Danger of being stuck in this conference dwarfs any uncertainty of being in a power conference.

Basketball will survive but the AAC will literally kill off UC football if this is longer than a few years.

Best path to a BCS game? Probably...

I think your aiming for the wrong target, though. BCS games shouldn't be goal #1 over the next 10-15 years. Finding that $25-30 million annual piece of income should be goal #1.

That ain't happenin in the AAC.

(09-18-2013 07:04 AM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  Best path to a BCS game? Probably...

I think your aiming for the wrong target, though. BCS games shouldn't be goal #1 over the next 10-15 years. Finding that $25-30 million annual piece of income should be goal #1.

That ain't happenin in the AAC.

That income piece is critical; both to building football/basketball but also to sustain and grow Olympic sports. Schools consistently competing for national championships in volleyball, soccer and baseball are mostly BCS level programs with the resources to invest over the long term.

(09-17-2013 08:23 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Danger of being stuck in this conference dwarfs any uncertainty of being in a power conference.

Basketball will survive but the AAC will literally kill off UC football if this is longer than a few years.

"literally" kill off UC football. Come on man. We were in a worse conference than this or no conference at all for 95% of our existence and they didn't shut the program down. We're investing millions into renovating the football stadium. Your hyperbole on this issue has gone over the top.

(09-18-2013 07:04 AM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  Best path to a BCS game? Probably...

I think your aiming for the wrong target, though. BCS games shouldn't be goal #1 over the next 10-15 years. Finding that $25-30 million annual piece of income should be goal #1.

That ain't happenin in the AAC.

this

(09-18-2013 07:43 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 08:23 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Danger of being stuck in this conference dwarfs any uncertainty of being in a power conference.

Basketball will survive but the AAC will literally kill off UC football if this is longer than a few years.

"literally" kill off UC football. Come on man. We were in a worse conference than this or no conference at all for 95% of our existence and they didn't shut the program down. We're investing millions into renovating the football stadium. Your hyperbole on this issue has gone over the top.

And I think you are being naive to think otherwise.

With luck, neither of us will have a chance to see who is correct.

(09-18-2013 08:25 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 07:43 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 08:23 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Danger of being stuck in this conference dwarfs any uncertainty of being in a power conference.

Basketball will survive but the AAC will literally kill off UC football if this is longer than a few years.

"literally" kill off UC football. Come on man. We were in a worse conference than this or no conference at all for 95% of our existence and they didn't shut the program down. We're investing millions into renovating the football stadium. Your hyperbole on this issue has gone over the top.

And I think you are being naive to think otherwise.

With luck, neither of us will have a chance to see who is correct.

So you actually think they'll renovate Nippert stadium and then kill off the football team?

(09-18-2013 08:53 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 08:25 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 07:43 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 08:23 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Danger of being stuck in this conference dwarfs any uncertainty of being in a power conference.

Basketball will survive but the AAC will literally kill off UC football if this is longer than a few years.

"literally" kill off UC football. Come on man. We were in a worse conference than this or no conference at all for 95% of our existence and they didn't shut the program down. We're investing millions into renovating the football stadium. Your hyperbole on this issue has gone over the top.

And I think you are being naive to think otherwise.

With luck, neither of us will have a chance to see who is correct.

So you actually think they'll renovate Nippert stadium and then kill off the football team?

The renovation of Nippert is underway as a last ditch effort to avoid serious regression in the football program. Will it be dead? Probably not. But to act like nothing has changed in the college football landscape since UC's CUSA days is extremely naive.

(09-18-2013 09:09 AM)MickMack Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 08:53 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 08:25 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 07:43 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 08:23 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Danger of being stuck in this conference dwarfs any uncertainty of being in a power conference.

Basketball will survive but the AAC will literally kill off UC football if this is longer than a few years.

"literally" kill off UC football. Come on man. We were in a worse conference than this or no conference at all for 95% of our existence and they didn't shut the program down. We're investing millions into renovating the football stadium. Your hyperbole on this issue has gone over the top.

And I think you are being naive to think otherwise.

With luck, neither of us will have a chance to see who is correct.

So you actually think they'll renovate Nippert stadium and then kill off the football team?

The renovation of Nippert is underway as a last ditch effort to avoid serious regression in the football program. Will it be dead? Probably not. But to act like nothing has changed in the college football landscape since UC's CUSA days is extremely naive.

Regression is possible, maybe even likely. You won't get any argument from me on that. Heck, regression is possible even if we moved conferences. Nobody has presented any reason to believe what Rath is suggesting is even a consideration even if that happens though.

Is Rath's theory that everyone who doesn't make a P5 conference will shut down or just UC? Will the entire MAC shut down football as well?

(09-18-2013 09:22 AM)uccheese Wrote:  Regression is possible, maybe even likely. You won't get any argument from me on that. Heck, regression is possible even if we moved conferences. Nobody has presented any reason to believe what Rath is suggesting is even a consideration even if that happens though.

Is Rath's theory that everyone who doesn't make a P5 conference will shut down or just UC? Will the entire MAC shut down football as well?

