(11-25-2013 10:42 AM)Overrated Wrote:  At the highest level of soccer (FIFA), you are not allowed to play soccer on turf. MLS allows it, so some teams have turf stadiums if they share with an NFL team (Seattle and New England come to mind) but soccer only stadiums use grass. When Seattle wanted to host a world cup qualifier, they had to lay sod over the field turf so that it followed FIFA rules. Grass is the much preferred surface of high end soccer players.

What I don't understand about the field is that in Europe, where they only play soccer on grass, they get tons of rain throughout their season. Games are often played in heavy rain. Obviously soccer is a different game than football, but there is still tons of cutting in soccer and the field and players never have the problems we saw in Houston on Saturday.

BINGO! The highest levels of soccer, and the MLS would qualify ( as they are the 15th most attended league in ALL sports) you should not and for the most part CANT play on turf. The problem is the BBVA stadium is probably not set up to handle as much water due to the Houston climate. It is generally a dry place, where the stadiums in the U.K. are probably set up to handle all that water.

Soccer players are making cuts and running all over the pitch, but they don't put close to as much wear and tear on the field. The sheer mass of guys like Blair diving on the ground will tear up the field compared to someone like Lamela and Lennon running up the wings in soccer.

(11-25-2013 09:46 AM)Marcus Wrote:  I am still baffled by the 3rd and 1 play call up 24-7. They were in complete control of that game and pushing Houston off the ball, no need to call a trick play like that in a situation like that. It being blown up was about the only chance Houston had to get back into the game and sure enough that is what happened.

After watching the replay a couple of times, they were going for the knockout, Mckay beat his corner off the ball, got about 4-5 steps on him. If the backside blitz gets picked up, it's a TD or big gainer as there was no saftey and McKay beat his guy badly. It's unfortunate that Kay got nailed and the result was a TD for Houston - but it wasn't a trick play, more of a play action pass to go for a kill shot.

(11-25-2013 01:01 PM)FLIP Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 09:46 AM)Marcus Wrote:  I am still baffled by the 3rd and 1 play call up 24-7. They were in complete control of that game and pushing Houston off the ball, no need to call a trick play like that in a situation like that. It being blown up was about the only chance Houston had to get back into the game and sure enough that is what happened.

After watching the replay a couple of times, they were going for the knockout, Mckay beat his corner off the ball, got about 4-5 steps on him. If the backside blitz gets picked up, it's a TD or big gainer as there was no saftey and McKay beat his guy badly. It's unfortunate that Kay got nailed and the result was a TD for Houston - but it wasn't a trick play, more of a play action pass to go for a kill shot.

I actually liked the play call. If one guy is picked up it is a TD. The coach either looks like an idiot or a hero depending on how some plays go, and it was unfortunate this went the wrong way.

(11-25-2013 01:01 PM)FLIP Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 09:46 AM)Marcus Wrote:  I am still baffled by the 3rd and 1 play call up 24-7. They were in complete control of that game and pushing Houston off the ball, no need to call a trick play like that in a situation like that. It being blown up was about the only chance Houston had to get back into the game and sure enough that is what happened.

After watching the replay a couple of times, they were going for the knockout, Mckay beat his corner off the ball, got about 4-5 steps on him. If the backside blitz gets picked up, it's a TD or big gainer as there was no saftey and McKay beat his guy badly. It's unfortunate that Kay got nailed and the result was a TD for Houston - but it wasn't a trick play, more of a play action pass to go for a kill shot.

No doubt they were going for the knockout. In most situations I like the play call. I just felt they had the game under such control both on the scoreboard and with blowing them off the ball that it wasn't needed at that time. It's such a high-risk high-reward type call that just wasnt needed in that situation and the risk was really the only way Houston had a chance of getting back into the game.

Who was the guy who was blown up on that play by the DE? I assumed it was Lefeld at first considering he is so inconsistent, but on the replay it didn't look like him. It didnt even look like a TE to me? Was it a RB who got beat?

