(03-13-2017 11:07 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I'm less concerned with the seeding than the location. Traveling that far for a potential game two against a home team is a recipe for disaster.

And if we get there Memphis will be Rupp 2.0. If UK advances.

I'd like to see a ucla/uc game as they struggle so mightily on defense that i think it will be an interesting game to watch if Kyle W can keep himself on the court. The first round matchup concerns me more because of it's uncertainty. I'd like to beat a big 12 team though, and we owe Weber some payback from his Illini days. It's interesting though if i look at X's draw as an 11 with Md and Fla. St. I almost thing i would prefer that an we won 29 games and beat them. Just to go out an let it fly!

(03-12-2017 06:31 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  The only thing that bums me out is being shipped out to Sacramento. Makes it very difficult to go.

almost always getting a bad location to start out in the NCAA's. Too bad we can't be taken care of like North Carolina and Duke usually are. Usually one and most of the time both schools start out in North Carolina. Cincinnati always gets told that if Cincy hosted one in Cincinnati that we couldn't play in that one.

just win, baby

(03-13-2017 05:17 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  just win, baby

I like it. Just win, baby!

It looks like no AAC teams are in the CIT or CBIT Tourneys.

(03-13-2017 05:51 PM)doss2 Wrote:  It looks like no AAC teams are in the CIT or CBIT Tourneys.

that's a good thing

(03-13-2017 05:53 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 05:51 PM)doss2 Wrote:  It looks like no AAC teams are in the CIT or CBIT Tourneys.

that's a good thing

Houston is a 2 seed and UCF a 4 seed in the NIT. Love for those two teams to make the Big Dance next year.

(03-13-2017 07:50 AM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:41 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 07:51 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 06:31 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  The only thing that bums me out is being shipped out to Sacramento. Makes it very difficult to go.

Win two and go to Memphis.

Unfortunately, I have a job.

Wouldn't that apply even if we were closer? There is only one venue close enough to not take off work, Indy. And there are plenty of regional teams with better seeding than us to fill those spots.

So complaining about something that you had no intention of attending anyway just sounds so Cincinnati.

Sorry to disappoint you Kreskin, but I took off days this coming week in hopes of attending the 1st and 2nd rounds, like I try to do every year. Unfortunately, for a round of 32 west coast game on a Sunday I felt it would be too difficult to get back in time to be at work at 7AM Monday morning. Can't swing two weeks in a row off without screwing over my colleagues, so a drive to Memphis for round of 16 is tough, too. But since you're so good at knowing my intentions, I guess you are already aware of that.

(03-13-2017 12:05 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 10:57 PM)EffinBJ Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 09:56 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  UC's biggest problem is not getting shipped out to California, or not making it to the Sweet 16, or having our historic Nippert whored out to minor league soccer, it's being a 2nd class citizen in today's world of college athletics. All of UC's leaders over the last few years should be ashamed. And this new President and new BOT better get the job done or this disrespect and loss of revenue will begin to seep into enrollment numbers and alumni donations.

I completely agreed with you until the part about whose fault it is. When we're talking about the fact that the nexus of TV Networks, Powerful conferences, and shoe companies have made college athletics less competitive, the anger shouldn't be that UC's administration has somehow failed to get them into this exclusive club - it should be anger that the club exists in the first place.

That is to say - If Baylor were to be ejected from the B12, and UC picked up, we should be just as mad at the state of affairs in college sports. It wouldn't change the fortunes of Wichita State, SMU, and everyone else playing with ever increasing disadvantages.

The fact that it exists is moot - it does and UC's fortunes will only get worse as we remain in the AAC.

Same goes with marcuscan's comments about the old Metro or C-USA days. Not even a close comparison. Money differential was not as huge. And we did have Louisville, Memphis, and routinely other Top 25 teams in both leagues. What would SMU have been seeded with 30 wins under their belt and league championships from the old C-USA days? It sure would not have been a 6 seed. Probably a 2 or 3.

But it was clearly UC's leadership's fault. A window was opened (twice/almost 3 that should have been forced open) and UC failed to make it happen. UofL, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers (freaking Rutgers), TCU, plus all the smaller G5 schools that improved their league/revenue through realignment were able to make it happen. That took effective leadership. Heck, even NKU's leadership brought them into D-1, got them into a league, and now they are in the dance. UC's leadership has simply done nothing when it comes to league status/growth since the move into the Big East. If you're not growing then you're falling behind.

Are you sure you know this to be true? Idk that it's the case.

I think it's easy to conflate football payouts with basketball revenue. In reality, with basketball at least, most schools are lumped in together with just a few highly, HIGHLY revenue strong (and profitable) basketball programs.

Per recent figures Villanova grossed ~10.3M in revenue and UC grossed ~6.9M. 'Nova just won a national championship. Butler cleared ~1M the same year in profit, but with even less of a gross revenue figure than 'Nova. Butler has won plenty of games in the tournament recently. Let us also not forget that our conference mate, UConn won a chip in '14. Their revenues were ~9.6M for that season.

This is consistent with what was seen ~7 years ago - http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/com...l_profits/

The explosion in revenues is a distinctly NCAA football related thing.

In basketball over the years there have been the UCs, UofLs, Memphis, Gonzagas, Xaviers (gag), VCUs, etc etc etc. Historically average revenue earning teams that still compete at the highest levels of the sport for an extended timeframe. There is nothing of the sort in college football. There's something abt college football that seemingly makes it prohibitively harder to maintain success for mid-tier programs.

