(11-09-2016 08:43 PM)back2vinyl Wrote:  If we win consistently in the AAC, we'll sell tickets. End of story.

No team will ever consistently win in the AAC. As soon as one team catches lightening in a bottle with quality coaches and recruits, the economics will dictate that said coach will be gone for truly greener pastures. Memphis at best will finish 7-5 after Fuente left. Just the discussion of Herman leaving put Houston into a tailspin losing 2 out of 3. Next year he will be gone and Houston will be done. Two years after UCF won a BCS bowl, they spent the 2015 season going 0-12.

And yippee if we do win an AAC title. What does that get us, a 1 out of 4 chance of making a New Years bowl. (This year's AAC champ has zero chance). Otherwise its a Sunbelt or MAC team in a baseball stadium. That will definitely drive traffic. Kind of like the back-to-back Motor City Bowls when UC played Marshall and then Toledo. Average attendance at Nippert during those years was less than 23,000. Get ready for the "buy two cheese coneys and get a UC football ticket." Updated for 2017 will be "buy a three-way and get a Club level seat."

(11-09-2016 07:13 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  But going back to my original point, TT isn't our big problem. It's being stuck on the outside and trying to remain "big" against increasingly difficult odds.

100% correct - end of story.

(11-09-2016 07:28 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 05:19 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  In terms of problems, I don't see TT as the biggest. There are much larger, looming issues, like the fact UC spent $85M on a beautiful Nippert addition that they honestly don't need. I'm not criticizing the gamble to build it and make UC more P5-attractive, but there is a reality that this edifice was supposed to be privately funded by football club seat and suite holders who for the most part probably aren't going to stick around for the long term.

UC has no foreseeable need for 53 suites and 1,100 club seats. But it has a big bill to pay. Whatever soccer revenue we're getting won't go towards keeping football afloat so much as it will to pay for a structure that can arguably termed a white elephant.

Anyway, TT is but a blip in UC's football history. He may be around for another year or two - if this contract rewrite is sending the right signals - but he's going to be gone in the not too distant future.

I'm more concerned about the big picture of UC's apparent long-term future outside the P5 and a program that has to hold "bake sales" to keep it "financially viable."

The donations for the first 3 years pay the cost of the expansion. The future issue is if the expansion seats revenue fund the football program so that we can compete. The Big East implosion funds are either gone or almost gone. Sometimes the economics of college sports are not understood in terms other than uninformed emotion.

Hmmm...Doss, how much does a club seat cost?

Edited: Club seats are $2,500 per seat per year. 1,100 club seats are available. If all are sold, that's $8,250,000 over three years. Optimistically, only 70% are sold, which is $5,775,000.

Now I need to find the cost of various suites.

(11-09-2016 11:40 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 07:28 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 05:19 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  In terms of problems, I don't see TT as the biggest. There are much larger, looming issues, like the fact UC spent $85M on a beautiful Nippert addition that they honestly don't need. I'm not criticizing the gamble to build it and make UC more P5-attractive, but there is a reality that this edifice was supposed to be privately funded by football club seat and suite holders who for the most part probably aren't going to stick around for the long term.

UC has no foreseeable need for 53 suites and 1,100 club seats. But it has a big bill to pay. Whatever soccer revenue we're getting won't go towards keeping football afloat so much as it will to pay for a structure that can arguably termed a white elephant.

Anyway, TT is but a blip in UC's football history. He may be around for another year or two - if this contract rewrite is sending the right signals - but he's going to be gone in the not too distant future.

I'm more concerned about the big picture of UC's apparent long-term future outside the P5 and a program that has to hold "bake sales" to keep it "financially viable."

The donations for the first 3 years pay the cost of the expansion. The future issue is if the expansion seats revenue fund the football program so that we can compete. The Big East implosion funds are either gone or almost gone. Sometimes the economics of college sports are not understood in terms other than uninformed emotion.

Hmmm...Doss, how much does a club seat cost?

Minimum was $15,000 for 2 seats for 3 years. $2,500 a seat a year.

(11-09-2016 10:52 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 08:43 PM)back2vinyl Wrote:  If we win consistently in the AAC, we'll sell tickets. End of story.

