Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

      
Post Reply 
USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 21,880
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1171
I Root For: Jimmy Nippert
Location:
Post: #1
USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
Our school prominently mentioned in this article from the USA Today.

Bearable for Bearcats

Navigate’s projections of high revenue growth are only for the top 25 programs. What about everybody else, particularly those schools outside the Power Five?

“It’s going to be a challenge, obviously, with costs increasing if you are not in that top tier,” Balvanz says. “It’s going to be really tough to find those trigger points to maximize revenue. It’s going to force them to be more and more creative.”

On a dollar basis, Cincinnati’s athletics program is one of the most heavily subsidized at a Division I public school, receiving nearly $23.2 million from the university in 2015. But it also is being creative in cutting costs. Omar Banks, the department’s chief financial officer, says revenues are expected to decline in future years for complicated reasons having to do with the breakup of the old Big East, UC’s tenure in the American Athletic Conference and how units of revenue from the NCAA men's basketball tournament are being distributed.

Cincinnati has instituted rules banning plane travel for non-conference games, saving “a couple hundred thousand dollars,” and capped per diems at $45, saving upwards of $75,000, he says. The department’s operating expenses rose from $25.2 million in 2005 to $59.5 million in 2013, not adjusting for inflation. Its expenses have decreased since ($55.4 million in 2014 and $51.7 million in 2015).

In 2015, USA TODAY Sports found, there were 21 public-school athletics departments that spent at least $100 million – more than double the number at that level in 2012.

“Those schools, when they amass their surpluses, they’re creating this new demand for high-priced coaches,” says Banks, president of the College Athletics Business Management Association. “They can probably weather the storm much better than we can.”

Cincinnati’s football team has made a bowl game nine times in the past 10 years, its men’s basketball team has played in the past six NCAA tournaments and its women’s soccer team won the 2015 AAC tournament. But Banks says that even with the cost cutting, if it doesn’t increase revenue from ticket sales and annual fundraising, “we could be looking at the percentage of subsidy that we receive becoming much higher.”

Orleans, a consultant to the reform-minded Knight Commission, says that’s precisely the problem: “I think the schools that are relying on all this external revenue are potentially in a fragile place. What I think is getting less attention is all the schools in Divisions II and III and some in Division I that don’t have access to all these huge revenue streams but whose costs are being driven up by the spending habits that trickle down from the top.”


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col.../83035862/
 
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2016 08:23 AM by CliftonAve.)
04-19-2016 08:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


rath v2.0 Offline
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 51,147
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 2147
I Root For: Civil Disobedience
Location: Tip Of The Mitt

Donators
Post: #2
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
Declining revenues in upcoming years are not due to "complicated reasons". The Big East exit/name sale slush fund runs out soon and they will have to figure out a way to replace that extra 5-6 million. Due to football, UC is living off of revolving credit to pay its bills to stay up with the Joneses. Bad practice for any individual or organization.

Something needs to change soon in a big way or they need to get up and walk away from the table.
 
04-19-2016 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatJerry Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,092
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 506
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
Post: #3
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
(04-19-2016 08:32 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Declining revenues in upcoming years are not due to "complicated reasons". The Big East exit/name sale slush fund runs out soon and they will have to figure out a way to replace that extra 5-6 million. Due to football, UC is living off of revolving credit to pay its bills to stay up with the Joneses. Bad practice for any individual or organization.

Something needs to change soon in a big way or they need to get up and walk away from the table.

I have said that I do not think competition at the AAC level is tenable...for anyone...over the long-haul. If you're going to play FBS level football, there is a division that has now occurred. On the "Power" side of the divide, there is life. On the other side (the side that we currently reside on) there is not. If UC's bid to get on the right side of the line has failed...and it certainly looks like that right now...then the future for FB is bleak.

I don't know. It could happen that the B12 falls apart and the best of the AAC (UC included), the MW, and the remainder of the B12 form a new conference that gets significantly more than the AAC and has a shot at being viable. But IMO the AAC has reached it's ceiling...I don't see this line-up getting much more from media deals and access than what we already get. CUSA has watched their media deal SHRINK...I think the AAC will be fortunate to hold relatively steady on their next deal. And FB costs will NOT decrease...they will only increase (as FCOA gets fully worked out, and medical (concussion) concerns increase, and coaching salaries continue to skyrocket, and facilities continue to get more expensive, etc...). You are looking at divergent trajectories between income and expenses.