Rath's theory is not a theory....it is historical. Twice during my time at UC, the University looked at shutting down football. Professors have called for it several times. Last game of the season in 1986 drew less than 1,000 fans - probably closer to 500 - I was one of them.

That's what minor league, underfunded football will get you. It's not a theory, many of us on this board lived through it.

It's always refreshing to see that the doomsdayers haven't lost a step. Around & around we go.

How are all those millions working for [insert very long litany of programs that are bottom feeders in P5 conferences]?!?

Zzzzzzzzzzz.......





mc

(09-18-2013 09:53 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 09:22 AM)uccheese Wrote:  Regression is possible, maybe even likely. You won't get any argument from me on that. Heck, regression is possible even if we moved conferences. Nobody has presented any reason to believe what Rath is suggesting is even a consideration even if that happens though.

Is Rath's theory that everyone who doesn't make a P5 conference will shut down or just UC? Will the entire MAC shut down football as well?

Rath's theory is not a theory....it is historical. Twice during my time at UC, the University looked at shutting down football. Professors have called for it several times. Last game of the season in 1986 drew less than 1,000 fans - probably closer to 500 - I was one of them.

That's what minor league, underfunded football will get you. It's not a theory, many of us on this board lived through it.

It is a theory, it never happened.

(09-18-2013 10:07 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  It is a theory, it never happened.

You are correct...they never disbanded football.

Are you OK then going back to the early 80's through the Rick Minter years? Surely, a few years in the small-revenue AAC will send UC spiraling to those times.

(09-18-2013 10:06 AM)marcuscan Wrote:  It's always refreshing to see that the doomsdayers haven't lost a step. Around & around we go.

How are all those millions working for [insert very long litany of programs that are bottom feeders in P5 conferences]?!?

Zzzzzzzzzzz.......

mc

Actually all those millions have worked very well for all of their non-revenue sports. The Vanderbilt's, Iowa State's, the Washington St's have huge budgets to fund many programs and scholarships.

(09-18-2013 10:10 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 10:07 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  It is a theory, it never happened.

You are correct...they never disbanded football.

Are you OK then going back to the early 80's through the Rick Minter years? Surely, a few years in the small-revenue AAC will send UC spiraling to those times.

1. Maybe instead of this "they will kill off the program" talk we should at least switch over to "it will go back to the 80s". Speaking for myself, I could at least take that opinion seriously (although I don't agree with it).

2. You seem pretty confident about something that is a complete guess. There are tons of differences between now and the 80s, most importantly, the administration's commitment to football and the Nippert renovation.

(09-18-2013 10:10 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 10:07 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  It is a theory, it never happened.

You are correct...they never disbanded football.

Are you OK then going back to the early 80's through the Rick Minter years? Surely, a few years in the small-revenue AAC will send UC spiraling to those times.

Why would you ask me that question when I already posted, in this thread, that UC needs the P5 conference money for the athletic department?

I still think people are confusing two different things, revenue and the ability to compete. Revenue helps a program compete but I wouldn't want to be a bottom tier power conference program.

In the American, UC is going to be one of the stronger programs in the two main sports. Wins bring fans but there is a solid argument that UC football will not take the next step up.

In a power conference UC will be able fund all their sports and recruit higher profile players; however, they might be a middle of the road program which could hurt fan support.

(09-18-2013 10:22 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 10:06 AM)marcuscan Wrote:  It's always refreshing to see that the doomsdayers haven't lost a step. Around & around we go.

How are all those millions working for [insert very long litany of programs that are bottom feeders in P5 conferences]?!?

Zzzzzzzzzzz.......

mc

Actually all those millions have worked very well for all of their non-revenue sports. The Vanderbilt's, Iowa State's, the Washington St's have huge budgets to fund many programs and scholarships.

This.

I'm not a doomsdayer at all, but we've been to 2 BCS games already - and the financial windfall that followed each game was, well, non-existent.

$25-30 million annually could actually put a dent in the Varsity Village debt and start real conversations about upgrading the Shoe.

(09-18-2013 10:29 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 10:10 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 10:07 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  It is a theory, it never happened.

You are correct...they never disbanded football.

Are you OK then going back to the early 80's through the Rick Minter years? Surely, a few years in the small-revenue AAC will send UC spiraling to those times.

1. Maybe instead of this "they will kill off the program" talk we should at least switch over to "it will go back to the 80s". Speaking for myself, I could at least take that opinion seriously (although I don't agree with it).

2. You seem pretty confident about something that is a complete guess. There are tons of differences between now and the 80s, most importantly, the administration's commitment to football and the Nippert renovation.

There most significant change of all: the P5 has become an 800 lb. gorilla that can restrict access to television dollars and bowl access. There's never been a clearer division between haves and have-nots in college football, and it's only getting worse.

(09-18-2013 10:35 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  In a power conference UC will be able fund all their sports and recruit higher profile players; however, they might be a middle of the road program which could hurt fan support.

I think UC fans would relish the opportunity to be like a Michigan State or a Wisconsin each year in the Big10. Always competing against the big boys with the occasional trip to the Rose Bowl and at-least-its-possible National Championship game.