No team will ever consistently win in the AAC. As soon as one team catches lightening in a bottle with quality coaches and recruits, the economics will dictate that said coach will be gone for truly greener pastures. Memphis at best will finish 7-5 after Fuente left. Just the discussion of Herman leaving put Houston into a tailspin losing 2 out of 3. Next year he will be gone and Houston will be done. Two years after UCF won a BCS bowl, they spent the 2015 season going 0-12.

And yippee if we do win an AAC title. What does that get us, a 1 out of 4 chance of making a New Years bowl. (This year's AAC champ has zero chance). Otherwise its a Sunbelt or MAC team in a baseball stadium. That will definitely drive traffic. Kind of like the back-to-back Motor City Bowls when UC played Marshall and then Toledo. Average attendance at Nippert during those years was less than 23,000. Get ready for the "buy two cheese coneys and get a UC football ticket." Updated for 2017 will be "buy a three-way and get a Club level seat."

We were competitive with our peers in the Big East with less built-in revenue streams (like premium seating), worse facilities, similar fan support, a very limited history of success, and a similar divide between ourselves and P5 conferences in terms of media money. Why could we not replicate that in the AAC where we are far and away a leader in facilities and commitment to athletics over the others schools? Obviously, after four years of TT our margin is growing slim, but if we can make the right hire and pull from the immense pool of talent in Cincinnati and Ohio, there is no reason we cannot continue to compete at the top of our conference.

By the way, with the slow demise of ESPN and cable, the divide will decrease with more schools as the purse strings get pulled tighter. This doesn't apply anytime soon to the SEC and Big 10, but certainly the Big 12 and PAC 12 are having serious issues justifying their media deals to their media companies. I don't think we can bank on what this model looks like moving forward, but UC has front-to-back positioned themselves to be included in this conversation.

(11-10-2016 09:30 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 10:52 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 08:43 PM)back2vinyl Wrote:  If we win consistently in the AAC, we'll sell tickets. End of story.

No team will ever consistently win in the AAC. As soon as one team catches lightening in a bottle with quality coaches and recruits, the economics will dictate that said coach will be gone for truly greener pastures. Memphis at best will finish 7-5 after Fuente left. Just the discussion of Herman leaving put Houston into a tailspin losing 2 out of 3. Next year he will be gone and Houston will be done. Two years after UCF won a BCS bowl, they spent the 2015 season going 0-12.

And yippee if we do win an AAC title. What does that get us, a 1 out of 4 chance of making a New Years bowl. (This year's AAC champ has zero chance). Otherwise its a Sunbelt or MAC team in a baseball stadium. That will definitely drive traffic. Kind of like the back-to-back Motor City Bowls when UC played Marshall and then Toledo. Average attendance at Nippert during those years was less than 23,000. Get ready for the "buy two cheese coneys and get a UC football ticket." Updated for 2017 will be "buy a three-way and get a Club level seat."

We were competitive with our peers in the Big East with less built-in revenue streams (like premium seating), worse facilities, similar fan support, a very limited history of success, and a similar divide between ourselves and P5 conferences in terms of media money. Why could we not replicate that in the AAC where we are far and away a leader in facilities and commitment to athletics over the others schools? Obviously, after four years of TT our margin is growing slim, but if we can make the right hire and pull from the immense pool of talent in Cincinnati and Ohio, there is no reason we cannot continue to compete at the top of our conference.

By the way, with the slow demise of ESPN and cable, the divide will decrease with more schools as the purse strings get pulled tighter. This doesn't apply anytime soon to the SEC and Big 10, but certainly the Big 12 and PAC 12 are having serious issues justifying their media deals to their media companies. I don't think we can bank on what this model looks like moving forward, but UC has front-to-back positioned themselves to be included in this conversation.

A couple of thoughts...

This conference is more like CUSA than the Big East. So, I don't think you can compare the ability to sustain "a winner" in the Big East years to the current conference situation. AND, even if you could, we lost two (or three depending if you want to count Jones in that run) good coaches through that "Winning the Big East" run and at each point could have been "Tubervilled" by making the wrong hire....But we didn't.

Second, when we were competitive at the CUSA level, nobody "came out" to see this team. The stadium was consistently at half-capacity for the CUSA line-up... 3/4 of which are THE SAME TEAMS as today. So, I don't know how true the base premise of "If we win the AAC people will come out to watch this team" is.

(11-10-2016 09:30 AM)crex043 Wrote:  We were competitive with our peers in the Big East with less built-in revenue streams (like premium seating), worse facilities, similar fan support, a very limited history of success, and a similar divide between ourselves and P5 conferences in terms of media money.

