speaking of a half-century ago in hoops... Ohio State has made only 1 non-vacated Final Four since the 60's... their only national title was before Cincy won their two... their #12 rank definitely feeds off the Havlicek/ Jerry Lucas era...

No question about that. But, thanks to football and their status as a major flagship university, Ohio State has always maintained a very high overall athletic profile, and this rubs off onto their basketball as well.

They therefore have "big time" status while Cincy does not, even though their actual historical and contemporary basketball accomplishments are similar.

yup and despite what you are trying to say, stats show you to be wrong...yet again.

You say we are not "big time" in hoops, yet Sports Illustrated rated us as #10 best basketball program all time. They came to that conclusion using stats....you on the other hand use your "gut", and a dart board....this is why nobody in this forum takes what you say seriously...you talk a lot, but usually stats disprove your points. But thanks for sharing your ideas on brand...so noted.

At the end of they day we are two guys with two diffrerent opinions...the difference is, the opinion I hold also has the backing of stats, Sports Illustrated's opinion, and the opinion of most people ...

Why are you so willfully blind? Sports Illustrated rankings mean nothing because it is based on accomplishments from a half-century ago. That was already explained to you.

It is indisputably true that Cincinnati is simply not in the same class of big-time brand-name as is Ohio State. It doesn't matter how many times Bearcats fans tell themselves otherwise, that is the way it is.

And it explains Ohio State reticence about playing you: Akron is also not big time, but Akron also isn't a threat to win a game either. Cincy is, so there is no upside for Ohio State to play you.

actually they listed what metrics they used for the rankings...was things like ncaa tourny apperances over several decades, multiple final fours, national titles, all americans, etc. So it was a complete picture of what a program has done from the past to the present...but again, you don't know this so you pull crap out of your butt to prove your points...you are worse than that fat pig rush limbaugh

as for your osu comment: yet programs like UNC, Duke, Kansas, etc all don't have a problem playing us....nice try you lose

Bearcats, you can't possibly believe that Cincy has done anything of a "complete picture" nature in the past 50 years to warrant being anywhere near the all-time top 10? Obviously, whatever points system SI used, the GREAT BULK of Cincy's points came from the two national titles 50 years ago, so stop playing dumb.

As for those other big-time programs, i already explained that to you: Cincy is not anywhere near Duke, Kansas, or UNC. Cincy doesn't potentially compete for the loyalties of Kansas and North Carolina viewers, sponsorship money, etc. On the other hand, Ohio State has no interest in helping build up a brand and program just 100 or so miles down the road. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Steve, I've got to jump in here. During Bobby Huggins time in Cincinnati, the Bearcats were nationally ranked every year, and a lock for the NCAA tourney. It was merely bad luck, and injuries, that kept him from winning a title at Cincinnati...

On this argument, you're so far off base as to be in another universe...

(02-27-2012 09:53 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Steve, I've got to jump in here. During Bobby Huggins time in Cincinnati, the Bearcats were nationally ranked every year, and a lock for the NCAA tourney. It was merely bad luck, and injuries, that kept him from winning a title at Cincinnati...

On this argument, you're so far off base as to be in another universe...

Jamie, i'm well aware that Huggins crafted a powerful program at Cincinatti.

Nevertheless, the BULK of their national accomplishments came 50 years ago:

Both national titles came 50+ years ago
5 of their 6 Final 4 appearances came before 1964

Yes, Cincy has made the big dance numerous times since then and were a fixture in the tournament between 92-05 under the Huggins regime. Nevertheless, in any points system used for making an all-time list, surely it is the elite-level stuff, Final 4s and national titles, that must count by far the most, and as i said, Cincy's elite accomplishments date from the pre-UCLA dynasty era, when college basketball was FAR less prominent in the national sports firmament. They thus garner LITTLE brand-cache from that today.

Like it or not, Cincy is NOT a first-tier college basketball brand in today's world.

As usual, i am right.