(11-25-2013 12:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 08:58 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 08:01 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 07:36 AM)indycat Wrote:  3. Cincy remains a high school/NFL sports town despite all of the Bearcats' success. I thought @ 9-2, competing for a conference championship and BCS bowl, the 'Cats deserved sports section front page coverage in the Sunday Enquirer. In a bye week for the Bengals we get a cover photo of Chad Johnson heralding a feature story and a banner headline on high school football. Some things never change.

Yes, this was disappointing.

another disappointing blurb from cincy media. So I guess we are to blame for not calling into radio shows? I swear Mo takes maybe one phone call an hour ...makes it hard to start anything thats not Reds or Bengals related

This has been an odd year, one that any UC fan would've begged for a decade ago. And one where attendance has all but stopped being a topic. Cincinnati's home attendance numbers - for let's say, less than marquee games - have been solid. Yet the entire season has felt like a bit of an afterthought. The end of the Reds season easing into the beginning of the Bengals season may have had something to do with it. The air being sucked out of the Bearcat balloon in the week two loss to Illinois didn't help. The underwhelming schedule hasn't helped.

But I don't think I've gotten a UC football call all season. Rare coaching stability may have a role in that, and conference realignment temporarily settling down has contributed, but there's been silence from UC fans about this team and honestly, I can't think of many times when I've been compelled to try a Bearcat-related topic.

I might try to change that this week.

Read more: http://www.espn1530.com/pages/mo.html#ixzz2lfJAzTpV

Why would UC fans call into talk radio shows when the hosts rarely bring up
UC football? Mo or Lance have to be more consistent with the topic in
order to expect results. There are multiple radio shows in Pittsburgh dedicated to Pitt football-bball.

Bostick was a three-year letterman for Pitt (2007-08, 2010) and quarterbacked the Panthers to such memorable victories as their 13-9 upset of West Virginia in 2007 and 36-33 quadruple-overtime win at Notre Dame in 2008. An honors graduate of the University of Pittsburgh, he earned his bachelor's degree in just three years and is currently pursuing his master's degree in Pitt's School of Education.

In addition to game day, Bostick will have a weekly guest segment on the Panthers' flagship station, Sportsradio 93.7 The Fan, to discuss all things Pitt football. He will also continue his work as a regular columnist for the Pitt website (PittsburghPanthers.com) and the official athletic department newspaper Panther Eyes.

"Anyone who watched Pat's work during our spring game telecast can tell he is a broadcast star in the making," said Pitt senior associate athletic director for media relations E.J. Borghetti. "His football knowledge is immense. Just as important, he has a real talent for breaking down the intricacies of the game and effectively explaining it to the audience. Pat is going to add an exceptional amount to our various media platforms that promote Pitt football this year."
http://www.pittsburghpanthers.com/sports...11aaa.html

Bingo. As someone who is not a Bengal fan I have zero reason to listen to 700/1530 except for UC games or the coaches show. I know that 99% of the time my team is not going to be discussed. Heck, three out of five nights a week is some type of Bengals pep rally or roundtable.

(11-25-2013 12:22 PM)MickMack Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 08:34 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 07:36 AM)indycat Wrote:  Three thoughts after basking in the glow of the season's most impressive road win:

1. Despite a close score, UC was a superior team in terms of talent. I felt this was the difference between a very good C-USA team (Houston) and a program that's been operating at the BCS level for just short of a decade (Cincy).

UC could have very easily won that game by 20+ just by converting field goals and one less turnover.

2. University of Houston should be reprimanded by the conference for switching to such a poor facility. Thankfully, I don't believe there were any major injuries due to the field condition but I couldn't help but wonder what went through Coach Tuberville's mind seeing that field after a successful career coaching in some of the finest venues in the nation. Then I read that UH let their players make the decision to switch from the stadium at Rice. Unbelievable, if true.