I think you answered your own question - the Big East. The Big East not only had a guaranteed BCS spot to sell to recruits and to the fan base, it was the #1 basketball conference. Both generated significantly more revenue for UC than what is currently being brought in by those ancillary items you mentioned like premium seating. You must realize the premium seating revenue will be crushed after the 3 year commitments expire in 2017. Varsity Village was built for our entry into the Big East so our facilities had taken a huge step forward for football with a much better weight training facility and locker room.

Plus the Big East exit fees are still contributing to our bottom line - those too will go away soon. Let's face it, Xavier generates more TV revenue from their inclusion in the new Big East then UC receives for both football and basketball in the AAC.

That's why Tommy is the least of UC's problems. Those that had the keys to the University including the BOT leadership, Ono, Babcock, and now Bohn have failed miserably. The money disparity between UC and our natural rivals for recruiting makes me want to puke. Louisville, Pitt, West Virginia, UK, both Michigan schools, Tennessee and that outfit in Columbus will be bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 5 years while UC won't even get to $15M. This is only going to get worse. And wait until the P5 cartel votes to do away with scholarship limits - then it will truly be over.

And before somebody rails on me for being Debbie-downer or not supporting my school. I'm headed to UCF tomorrow for my second road trip after the Purdue game. I have attended all the home games and will be in Nippert next Friday night. The next morning I fly out to Hartford to catch the Cats play in the Tip Off Classic at Mohegan Sun.

(11-10-2016 10:00 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 09:30 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 10:52 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 08:43 PM)back2vinyl Wrote:  If we win consistently in the AAC, we'll sell tickets. End of story.

No team will ever consistently win in the AAC. As soon as one team catches lightening in a bottle with quality coaches and recruits, the economics will dictate that said coach will be gone for truly greener pastures. Memphis at best will finish 7-5 after Fuente left. Just the discussion of Herman leaving put Houston into a tailspin losing 2 out of 3. Next year he will be gone and Houston will be done. Two years after UCF won a BCS bowl, they spent the 2015 season going 0-12.

And yippee if we do win an AAC title. What does that get us, a 1 out of 4 chance of making a New Years bowl. (This year's AAC champ has zero chance). Otherwise its a Sunbelt or MAC team in a baseball stadium. That will definitely drive traffic. Kind of like the back-to-back Motor City Bowls when UC played Marshall and then Toledo. Average attendance at Nippert during those years was less than 23,000. Get ready for the "buy two cheese coneys and get a UC football ticket." Updated for 2017 will be "buy a three-way and get a Club level seat."

We were competitive with our peers in the Big East with less built-in revenue streams (like premium seating), worse facilities, similar fan support, a very limited history of success, and a similar divide between ourselves and P5 conferences in terms of media money. Why could we not replicate that in the AAC where we are far and away a leader in facilities and commitment to athletics over the others schools? Obviously, after four years of TT our margin is growing slim, but if we can make the right hire and pull from the immense pool of talent in Cincinnati and Ohio, there is no reason we cannot continue to compete at the top of our conference.

By the way, with the slow demise of ESPN and cable, the divide will decrease with more schools as the purse strings get pulled tighter. This doesn't apply anytime soon to the SEC and Big 10, but certainly the Big 12 and PAC 12 are having serious issues justifying their media deals to their media companies. I don't think we can bank on what this model looks like moving forward, but UC has front-to-back positioned themselves to be included in this conversation.

A couple of thoughts...

This conference is more like CUSA than the Big East. So, I don't think you can compare the ability to sustain "a winner" in the Big East years to the current conference situation. AND, even if you could, we lost two (or three depending if you want to count Jones in that run) good coaches through that "Winning the Big East" run and at each point could have been "Tubervilled" by making the wrong hire....But we didn't.

Second, when we were competitive at the CUSA level, nobody "came out" to see this team. The stadium was consistently at half-capacity for the CUSA line-up... 3/4 of which are THE SAME TEAMS as today. So, I don't know how true the base premise of "If we win the AAC people will come out to watch this team" is.

I wasn't arguing that the quality of our conference is better than it was yesterday. My point was that we were competitive in our own league (Big East) where other members had access to similar resources. Yes, we will continue to have issues keeping up with the upper-tier leagues in the P5, but because we've invested in our athletics and infrastructure and because of our geographical location, we are better positioned to sustain success against our peers than we were ten years ago.