Not much we can do about any of that...it's all beyond our control.
 
04-19-2016 08:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Racinejake Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,350
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 62
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #4
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
We got our name in the papers!
 
04-19-2016 09:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Brian_Johnson Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 892
Joined: May 2015
Reputation: 22
I Root For: Bearcats
Location: Wichita, KS
Post: #5
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
(04-19-2016 08:48 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  
(04-19-2016 08:32 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Declining revenues in upcoming years are not due to "complicated reasons". The Big East exit/name sale slush fund runs out soon and they will have to figure out a way to replace that extra 5-6 million. Due to football, UC is living off of revolving credit to pay its bills to stay up with the Joneses. Bad practice for any individual or organization.

Something needs to change soon in a big way or they need to get up and walk away from the table.

I have said that I do not think competition at the AAC level is tenable...for anyone...over the long-haul. If you're going to play FBS level football, there is a division that has now occurred. On the "Power" side of the divide, there is life. On the other side (the side that we currently reside on) there is not. If UC's bid to get on the right side of the line has failed...and it certainly looks like that right now...then the future for FB is bleak.

I don't know. It could happen that the B12 falls apart and the best of the AAC (UC included), the MW, and the remainder of the B12 form a new conference that gets significantly more than the AAC and has a shot at being viable. But IMO the AAC has reached it's ceiling...I don't see this line-up getting much more from media deals and access than what we already get. CUSA has watched their media deal SHRINK...I think the AAC will be fortunate to hold relatively steady on their next deal. And FB costs will NOT decrease...they will only increase (as FCOA gets fully worked out, and medical (concussion) concerns increase, and coaching salaries continue to skyrocket, and facilities continue to get more expensive, etc...). You are looking at divergent trajectories between income and expenses.

Not much we can do about any of that...it's all beyond our control.

Hard to argue against you two. But, try to tell that to all who've invested in Nippert.
 
04-19-2016 09:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bruce Monnin Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,531
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 157
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Minster, Ohio
Post: #6
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
These types of analysis always fail to take into account some of the more important but less definable measures.

Many schools across the country are dropping in enrollment. UC is not. Why? Partly because the sports programs have improved over the last decade. Up here two hours north of Cincinnati the high school kids didn't even know UC had sports except for basketball in the Huggins days. Now UC is the most popular destination in many schools and UC clothing in schools is starting to rival Ohio Stat.e

Plus, I have to think donations to the school in general are a lot higher now due to having a relevant football team than those donations were a decade ago.

If we remain in the AAC and decide due to lesser income to drop or de-emphasize football and other sports, the university will feel the hit in other areas as well.
 
04-19-2016 09:11 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #7
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
UC spent $23 million subsidizing athletics last year. For an organization this size, that's a small advertising budget.

And make no mistake - athletics is an advertising expense. The only reason a student from Boston or Florida will go to UC is because of athletics. The only reason a UC grad will be seriously considered for a job in California or New York is because of athletics. If it weren't for our top-tier athletics, our geographic reach for undergrads would be similar to the schools similarly ranked in USNWR such as Michigan Tech, Illinois State, Missouri University of Science & Technology, or Maryland-Baltimore County.
 
04-19-2016 09:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatJerry Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,092
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 506
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
Post: #8
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
(04-19-2016 09:08 AM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  Hard to argue against you two. But, try to tell that to all who've invested in Nippert.

I know. I think Nippert had to be renovated, it was money well spent. The Nippert income will also help subsidize the 5/3 renovations and will help reduce the subsidies of the Athletics Department going forward. Brian Kelly was absolutely right when he said the most pressing thing facing UC athletics was "alternate revenue streams" and the Nippert suites are a key part of that.

Besides which, the Nippert money is spent, there is no need to "argue" about that. One way or another, for good or for ill, that die is cast. The best case scenario finds us in a "Power" conference and we can all breathe a sigh of relief. The worst case scenario finds us having to make some really hard decisions down the road, but at least we have a top-notch facility already completed.
 
04-19-2016 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #9
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
(04-19-2016 10:53 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  
(04-19-2016 09:08 AM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  Hard to argue against you two. But, try to tell that to all who've invested in Nippert.