Game should have never been played there. Heck, I bet their are some high schools in Greater Houston we could have played at with better turf and adequate seating capacity.

3. Cincy remains a high school/NFL sports town despite all of the Bearcats' success. I thought @ 9-2, competing for a conference championship and BCS bowl, the 'Cats deserved sports section front page coverage in the Sunday Enquirer. In a bye week for the Bengals we get a cover photo of Chad Johnson heralding a feature story and a banner headline on high school football. Some things never change.

Sadly, yes. This city has a particular obsession with the past re: their pro sports teams. It is a dynamic unlike any I have seen elsewhere. Sports talk radio and the paper still bring up teams/players from the 70/80s/90s seemingly every day. You don't see this in other pro cities. They talk about their current team and players (maybe the team from the year before).

The high school side of the equation is pathetic. How many people in Cincinnati really cared about about the Moeller v. Colerain game (I mean really cared about it)-- 15-20K? Less than 7,000 showed up to the game. UC will have more than 5X the crowd on 12/5 and it wil be viewed by millions of people in and out of the city. We will have alums/fans flying in from other parts of the country to see the game.

Not true. Go to Chicago and they're still talking about 1985 like it was yesterday. Same with the Jordan era Bulls. I don't know what Cubs fans talk about. Everyone that witnessed their glory days is dead.

Ok, you have a point with Chicago. My guess is the guy doing the radio up in the Windy City looks like he could be one of the guys in the SNL "Da Bears!" skits.

I lived in Atlanta for a stretch and don't recall the paper or the guys on radio talking about Dale Murphy and Bob Horner incessantly.

Chicago gets a mulligan and they need to talk about the glory days, considering
their lack of championships, Cubs not making the playoffs etc. In a fist fight, who do you
got? Ditka or Jesus Christ?

(11-25-2013 01:26 PM)Marcus Wrote:  Who was the guy who was blown up on that play by the DE? I assumed it was Lefeld at first considering he is so inconsistent, but on the replay it didn't look like him. It didnt even look like a TE to me? Was it a RB who got beat?

RB was following through on the fake, so not him. Tight end on that side put a scrape block on and released to flat. DE came hard and let TE go to the safety. Once the TE left, Lefeld should have rotated to pick up the DE which he did not, he was too far inside and had no chance to pick up the DE. If the TE stayed in to block instead of releasing, that sack would not have happened - the TE and Lefeld would have doubled the DE. It looked like Lefeld blew that play as he was not blocking anyone. Watch the replay on ESPN, clearly a blown assignment.

(11-25-2013 01:26 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 01:01 PM)FLIP Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 09:46 AM)Marcus Wrote:  I am still baffled by the 3rd and 1 play call up 24-7. They were in complete control of that game and pushing Houston off the ball, no need to call a trick play like that in a situation like that. It being blown up was about the only chance Houston had to get back into the game and sure enough that is what happened.

After watching the replay a couple of times, they were going for the knockout, Mckay beat his corner off the ball, got about 4-5 steps on him. If the backside blitz gets picked up, it's a TD or big gainer as there was no saftey and McKay beat his guy badly. It's unfortunate that Kay got nailed and the result was a TD for Houston - but it wasn't a trick play, more of a play action pass to go for a kill shot.

No doubt they were going for the knockout. In most situations I like the play call. I just felt they had the game under such control both on the scoreboard and with blowing them off the ball that it wasn't needed at that time. It's such a high-risk high-reward type call that just wasnt needed in that situation and the risk was really the only way Houston had a chance of getting back into the game.

Who was the guy who was blown up on that play by the DE? I assumed it was Lefeld at first considering he is so inconsistent, but on the replay it didn't look like him. It didnt even look like a TE to me? Was it a RB who got beat?

There was no protection dialed up. They had "air" slotted to block him. . No RB on that side and the TE appeared to release. It was either poorly designed, someone screwed up, or the blocking call was wrong. My guess is the call at the line was wrong with the D alignment.