And, arguably, no one came out to see CUSA games because our football did not have any tradition of success at that point. I don't think many people showed up during the beginning of our Big East years until we started sustaining our success. I don't think the AAC is as bad as CUSA, but look at the student section earlier this year before Tubs started mailing it in. They would not have shown up in CUSA years but now competitiveness and success is now expected.

We need to get him out of here as soon as we can and try to re-establish momentum. If we have a new coach to be excited about next year, I guarantee we will start filling Nippert again.

(11-10-2016 10:01 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 09:30 AM)crex043 Wrote:  We were competitive with our peers in the Big East with less built-in revenue streams (like premium seating), worse facilities, similar fan support, a very limited history of success, and a similar divide between ourselves and P5 conferences in terms of media money.

I think you answered your own question - the Big East. The Big East not only had a guaranteed BCS spot to sell to recruits and to the fan base, it was the #1 basketball conference. Both generated significantly more revenue for UC than what is currently being brought in by those ancillary items you mentioned like premium seating. You must realize the premium seating revenue will be crushed after the 3 year commitments expire in 2017. Varsity Village was built for our entry into the Big East so our facilities had taken a huge step forward for football with a much better weight training facility and locker room.

Plus the Big East exit fees are still contributing to our bottom line - those too will go away soon. Let's face it, Xavier generates more TV revenue from their inclusion in the new Big East then UC receives for both football and basketball in the AAC.

That's why Tommy is the least of UC's problems. Those that had the keys to the University including the BOT leadership, Ono, Babcock, and now Bohn have failed miserably. The money disparity between UC and our natural rivals for recruiting makes me want to puke. Louisville, Pitt, West Virginia, UK, both Michigan schools, Tennessee and that outfit in Columbus will be bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 5 years while UC won't even get to $15M. This is only going to get worse. And wait until the P5 cartel votes to do away with scholarship limits - then it will truly be over.

And before somebody rails on me for being Debbie-downer or not supporting my school. I'm headed to UCF tomorrow for my second road trip after the Purdue game. I have attended all the home games and will be in Nippert next Friday night. The next morning I fly out to Hartford to catch the Cats play in the Tip Off Classic at Mohegan Sun.

Yes, we aren't in the P5 and that is hurting us against the P5. No one is arguing that, and there is no one in the P5 with any desire, brains, or incentive to expand at this point. My point is that we should be competitive with (and have an advantage against) our peers due to our investment. That is the only thing we can do at this point to move forward, and we have to do it with a coach that is going to give us a better return. So Tommy is still a very big problem in terms of what we can control.

(11-09-2016 06:41 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 05:19 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  In terms of problems, I don't see TT as the biggest. There are much larger, looming issues, like the fact UC spent $85M on a beautiful Nippert addition that they honestly don't need. I'm not criticizing the gamble to build it and make UC more P5-attractive, but there is a reality that this edifice was supposed to be privately funded by football club seat and suite holders who for the most part probably aren't going to stick around for the long term.

UC has no foreseeable need for 53 suites and 1,100 club seats. But it has a big bill to pay. Whatever soccer revenue we're getting won't go towards keeping football afloat so much as it will to pay for a structure that can arguably termed a white elephant.

Anyway, TT is but a blip in UC's football history. He may be around for another year or two - if this contract rewrite is sending the right signals - but he's going to be gone in the not too distant future.

I'm more concerned about the big picture of UC's apparent long-term future outside the P5 and a program that has to hold "bake sales" to keep it "financially viable."

I guess you were not a business major. The Club Seats and Suites are more than self amortizing if UC has a decent product that sells a majority of those seats. Now if UC accepts TT crap people like me will walk away and they will be a white elephant. Therefore TT must go!

Explain how "self amortizing" works under fund accounting. UC does not live in an accrual world.

(11-09-2016 11:46 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 11:40 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 07:28 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 05:19 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  In terms of problems, I don't see TT as the biggest. There are much larger, looming issues, like the fact UC spent $85M on a beautiful Nippert addition that they honestly don't need. I'm not criticizing the gamble to build it and make UC more P5-attractive, but there is a reality that this edifice was supposed to be privately funded by football club seat and suite holders who for the most part probably aren't going to stick around for the long term.