I know. I think Nippert had to be renovated, it was money well spent. The Nippert income will also help subsidize the 5/3 renovations and will help reduce the subsidies of the Athletics Department going forward. Brian Kelly was absolutely right when he said the most pressing thing facing UC athletics was "alternate revenue streams" and the Nippert suites are a key part of that.

Besides which, the Nippert money is spent, there is no need to "argue" about that. One way or another, for good or for ill, that die is cast. The best case scenario finds us in a "Power" conference and we can all breathe a sigh of relief. The worst case scenario finds us having to make some really hard decisions down the road, but [b]at least we have a top-notch facility already completed.[/b]

After 5/3 is done, I don't think we'll need any major facilities upgrades for a long time. If I remember correctly: soccer, baseball, tennis, swimming - all about 12 years old & lacrosse is about 6 years old. What else is there?
 
04-19-2016 11:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatJerry Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,092
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 506
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
Post: #10
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
(04-19-2016 11:05 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(04-19-2016 10:53 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  
(04-19-2016 09:08 AM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  Hard to argue against you two. But, try to tell that to all who've invested in Nippert.

I know. I think Nippert had to be renovated, it was money well spent. The Nippert income will also help subsidize the 5/3 renovations and will help reduce the subsidies of the Athletics Department going forward. Brian Kelly was absolutely right when he said the most pressing thing facing UC athletics was "alternate revenue streams" and the Nippert suites are a key part of that.

Besides which, the Nippert money is spent, there is no need to "argue" about that. One way or another, for good or for ill, that die is cast. The best case scenario finds us in a "Power" conference and we can all breathe a sigh of relief. The worst case scenario finds us having to make some really hard decisions down the road, but [b]at least we have a top-notch facility already completed.[/b]

After 5/3 is done, I don't think we'll need any major facilities upgrades for a long time. If I remember correctly: soccer, baseball, tennis, swimming - all about 12 years old & lacrosse is about 6 years old. What else is there?

The "Facilities Arms Race" has not been about the main stadiums...it's all about training facilities, lounges, etc... And it's not about "the fan experience" it's really all about recruiting. If you look at what places like Florida State, Oregon, etc...have done with their training facilities, then you look at UC, you can see where UC is at a pronounced (and growing) disadvantage in recruiting. Where income enters the picture is that we have no margin to continually build, remodel, and improve the training facilities like all the schools in the "Power" conferences will/do.

But that being said, AT LEAST we got Nippert done while the money and will were there. I really feel for places like Temple, where they just now are trying to get something done but, frankly, face now the premise of spending huge amounts of money in a climate that will be unfriendly (at best). No matter what follows, we have a great stadium that is flexible to any number of possible scenarios.
 
04-19-2016 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rath v2.0 Offline
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 51,147
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 2147
I Root For: Civil Disobedience
Location: Tip Of The Mitt

Donators
Post: #11
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
(04-19-2016 09:46 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  UC spent $23 million subsidizing athletics last year. For an organization this size, that's a small advertising budget.

And make no mistake - athletics is an advertising expense. The only reason a student from Boston or Florida will go to UC is because of athletics. The only reason a UC grad will be seriously considered for a job in California or New York is because of athletics. If it weren't for our top-tier athletics, our geographic reach for undergrads would be similar to the schools similarly ranked in USNWR such as Michigan Tech, Illinois State, Missouri University of Science & Technology, or Maryland-Baltimore County.

After going through it the last couple of years, I disagree. Engineering, DAAP, etc students are not coming here because of athletics. We could have those programs where they are with FCS football and the same people would be lining up to apply.

My kid is at Alabama in their engineering program after being accepted with scholarships to UC, Ohio State, Tennessee and Illinois. Athletics played absolutely no role in the decision to go Alabama rather than other schools. The campus, the engineering facilities, dorms, and not to mention the fact that they have a full time recruiter in Greater Cincinnati who made it personal while the other schools (even UC) treated us like it was the Department of Motor Vehicles played a huge role. Sports is nice once you are there but any kid who is picking a school even in part on the basis of the sports programs...their parents need to be slapped in the head.

Hiring managers don't care either, generally. They care about keeping their job. Which depends on hiring qualified candidates from good programs. Eastside J can speak to that more than I can since that is his business.
 
