http://www.cincinnati.com/story/ucathlet...g/7872827/

Is there anything in scheduling FB games that Whit DIDN'T royally screw up???

God, I was saddened when he left, but seriously... Good riddance!

(04-18-2014 09:59 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Is there anything in scheduling FB games that Whit DIDN'T royally screw up???

God, I was saddened when he left, but seriously... Good riddance!

I am not sure you can put the blame on Whit completely. I think he something to do with Miami FL series. Not a whole lot of options out there when your conference is falling apart and your former local rivals don't want to play you. I wasn't sad to see Whit go and thought he missed the boat a bit on football scheduling this season and on basketball in general.

Can you have a legacy after only a couple years? If you can what is Whit's legacy?

Positive: Moved Nip expansion forward. Hired TT

Negative: Lost LJ to TN. Missed out on P5. Horrible FB scheduling for 2014. Questionable FB scheduling for 2015. Questionable BB scheduling.

I am sure others can expand on both sides of the ledger.

It does make it difficult to schedule P5 schools when your not in a P5 conference so, I can give Whitt a bit of a pass on that one.

Whitt inherited a big mess upon arrival. He did some good things in the short time he was here and left a good foundation to build upon.

We're headed in the right direction and I hope we find a "brand name" opponent to open Nippert that will create excitement - maybe someone from the Big12 - WVU anybody?

We could show the Big12 that we would compete well and that we're a natural rival for the Mountaineers and provide the "land bridge" they need.

Since Miami, FL and Alabama A&M are both 2015 home opponents on the "tentative" schedule, wondering how difficult to have Miami, FL move up from the Oct. 3rd game to the opening slot on Sept. 5th? Essentially, swap with A&M. Obviously, this impacts the schedules of these two schools but Miami, FL currently shows "TBA" for their Sept. 5th date.

WVU has GA Southern at home that weekend. Wouldn't it more likely be someone with a road game that could be swapped? Trouble is most names open at home except for a few made for TV games like UL vs Auburn at Atlanta on that date. I think we all will be hoping for a P5 and especially from B12 or ACC. Another possible would be to get BYU to flip our 2015 and 2016 games. To balance that BYU could flip Boise 2015 and 2016. Perhaps we could agree to play a basketball game at Boise (think Humanitarian Bowl).

(04-19-2014 08:44 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  It does make it difficult to schedule P5 schools when your not in a P5 conference so, I can give Whitt a bit of a pass on that one.

Whitt inherited a big mess upon arrival. He did some good things in the short time he was here and left a good foundation to build upon.

We're headed in the right direction and I hope we find a "brand name" opponent to open Nippert that will create excitement - maybe someone from the Big12 - WVU anybody?

We could show the Big12 that we would compete well and that we're a natural rival for the Mountaineers and provide the "land bridge" they need.

Scheduling is a function of budget, don't forget that. Yes the schedule sucks, but the resources we have to work with are virtually non-existent.

I think you have to look at the ACC. They only play 8 conference games and their TV deal is with ESPN. Last I looked Syracuse and North Carolina have openings in 2015 and needs for home games in 2016. If UC has to send their basketball team on the road to get it done with one of those two thats fine with me because the Cats could use more high profile games.

(04-19-2014 08:35 AM)dossbig Wrote:  Can you have a legacy after only a couple years? If you can what is Whit's legacy?

Positive: Moved Nip expansion forward. Hired TT

Negative: Lost LJ to TN. Missed out on P5. Horrible FB scheduling for 2014. Questionable FB scheduling for 2015. Questionable BB scheduling.

I am sure others can expand on both sides of the ledger.

Doss, I generally agree with your post, but missing out on the P5 was done by multiple generations before Whit, over a half-century.

Good point. No one ever showed vision. Needed vision before Bungals came to town.

(04-19-2014 09:15 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 08:35 AM)dossbig Wrote:  Can you have a legacy after only a couple years? If you can what is Whit's legacy?

Positive: Moved Nip expansion forward. Hired TT

Negative: Lost LJ to TN. Missed out on P5. Horrible FB scheduling for 2014. Questionable FB scheduling for 2015. Questionable BB scheduling.

I am sure others can expand on both sides of the ledger.

Doss, I generally agree with your post, but missing out on the P5 was done by multiple generations before Whit, over a half-century.

It seems to me that there was also a lot of bad timing involved, for athletics anyway.