I like the play. But not the timing. At that point of the game, let Green pick up a half yard and be done with it.

(11-25-2013 02:14 PM)FLIP Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 01:26 PM)Marcus Wrote:  Who was the guy who was blown up on that play by the DE? I assumed it was Lefeld at first considering he is so inconsistent, but on the replay it didn't look like him. It didnt even look like a TE to me? Was it a RB who got beat?

RB was following through on the fake, so not him. Tight end on that side put a scrape block on and released to flat. DE came hard and let TE go to the safety. Once the TE left, Lefeld should have rotated to pick up the DE which he did not, he was too far inside and had no chance to pick up the DE. If the TE stayed in to block instead of releasing, that sack would not have happened - the TE and Lefeld would have doubled the DE. It looked like Lefeld blew that play as he was not blocking anyone. Watch the replay on ESPN, clearly a blown assignment.

Not surprised in the least if Lefeld was the one who blew the assignment. He does that far more than all the other offensive lineman combined. I'm not sure I've ever seen a left tackle not only bust plays so much, but also stand around not blocking anyone half the time.

(11-25-2013 12:41 PM)Banter Wrote:  BINGO! The highest levels of soccer, and the MLS would qualify ( as they are the 15th most attended league in ALL sports) you should not and for the most part CANT play on turf. The problem is the BBVA stadium is probably not set up to handle as much water due to the Houston climate. It is generally a dry place, where the stadiums in the U.K. are probably set up to handle all that water.

Soccer players are making cuts and running all over the pitch, but they don't put close to as much wear and tear on the field. The sheer mass of guys like Blair diving on the ground will tear up the field compared to someone like Lamela and Lennon running up the wings in soccer.

Uh, they get considerably more rain than Seattle, Portland and every city in Ohio.

Major US city annual rainfall

(11-25-2013 01:34 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 12:22 PM)MickMack Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 08:34 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 07:36 AM)indycat Wrote:  Three thoughts after basking in the glow of the season's most impressive road win:

1. Despite a close score, UC was a superior team in terms of talent. I felt this was the difference between a very good C-USA team (Houston) and a program that's been operating at the BCS level for just short of a decade (Cincy).

UC could have very easily won that game by 20+ just by converting field goals and one less turnover.

2. University of Houston should be reprimanded by the conference for switching to such a poor facility. Thankfully, I don't believe there were any major injuries due to the field condition but I couldn't help but wonder what went through Coach Tuberville's mind seeing that field after a successful career coaching in some of the finest venues in the nation. Then I read that UH let their players make the decision to switch from the stadium at Rice. Unbelievable, if true.

Game should have never been played there. Heck, I bet their are some high schools in Greater Houston we could have played at with better turf and adequate seating capacity.

3. Cincy remains a high school/NFL sports town despite all of the Bearcats' success. I thought @ 9-2, competing for a conference championship and BCS bowl, the 'Cats deserved sports section front page coverage in the Sunday Enquirer. In a bye week for the Bengals we get a cover photo of Chad Johnson heralding a feature story and a banner headline on high school football. Some things never change.

Sadly, yes. This city has a particular obsession with the past re: their pro sports teams. It is a dynamic unlike any I have seen elsewhere. Sports talk radio and the paper still bring up teams/players from the 70/80s/90s seemingly every day. You don't see this in other pro cities. They talk about their current team and players (maybe the team from the year before).

The high school side of the equation is pathetic. How many people in Cincinnati really cared about about the Moeller v. Colerain game (I mean really cared about it)-- 15-20K? Less than 7,000 showed up to the game. UC will have more than 5X the crowd on 12/5 and it wil be viewed by millions of people in and out of the city. We will have alums/fans flying in from other parts of the country to see the game.

Not true. Go to Chicago and they're still talking about 1985 like it was yesterday. Same with the Jordan era Bulls. I don't know what Cubs fans talk about. Everyone that witnessed their glory days is dead.