UC has no foreseeable need for 53 suites and 1,100 club seats. But it has a big bill to pay. Whatever soccer revenue we're getting won't go towards keeping football afloat so much as it will to pay for a structure that can arguably termed a white elephant.

Anyway, TT is but a blip in UC's football history. He may be around for another year or two - if this contract rewrite is sending the right signals - but he's going to be gone in the not too distant future.

I'm more concerned about the big picture of UC's apparent long-term future outside the P5 and a program that has to hold "bake sales" to keep it "financially viable."

The donations for the first 3 years pay the cost of the expansion. The future issue is if the expansion seats revenue fund the football program so that we can compete. The Big East implosion funds are either gone or almost gone. Sometimes the economics of college sports are not understood in terms other than uninformed emotion.

Hmmm...Doss, how much does a club seat cost?

Minimum was $15,000 for 2 seats for 3 years. $2,500 a seat a year.

Is that paid up front or in installments or what?

(11-10-2016 11:09 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 10:01 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 09:30 AM)crex043 Wrote:  We were competitive with our peers in the Big East with less built-in revenue streams (like premium seating), worse facilities, similar fan support, a very limited history of success, and a similar divide between ourselves and P5 conferences in terms of media money.

I think you answered your own question - the Big East. The Big East not only had a guaranteed BCS spot to sell to recruits and to the fan base, it was the #1 basketball conference. Both generated significantly more revenue for UC than what is currently being brought in by those ancillary items you mentioned like premium seating. You must realize the premium seating revenue will be crushed after the 3 year commitments expire in 2017. Varsity Village was built for our entry into the Big East so our facilities had taken a huge step forward for football with a much better weight training facility and locker room.

Plus the Big East exit fees are still contributing to our bottom line - those too will go away soon. Let's face it, Xavier generates more TV revenue from their inclusion in the new Big East then UC receives for both football and basketball in the AAC.

That's why Tommy is the least of UC's problems. Those that had the keys to the University including the BOT leadership, Ono, Babcock, and now Bohn have failed miserably. The money disparity between UC and our natural rivals for recruiting makes me want to puke. Louisville, Pitt, West Virginia, UK, both Michigan schools, Tennessee and that outfit in Columbus will be bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 5 years while UC won't even get to $15M. This is only going to get worse. And wait until the P5 cartel votes to do away with scholarship limits - then it will truly be over.

And before somebody rails on me for being Debbie-downer or not supporting my school. I'm headed to UCF tomorrow for my second road trip after the Purdue game. I have attended all the home games and will be in Nippert next Friday night. The next morning I fly out to Hartford to catch the Cats play in the Tip Off Classic at Mohegan Sun.

Yes, we aren't in the P5 and that is hurting us against the P5. No one is arguing that, and there is no one in the P5 with any desire, brains, or incentive to expand at this point. My point is that we should be competitive with (and have an advantage against) our peers due to our investment. That is the only thing we can do at this point to move forward, and we have to do it with a coach that is going to give us a better return. So Tommy is still a very big problem in terms of what we can control.

Bolded, I agree completely. It's hard to compare the UC of C-USA days to the current AAC scenario. Not just football, but the University has undergone a complete metamorphosis; it's comparing apples to oranges. Cincinnati was largely a commuter school in those years--the fully engaged student community was a fraction of what it is today. A few hundred students might show up at Nippert and enjoy half a game with 7,000 other die hard fans. Guys, remember standing in line for the communal urinal in the basement of Dieterle? It was the Dark Ages compared with today's facilities, atmosphere and attendance.

If Tubs is around next year, attendance will decline. But I don't ever see it returning to the C-USA days. Our world has changed; we're a good head coach away from the kind of crowds we had for Miami (FL) last season and Houston this year. By the way, we didn't sell out for either of those teams prior to the Big East days.

(11-10-2016 11:09 AM)crex043 Wrote:  My point is that we should be competitive with (and have an advantage against) our peers due to our investment.

You need a coaching advantage and a recruiting advantage. When a team develops the above they win, and then the coach and his recruiting advantage leave. The $85M press box will soon be generating a third of its previous revenue due to non-renewals because of the poor home schedules. Pretty locker rooms, pretty weight rooms, and pretty bathrooms are not going to make a difference.

(11-10-2016 02:54 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 11:09 AM)crex043 Wrote:  My point is that we should be competitive with (and have an advantage against) our peers due to our investment.