Big money borrowed and spent on the much needed campus makeover, some of which benefited athletics, but did not address football or basketball infrastructure. Result, a cash strapped Uni.

Turnover at the top at President level, loss of key B.O.D. support, high turnover in the A.D. position, and short-term thinking football coaches.

A new President with NO interest in athletics.

Lack of support from fans.

The Huggs fiasco.

It is hard for me to think of a worse scenario at such a critical time for athletics.

Unless someone comes along with a pocketful of cash and a major love for U.C. sports, we will continue to struggle for quite some time.

At least we have great football and basketball coaches (and assistants) who I hope are patient, and here for the long-term.

(04-19-2014 08:35 AM)dossbig Wrote:  Negative: Lost LJ to TN. Missed out on P5. Horrible FB scheduling for 2014. Questionable FB scheduling for 2015. Questionable BB scheduling.

I am sure others can expand on both sides of the ledger.

Jones was gone regardless, there was no way an AD change was going to land UC in the P5, they needed to be on the ball years before hand, I don't see what he could have really done with regard to scheduling this coming season and as for basketball, I thought the Non-conf last year was okay.

(04-19-2014 11:10 AM)OneUChoopsfan Wrote:  It seems to me that there was also a lot of bad timing involved, for athletics anyway.

Big money borrowed and spent on the much needed campus makeover, some of which benefited athletics, but did not address football or basketball infrastructure. Result, a cash strapped Uni.

Turnover at the top at President level, loss of key B.O.D. support, high turnover in the A.D. position, and short-term thinking football coaches.

A new President with NO interest in athletics.

Lack of support from fans.

The Huggs fiasco.

It is hard for me to think of a worse scenario at such a critical time for athletics.

Unless someone comes along with a pocketful of cash and a major love for U.C. sports, we will continue to struggle for quite some time.

At least we have great football and basketball coaches (and assistants) who I hope are patient, and here for the long-term.

I think you left out one of the most important things: The financial crisis. UC football peaked when the economy tanked. Raising money for such frivolous things as football when many lost 40% of their portfolio and the nation's financial system was in near-collapse is no small task.

Not to mention the athletic department took on some debt building Varsity Village to get UC into the Big East.

I don't think UC has had a president not interested in sports, though Williams seemed to be the most quiet about it.

(04-19-2014 01:05 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I don't think UC has had a president not interested in sports, though Williams seemed to be the most quiet about it.

Yeah, Nancy Zimpher was a huge fan of the basketball program.

(04-19-2014 07:26 PM)Bearcatbdub Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 01:05 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I don't think UC has had a president not interested in sports, though Williams seemed to be the most quiet about it.

Yeah, Nancy Zimpher was a huge fan of the basketball program.

She was. She brought in Mick. A huge upgrade that showed great long-term vision about what our university can be.

(04-19-2014 10:43 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 07:26 PM)Bearcatbdub Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 01:05 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I don't think UC has had a president not interested in sports, though Williams seemed to be the most quiet about it.

Yeah, Nancy Zimpher was a huge fan of the basketball program.

She was. She brought in Mick. A huge upgrade that showed great long-term vision about what our university can be.

Nancy's downfall at UC was related to her lack of leadership in the Huggins fiasco and the removal of quality deans and academic leaders at UC. I am sure she was a fan of UC sports, most college presidents want their school to do well within the rules because it helps their brand. In a lot of ways she never had a chance here because of what happened with the basketball program. I am not sure anybody would have been able to survived the removal of Bob Huggins. UC was very lucky that Brian Kelly had his three year run during the basketball rebuilding period. We wouldn't be talking about a marquee opponent for a renovated Nippert Stadium without that three year run. If the program continued on the same path it had under Minter and Dantonio we would be talking about giving away tickets so we could draw a big crowd of 22,000 fans.

Almost a decade after Huggins left, and about five years after Nancy did, I just love these continued discussions on the subject

(04-20-2014 09:39 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  Almost a decade after Huggins left, and about five years after Nancy did, I just love these continued discussions on the subject

Good or bad, its a defining moment in the history of UC athletics. Its important to remember the past, it helps define where we are in the present.

Like any other president, Nancy Z did both good and bad things during her time. Overall, I think Zimpher overall did a solid to good job for UC. I wasn't even against the removal of Huggins but my issue surrounding that fiasco was HOW it was done, not so much that it was done. He deserved better, even if he did need to go (which I supported).