Ok, you have a point with Chicago. My guess is the guy doing the radio up in the Windy City looks like he could be one of the guys in the SNL "Da Bears!" skits.

I lived in Atlanta for a stretch and don't recall the paper or the guys on radio talking about Dale Murphy and Bob Horner incessantly.

Cleveland is also similar to Chicago and Cincy. To hear them speak, you'd think that Bernie Kosar just retired and the Tribe is still in the midst of their 451 game sellout streak. The Play, The Drive, all these terrible things that happened 2 decades or more ago. I actually heard a Clevelander rip on the Reds for a lack of attendance during the year that the Indians finished 27th in attendance.

I think it's a good thing because a connection with the past is the only thing that differentiates us from cities like Seattle, Columbus, Indy, etc who would rip down Music Hall if a developer wanted to build a mini-mall.

(11-25-2013 02:41 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 12:41 PM)Banter Wrote:  BINGO! The highest levels of soccer, and the MLS would qualify ( as they are the 15th most attended league in ALL sports) you should not and for the most part CANT play on turf. The problem is the BBVA stadium is probably not set up to handle as much water due to the Houston climate. It is generally a dry place, where the stadiums in the U.K. are probably set up to handle all that water.

Soccer players are making cuts and running all over the pitch, but they don't put close to as much wear and tear on the field. The sheer mass of guys like Blair diving on the ground will tear up the field compared to someone like Lamela and Lennon running up the wings in soccer.

Uh, they get considerably more rain than Seattle, Portland and every city in Ohio.

Major US city annual rainfall

well ill be damned.

I briefly lived in Houston and when it rains, it RAINS. You'll get several inches in an hour. I'd never seen anything like it until then.

(11-25-2013 12:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 08:58 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 08:01 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  [quote='indycat' pid='10068691' dateline='1385382965']
3. Cincy remains a high school/NFL sports town despite all of the Bearcats' success. I thought @ 9-2, competing for a conference championship and BCS bowl, the 'Cats deserved sports section front page coverage in the Sunday Enquirer. In a bye week for the Bengals we get a cover photo of Chad Johnson heralding a feature story and a banner headline on high school football. Some things never change.

Yes, this was disappointing.

another disappointing blurb from cincy media. So I guess we are to blame for not calling into radio shows? I swear Mo takes maybe one phone call an hour ...makes it hard to start anything thats not Reds or Bengals related

This has been an odd year, one that any UC fan would've begged for a decade ago. And one where attendance has all but stopped being a topic. Cincinnati's home attendance numbers - for let's say, less than marquee games - have been solid. Yet the entire season has felt like a bit of an afterthought. The end of the Reds season easing into the beginning of the Bengals season may have had something to do with it. The air being sucked out of the Bearcat balloon in the week two loss to Illinois didn't help. The underwhelming schedule hasn't helped.

But I don't think I've gotten a UC football call all season. Rare coaching stability may have a role in that, and conference realignment temporarily settling down has contributed, but there's been silence from UC fans about this team and honestly, I can't think of many times when I've been compelled to try a Bearcat-related topic.

I might try to change that this week.

Read more: http://www.espn1530.com/pages/mo.html#ixzz2lfJAzTpV

Why would UC fans call into talk radio shows when the hosts rarely bring up
UC football? Mo or Lance have to be more consistent with the topic in
order to expect results. There are multiple radio shows in Pittsburgh dedicated to Pitt football-bball.


I've heard them say that the support is not there to talk college football, but I don't think that they're really trying. If they would dedicate one day a week to talk college football, the popularity would grow. Schedule interviews with college coaches and writers, I know you could fill a 3 hour show on a weekly basis. They do it with college basketball. I'd listen just to hear some knucklehead OSU fan call complaining about their lack of coverage in the cincy area.