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2016 11:33 AM by rath v2.0.)
04-19-2016 11:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Bruce Monnin Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,531
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 157
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Minster, Ohio
Post: #12
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
I know several students who entered UC's athletic engineering program the last several years from our area while in the past the engineering students mostly went to Ohio State. And I see them at the football games all the time, as they played high school football and are big fans.
 
04-19-2016 11:30 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crewdogz Offline
I'm Your Huckleberry
*

Posts: 8,867
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 262
I Root For: America
Location:

Donators
Post: #13
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
My 2nd son is in his 4th year in UC's Engineering program, I was incredibly impressed with how personal they made our visits. I'm sorry yours wasn't the same.

As for athletic budget... more fodder for the "we don't have $$$ to pay for the FB assistants we would like to add.
 
04-19-2016 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SuperFlyBCat Offline
Banned

Posts: 49,583
Joined: Mar 2005
I Root For: America and UC
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #14
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
(04-19-2016 11:27 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  
(04-19-2016 09:46 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  UC spent $23 million subsidizing athletics last year. For an organization this size, that's a small advertising budget.

And make no mistake - athletics is an advertising expense. The only reason a student from Boston or Florida will go to UC is because of athletics. The only reason a UC grad will be seriously considered for a job in California or New York is because of athletics. If it weren't for our top-tier athletics, our geographic reach for undergrads would be similar to the schools similarly ranked in USNWR such as Michigan Tech, Illinois State, Missouri University of Science & Technology, or Maryland-Baltimore County.

After going through it the last couple of years, I disagree. Engineering, DAAP, etc students are not coming here because of athletics. We could have those programs where they are with FCS football and the same people would be lining up to apply.

My kid is at Alabama in their engineering program after being accepted with scholarships to UC, Ohio State, Tennessee and Illinois. Athletics played absolutely no role in the decision to go Alabama rather than other schools. The campus, the engineering facilities, dorms, and not to mention the fact that they have a full time recruiter in Greater Cincinnati who made it personal while the other schools (even UC) treated us like it was the Department of Motor Vehicles played a huge role. Sports is nice once you are there but any kid who is picking a school even in part on the basis of the sports programs...their parents need to be slapped in the head.

Hiring managers don't care either, generally. They care about keeping their job. Which depends on hiring qualified candidates from good programs. Eastside J can speak to that more than I can since that is his business.

Hi Pops,

[Image: 554448d7f9c5b3f6f7d125e3f830c70e1116608397.png]

[Image: 2B67297700000578-0-image-a-18_1439701699639.jpg]
 
04-19-2016 12:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rath v2.0 Offline
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 51,147
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 2147
I Root For: Civil Disobedience
Location: Tip Of The Mitt

Donators
Post: #15
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
(04-19-2016 11:51 AM)Crewdogz Wrote:  My 2nd son is in his 4th year in UC's Engineering program, I was incredibly impressed with how personal they made our visits. I'm sorry yours wasn't the same.

As for athletic budget... more fodder for the "we don't have $$$ to pay for the FB assistants we would like to add.

Good for your son. For last year's seniors, I'm afraid our experience was pretty representative from the folks we know. I joked that it felt like the bad old days when quasi-governmental admin was split between several buildings like French and teachers college. UC was not the only school that treated it like ordering fast food. Ones that didn't stood way out, though.
 
04-19-2016 12:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatJerry Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,092
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 506
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
Post: #16
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
I think we need to talk about this...
Quote: "Cincinnati has instituted rules banning plane travel for non-conference games, saving “a couple hundred thousand dollars,” and capped per diems at $45, saving upwards of $75,000, he says. The department’s operating expenses rose from $25.2 million in 2005 to $59.5 million in 2013, not adjusting for inflation. Its expenses have decreased since ($55.4 million in 2014 and $51.7 million in 2015)."

Much is being made of this on the "Conference Realignment Board". A couple of salient points on this:
-While UC has a number of travel-able, regional OOC options, this does mean, OOC, we are more likely to be playing MAC, CUSA, and lower competitive games OOC.
-Again, the recruiting options get highlighted as we ask our athletes to "ride the bus" while other schools (ie. OSU, Indiana, etc...) say "We fly charter..." and our per diem rates, while reasonable, lag.

Just thought it was an interesting point.
 