You need a coaching advantage and a recruiting advantage. When a team develops the above they win, and then the coach and his recruiting advantage leave. The $85M press box will soon be generating a third of its previous revenue due to non-renewals because of the poor home schedules. Pretty locker rooms, pretty weight rooms, and pretty bathrooms are not going to make a difference.

We've been able to adequately replace departing coaches in the past, given that we've actually conducted a proper search before deciding on a person. Again, the non-renewals are not because of the home schedule - it's because of the product on the field. Fix the product, fix the attendance.

(11-10-2016 12:39 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 11:46 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 11:40 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 07:28 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 05:19 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  In terms of problems, I don't see TT as the biggest. There are much larger, looming issues, like the fact UC spent $85M on a beautiful Nippert addition that they honestly don't need. I'm not criticizing the gamble to build it and make UC more P5-attractive, but there is a reality that this edifice was supposed to be privately funded by football club seat and suite holders who for the most part probably aren't going to stick around for the long term.

UC has no foreseeable need for 53 suites and 1,100 club seats. But it has a big bill to pay. Whatever soccer revenue we're getting won't go towards keeping football afloat so much as it will to pay for a structure that can arguably termed a white elephant.

Anyway, TT is but a blip in UC's football history. He may be around for another year or two - if this contract rewrite is sending the right signals - but he's going to be gone in the not too distant future.

I'm more concerned about the big picture of UC's apparent long-term future outside the P5 and a program that has to hold "bake sales" to keep it "financially viable."

The donations for the first 3 years pay the cost of the expansion. The future issue is if the expansion seats revenue fund the football program so that we can compete. The Big East implosion funds are either gone or almost gone. Sometimes the economics of college sports are not understood in terms other than uninformed emotion.

Hmmm...Doss, how much does a club seat cost?

Minimum was $15,000 for 2 seats for 3 years. $2,500 a seat a year.

Is that paid up front or in installments or what?

$5000 per year for 3 years. Huge WASTE of money. I cannot see renewing.

(11-08-2016 03:50 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 03:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 02:15 PM)mlb Wrote:  Just reminds me too much of the Minter years.

yep

Are you guys kidding. Minter was infinitely better. He not only tried, but won some big games with much less talent.

He won 1 game that I would consider "big"... Wisconsin, on a day in which they had a huge lead in turnovers. The talent he had while in C-USA was certainly more than enough to compete and win the conference a lot more often than his 1 championship (a year in which UC went 7-6 and almost beat eventual national champion Ohio State). Minter was the kind of being conservative thus allowed a lot of other teams to be in games and beat UC that should never have been there.

What I'm trying to compare is the wasted talent under TT and Minter.

(11-10-2016 07:14 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:39 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 11:46 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 11:40 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 07:28 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  The donations for the first 3 years pay the cost of the expansion. The future issue is if the expansion seats revenue fund the football program so that we can compete. The Big East implosion funds are either gone or almost gone. Sometimes the economics of college sports are not understood in terms other than uninformed emotion.

Hmmm...Doss, how much does a club seat cost?

Minimum was $15,000 for 2 seats for 3 years. $2,500 a seat a year.

Is that paid up front or in installments or what?

$5000 per year for 3 years. Huge WASTE of money. I cannot see renewing.

Can you imagine being one of the 18 who signed up for a Founders Suite? A ten year commitment of $100k per year for ten years.

(11-11-2016 10:23 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 03:50 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 03:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 02:15 PM)mlb Wrote:  Just reminds me too much of the Minter years.

yep

Are you guys kidding. Minter was infinitely better. He not only tried, but won some big games with much less talent.

He won 1 game that I would consider "big"... Wisconsin, on a day in which they had a huge lead in turnovers. The talent he had while in C-USA was certainly more than enough to compete and win the conference a lot more often than his 1 championship (a year in which UC went 7-6 and almost beat eventual national champion Ohio State). Minter was the kind of being conservative thus allowed a lot of other teams to be in games and beat UC that should never have been there.

What I'm trying to compare is the wasted talent under TT and Minter.

Just from memory, Virginia Tech, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia Syracuse, TCU and Wisconsin. He did not win the two Kansas games, but Tt would have lost by 3 tds. Minter never had the advantage that TT had. TT had the Belk bowl team back and immediately hamstrung them with a qb controversy and a stupid decision to shift to a pro style offense. He has been asleep at the switch from day one.