(11-25-2013 01:26 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 01:01 PM)FLIP Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 09:46 AM)Marcus Wrote:  I am still baffled by the 3rd and 1 play call up 24-7. They were in complete control of that game and pushing Houston off the ball, no need to call a trick play like that in a situation like that. It being blown up was about the only chance Houston had to get back into the game and sure enough that is what happened.

After watching the replay a couple of times, they were going for the knockout, Mckay beat his corner off the ball, got about 4-5 steps on him. If the backside blitz gets picked up, it's a TD or big gainer as there was no saftey and McKay beat his guy badly. It's unfortunate that Kay got nailed and the result was a TD for Houston - but it wasn't a trick play, more of a play action pass to go for a kill shot.

No doubt they were going for the knockout. In most situations I like the play call. I just felt they had the game under such control both on the scoreboard and with blowing them off the ball that it wasn't needed at that time. It's such a high-risk high-reward type call that just wasnt needed in that situation and the risk was really the only way Houston had a chance of getting back into the game.

Who was the guy who was blown up on that play by the DE? I assumed it was Lefeld at first considering he is so inconsistent, but on the replay it didn't look like him. It didnt even look like a TE to me? Was it a RB who got beat?

Believe it was RDA IV. RDA has had a very poor year. I am surprised he is getting as much playing time as he is. Josey Williams has been very good the last two games. Tion Green very good the two games before that. RDA has not been good running the ball, not good on kick returns, not good on swing passes and not good on blocking assignments.

RDAIV is our best RB in pass protection which is why he has been playing more than the others. Tion Green has been horrible blocking which is why he has not played. I wanted to see more of him earlier in the year. Now that I have seen him in some games and seen him miss block after block, I know why he is behind Abernathy.

(11-28-2013 01:57 AM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 12:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 08:58 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 08:01 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  [quote='indycat' pid='10068691' dateline='1385382965']
3. Cincy remains a high school/NFL sports town despite all of the Bearcats' success. I thought @ 9-2, competing for a conference championship and BCS bowl, the 'Cats deserved sports section front page coverage in the Sunday Enquirer. In a bye week for the Bengals we get a cover photo of Chad Johnson heralding a feature story and a banner headline on high school football. Some things never change.

Yes, this was disappointing.

another disappointing blurb from cincy media. So I guess we are to blame for not calling into radio shows? I swear Mo takes maybe one phone call an hour ...makes it hard to start anything thats not Reds or Bengals related

This has been an odd year, one that any UC fan would've begged for a decade ago. And one where attendance has all but stopped being a topic. Cincinnati's home attendance numbers - for let's say, less than marquee games - have been solid. Yet the entire season has felt like a bit of an afterthought. The end of the Reds season easing into the beginning of the Bengals season may have had something to do with it. The air being sucked out of the Bearcat balloon in the week two loss to Illinois didn't help. The underwhelming schedule hasn't helped.

But I don't think I've gotten a UC football call all season. Rare coaching stability may have a role in that, and conference realignment temporarily settling down has contributed, but there's been silence from UC fans about this team and honestly, I can't think of many times when I've been compelled to try a Bearcat-related topic.

I might try to change that this week.

Read more: http://www.espn1530.com/pages/mo.html#ixzz2lfJAzTpV

Why would UC fans call into talk radio shows when the hosts rarely bring up
UC football? Mo or Lance have to be more consistent with the topic in
order to expect results. There are multiple radio shows in Pittsburgh dedicated to Pitt football-bball.


I've heard them say that the support is not there to talk college football, but I don't think that they're really trying. If they would dedicate one day a week to talk college football, the popularity would grow. Schedule interviews with college coaches and writers, I know you could fill a 3 hour show on a weekly basis. They do it with college basketball. I'd listen just to hear some knucklehead OSU fan call complaining about their lack of coverage in the cincy area.