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2016 12:38 PM by BearcatJerry.)
04-19-2016 12:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


BigDawg Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,817
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 39
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:

Donators
Post: #17
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
While many students find their way to UC via other means, quite a few learn of the University and see ads based on sporting events. There is a reason we saw a huge spike in the number and quality of applications when we made the BCS bowls. Athletics gets your name out, even if it is in passing. This will get more students to come to you and not have Universities having to go searching for top students.

I graduated high school in 1991 and really learned about UC from my guidance counselor and family, part of me knew Huggs went there as I was aware of him from his Walsh and Akron days since I am from NE Ohio. It didn't really influence me, but I had at least knew UC existed.

Honestly the bulk of my knowledge of colleges come from athletics. I have no clue if there is an elite academic school in Oklahoma. All I know is OU and OSU. For all I know there is a better academic school out there, but I haven't heard of it. While kids may not make decisions due to athletics, many probably at least learn something of the school from athletics.
 
04-19-2016 01:35 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crewdogz Offline
I'm Your Huckleberry
*

Posts: 8,867
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 262
I Root For: America
Location:

Donators
Post: #18
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
I will say in regards to the Alabama pictures posted I tried to get my son to add TN Vols to his list after going to the game in Knoxville and seeing the coeds.
 
04-19-2016 01:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rath v2.0 Offline
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 51,147
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 2147
I Root For: Civil Disobedience
Location: Tip Of The Mitt

Donators
Post: #19
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
(04-19-2016 12:36 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I think we need to talk about this...
Quote: "Cincinnati has instituted rules banning plane travel for non-conference games, saving “a couple hundred thousand dollars,” and capped per diems at $45, saving upwards of $75,000, he says. The department’s operating expenses rose from $25.2 million in 2005 to $59.5 million in 2013, not adjusting for inflation. Its expenses have decreased since ($55.4 million in 2014 and $51.7 million in 2015)."

Much is being made of this on the "Conference Realignment Board". A couple of salient points on this:
-While UC has a number of travel-able, regional OOC options, this does mean, OOC, we are more likely to be playing MAC, CUSA, and lower competitive games OOC.
-Again, the recruiting options get highlighted as we ask our athletes to "ride the bus" while other schools (ie. OSU, Indiana, etc...) say "We fly charter..." and our per diem rates, while reasonable, lag.

Just thought it was an interesting point.

Yeah, I cringed a little when I read that, too. Might be another reason Mick flirted with UNLV.
 
04-19-2016 01:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rath v2.0 Offline
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 51,147
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 2147
I Root For: Civil Disobedience
Location: Tip Of The Mitt

Donators
Post: #20
RE: USA Today: Can College Athletics Continue to Spend Like This
(04-19-2016 12:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(04-19-2016 11:27 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  
(04-19-2016 09:46 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  UC spent $23 million subsidizing athletics last year. For an organization this size, that's a small advertising budget.

And make no mistake - athletics is an advertising expense. The only reason a student from Boston or Florida will go to UC is because of athletics. The only reason a UC grad will be seriously considered for a job in California or New York is because of athletics. If it weren't for our top-tier athletics, our geographic reach for undergrads would be similar to the schools similarly ranked in USNWR such as Michigan Tech, Illinois State, Missouri University of Science & Technology, or Maryland-Baltimore County.

After going through it the last couple of years, I disagree. Engineering, DAAP, etc students are not coming here because of athletics. We could have those programs where they are with FCS football and the same people would be lining up to apply.

My kid is at Alabama in their engineering program after being accepted with scholarships to UC, Ohio State, Tennessee and Illinois. Athletics played absolutely no role in the decision to go Alabama rather than other schools. The campus, the engineering facilities, dorms, and not to mention the fact that they have a full time recruiter in Greater Cincinnati who made it personal while the other schools (even UC) treated us like it was the Department of Motor Vehicles played a huge role. Sports is nice once you are there but any kid who is picking a school even in part on the basis of the sports programs...their parents need to be slapped in the head.

Hiring managers don't care either, generally. They care about keeping their job. Which depends on hiring qualified candidates from good programs. Eastside J can speak to that more than I can since that is his business.

Hi Pops,

[Image: 554448d7f9c5b3f6f7d125e3f830c70e1116608397.png]

[Image: 2B67297700000578-0-image-a-18_1439701699639.jpg]

The pics probably undershoot the target. Its apparently a very good place to be a 19 year old guy.
 
04-19-2016 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.