Quo

Dude uh, during Huggins time at UC we were ranked just about every year, many times top 10 and we started the year ranked #1 twice. We also beat #1 Duke in the best Alaska shootout and beat many ranked teams during this time. Huggs made some nice runs in the ncaa, had multiple all americans (Van Exel, Jones, Wingfield, Fortson, Martin, Mikael, Logan etc etc etc) and had #1 recruiting class in the nation multiple times. During this time we also averaged around 12-15 nationally televised games per year and this was when you basically had nbc, cbs, espn, and espn2 only. We also played in special Feb tourney vs top 25 teams every year (7up shootout, etc) which was reserved for top 25 programs that people wanted to see. etc etc etc etc etc

You don't get it...if all this isn't "big time" in the past 15 years, I'm not sure you understand what big time is....

your knowledge of anything UC is staggering yet you continue to argue....you look like a moron to me, bit, and everyone else. Please do us a favor and stop, you are embarassing yourself on this one.

Quo I do not pretend nor have I said we are first tier....that would be limited to a few schools: duke, uk, unc, ucla, ku

I'm taking issue with your use of "small time" and UC and also crafting a picture that OSU won't play us because we are "small time"...that's bs. We were much larger than OSU during Huggins time, for most of Huggins tenture at UC, UC was ranked and OSU was not...therefore to say OSU had nothing to gain by playing UC is simply not true. If anything we had nothing to gain by playing them during this time...we were bringing in highly rated classes, they were not. We were ranked, they were not, we made the tourney every year, they did not. Reality is, and to MY POINT: they were SCARED.



also it's cincinnati not cincinatti

IMO you're wrong on this one, Steve. But keep up the good fight...

(02-21-2012 01:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Hate to say it, but the Hoyas position here is asinine. There is no good reason not to play Maryland in men's basketball. We should play every year, at the Verizon Center, with equal ticket distribution.

Why on Earth should Georgetown schedule a game in their home arena and give the visiting team half of the tickets? It's not like the Verizon Center is significantly bigger than the Comcast Center (20k vs. 18k).

All that said, my alma mater is known for making stupid decisons. Unfortuantley, they have just done it again.

(02-22-2012 02:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... which was a pointless thing to do, since i called Cincy a "small-time" program in relation to UK, Indiana, and Ohio State, not Georgetown. If you want to keep whining about me referring to the Bearcats as small-time, then do so in the context that i used the term, not your own stupid and meaningless context.

You are fighting a losign battle here. You will nto get anyone to agree with you that Cinciannit is a "small time" program compared to anybody. They may not be on the level of the "Big Six" programs, but are generally considered to be in that second tier of programs, whcih includes the likes of Louisville, Michigan State, UConn, Syracuse, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St, etc, the 7-15 programs. They are most certainly in that area by just about any assessment (save for the ESPN one that mysteriously starts with when Duke became hot again in the mid 80's).

(02-27-2012 11:41 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Quo I do not pretend nor have I said we are first tier....that would be limited to a few schools: duke, uk, unc, ucla, ku

I'm taking issue with your use of "small time" and UC and also crafting a picture that OSU won't play us because we are "small time"...that's bs. We were much larger than OSU during Huggins time, for most of Huggins tenture at UC, UC was ranked and OSU was not...therefore to say OSU had nothing to gain by playing UC is simply not true. If anything we had nothing to gain by playing them during this time...we were bringing in highly rated classes, they were not. We were ranked, they were not, we made the tourney every year, they did not. Reality is, and to MY POINT: they were SCARED.

Half of your point is correct: They do not want to play you because they do not want to help build up another school that is in the state of Ohio. If you want to call that "scared", the go ahead. But it's also completely rational.

But the part you are wrong about is Cincy's status. Regardless of your actual on-court accomplishments, which are impressive, you do not have the brand-name recognition of Ohio State. If you did, they would have to play you, like Florida has to play Florida State in football, and Kentucky has to play Louisville in basketball. The powers that be, including TV networks, would demand it.

In contrast, Cincy, being a relatively lower-profile school, needs to win, or else you quickly slip back into the anonymous pack of mid-level teams, which is what has happened since Huggins left. Even in years where Cincy was ranked and OSU was not, OSU had absolutely no need of you, since their status as a big-time college athletic program is assured, and does not vary depending on a given year's successes or failures on the court.

But because you are at a much lower level of visibility, OSU can safely ignore you, which they do.

(02-27-2012 02:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 01:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Hate to say it, but the Hoyas position here is asinine. There is no good reason not to play Maryland in men's basketball. We should play every year, at the Verizon Center, with equal ticket distribution.

Why on Earth should Georgetown schedule a game in their home arena and give the visiting team half of the tickets?

Since they can only play once a year, i think the game should always be formally neutral-site, and Verizon, even though formally the home of Georgetown, is a good place to play the game on an annual basis.