The tail doesn't wag the dog. Listeners/callers have the ultimate power. Radio stations are trying to make money. To do that they sells ads. The more desirable their listening base, the more money they make from selling ads. Talk shows attract listeners by discussion what the listeners want - not the hosts. They assume the things listeners are mostly interested in are the things they call about. If nobody calls about a subject, they assume nobody is interested. I don't blame them, I'd do the same thing. If you want them to talk about something nobody calls about, buy an advertisement.

Otherwise, IMO, the best way to get them to talk about UC is to call in to talk UC.

(11-29-2013 01:38 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 01:57 AM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 12:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 08:58 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 08:01 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  [quote='indycat' pid='10068691' dateline='1385382965']
3. Cincy remains a high school/NFL sports town despite all of the Bearcats' success. I thought @ 9-2, competing for a conference championship and BCS bowl, the 'Cats deserved sports section front page coverage in the Sunday Enquirer. In a bye week for the Bengals we get a cover photo of Chad Johnson heralding a feature story and a banner headline on high school football. Some things never change.

Yes, this was disappointing.

another disappointing blurb from cincy media. So I guess we are to blame for not calling into radio shows? I swear Mo takes maybe one phone call an hour ...makes it hard to start anything thats not Reds or Bengals related

This has been an odd year, one that any UC fan would've begged for a decade ago. And one where attendance has all but stopped being a topic. Cincinnati's home attendance numbers - for let's say, less than marquee games - have been solid. Yet the entire season has felt like a bit of an afterthought. The end of the Reds season easing into the beginning of the Bengals season may have had something to do with it. The air being sucked out of the Bearcat balloon in the week two loss to Illinois didn't help. The underwhelming schedule hasn't helped.

But I don't think I've gotten a UC football call all season. Rare coaching stability may have a role in that, and conference realignment temporarily settling down has contributed, but there's been silence from UC fans about this team and honestly, I can't think of many times when I've been compelled to try a Bearcat-related topic.

I might try to change that this week.

Read more: http://www.espn1530.com/pages/mo.html#ixzz2lfJAzTpV

Why would UC fans call into talk radio shows when the hosts rarely bring up
UC football? Mo or Lance have to be more consistent with the topic in
order to expect results. There are multiple radio shows in Pittsburgh dedicated to Pitt football-bball.


I've heard them say that the support is not there to talk college football, but I don't think that they're really trying. If they would dedicate one day a week to talk college football, the popularity would grow. Schedule interviews with college coaches and writers, I know you could fill a 3 hour show on a weekly basis. They do it with college basketball. I'd listen just to hear some knucklehead OSU fan call complaining about their lack of coverage in the cincy area.

The tail doesn't wag the dog. Listeners/callers have the ultimate power. Radio stations are trying to make money. To do that they sells ads. The more desirable their listening base, the more money they make from selling ads. Talk shows attract listeners by discussion what the listeners want - not the hosts. They assume the things listeners are mostly interested in are the things they call about. If nobody calls about a subject, they assume nobody is interested. I don't blame them, I'd do the same thing. If you want them to talk about something nobody calls about, buy an advertisement.

Otherwise, IMO, the best way to get them to talk about UC is to call in to talk UC.

agree


Really if they were serious about it they would pre advertise in places UC fans hang out, here, BCJ, etc. Do some pre-hype for a show and then launch it. I think there is enough interest in UC football and hoops to do a dedicated show but it just needs to be set up correctly. We are averaging over 30K at Nippert this year vs crap teams with a renovated Nippert on the way, don't tell me there aren't enough fans to support a dedicated show on the radio.

(11-28-2013 06:40 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  Believe it was RDA IV. RDA has had a very poor year. I am surprised he is getting as much playing time as he is. Josey Williams has been very good the last two games. Tion Green very good the two games before that. RDA has not been good running the ball, not good on kick returns, not good on swing passes and not good on blocking assignments.

Just rewatched that play. Tion Green was the running back for that play. He blocked up the middle. The blind side was not his responsibility.