Putting this off on payouts is a tad disingenuous and not really backed up by data. Let's face it, there's ALWAYS going to be blue bloods, and we're never going to be those teams...sands a Yum! Arena sweetheart deal landing in our lap.

The REAL bottom line and difference maker is somewhere in the coach x players dynamic. Money could be considered a factor there cuz coaches can be hard to keep - a la a true gem like Brad Stevens. Other than that tho.....it's less clear.

Regarding the Metro/ CUSA/ Great Midwest days - let's be honest, it took a long, long while for anyone other than Memphis & UofL to truly rise to the occasion. UofL in the last years of Crum were not well regarded teams (mid to late 90s). UC's big splash on the scene with its FF & EE teams and successive high performing teams of the 90s aided in lifting the conference's profile...along with Memphis, and UofL, and maybe UAB/SLU/(later Marquette). It took quite some time for the conference to get respected and become more than a 2/3 team bid conference. At that point it was early 2000s.

All i'm saying is.....things ain't really changed enough to justify the angst abt conferences and such in college basketball. Football? Yes. 100%. Absolutely.



mc

(03-13-2017 09:17 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  Putting this off on payouts is a tad disingenuous and not really backed up by data.

Your data is so disingenuous that I believe you must be a political writer engaged in the ever popular fake news. To suggest that basketball budgets run totally independent of the overall operating budget of an Athletic Department (which includes football) is quite 'fake'. You just have to listen to Mick complain a few times each season how his basketball opportunities are limited by the dominance of football and the lack of money for basketball.

Thus a new arena is on its way to help - just like the $85M buffet that doubles as a double A soccer field. Talk about fiscal responsibility - not at UC as the burden is off loaded to the student body. The concept of "we will build it and they will come" was flat out wrong in both realignment and attendance.

So back to basketball seeding. Since you brought it up again, the old Metro had two national championships, one Final Four, UC made the Sweet 16 and the tourney 3 years in a row along with teams like Florida State, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, and Virginia Tech. Quite a different lineup than the current dumpster league we are in.

The real facts are that SMU won 30 games with two wins over UC (BPI#12), they won the regular season and the tournament, and received a 6 seed. We won 29 games with a victory on the road at new darling again Iowa State, yet a 6th seed shipped out west to play UCLA in California.

So we don't agree on the transformation of today's college basketball. Ok. So what happens in just 3 more years of the AAC? 5 years? Will we become a one bid league - another MAC? Will Mick still be here? Will people be looking to get out of their club suites in the new arena (already a fact in Nippert.) Worried - I sure am.

(03-13-2017 10:40 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:17 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  Putting this off on payouts is a tad disingenuous and not really backed up by data.

Your data is so disingenuous that I believe you must be a political writer engaged in the ever popular fake news. To suggest that basketball budgets run totally independent of the overall operating budget of an Athletic Department (which includes football) is quite 'fake'. You just have to listen to Mick complain a few times each season how his basketball opportunities are limited by the dominance of football and the lack of money for basketball.

Again - look at my examples, UConn, Villanova, and Butler. Not a one has money making football teams. I purposely pointed out teams that were in the same realm as UC.

Furthermore, idk how my data can be disingenuous. The revenues are what's produced by the various universities. Not by myself. Do universities subsidize other sports via their BCS, now current football payouts? Yes, some probably do. That said, UC NEVER was on those levels....even as a BCS school as the Big East always received much less than other schools. Nevertheless, the Big East was the best basketball conference going. Basketball simply doesn't generate the outsized cash revenues as football, so schools don't allocate/ reward their programs with huge budgets

Thus a new arena is on its way to help - just like the $85M buffet that doubles as a double A soccer field. Talk about fiscal responsibility - not at UC as the burden is off loaded to the student body. The concept of "we will build it and they will come" was flat out wrong in both realignment and attendance.

So back to basketball seeding. Since you brought it up again, the old Metro had two national championships, one Final Four, UC made the Sweet 16 and the tourney 3 years in a row along with teams like Florida State, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, and Virginia Tech. Quite a different lineup than the current dumpster league we are in.

The better example would be either the Midwest and/ or CUSA. Both conferences were created in the modern age. Both grew with respect to bid counts. I'm not following why it's just a given that the AAC will return less bids in the future. Just cuz...?!?

The real facts are that SMU won 30 games with two wins over UC (BPI#12), they won the regular season and the tournament, and received a 6 seed. We won 29 games with a victory on the road at new darling again Iowa State, yet a 6th seed shipped out west to play UCLA in California.

So we don't agree on the transformation of today's college basketball. Ok. So what happens in just 3 more years of the AAC? 5 years? Will we become a one bid league - another MAC? Will Mick still be here? Will people be looking to get out of their club suites in the new arena (already a fact in Nippert.) Worried - I sure am.

Again, i'm not clear on why there's the doom & gloom.
We ALL want to get to a better conference. However, the sky isn't falling.

We were supposed to see this type of outcome as a result of leaving a conference like the Big East. Didn't happen. Basketball attendance up, which is counter your fears. Mick seemingly ain't going nowhere.

Football is primed for one of the most anticipated seasons in YEARS. CLF is pulling better recruits, on average, then we did as a BCS school. I would guess that attendance will be just fine.

At the end of the day, how the conference does is really outside of what's important. Like i said in my first post...i don't find the conference argument compelling. Look at Gonzaga. #1 seed, from a nobody conference. That used to be UC, or UofL, etc.

UC just needs to win. That's really my central point here. I'm of the opinion that if you're good, you're good, and you'll win games. In our current era, we're 4-8 in the tournament over the last 8 years. I don't see how conference affiliation played a huge role in this outcome. But, maybe you can tell me....?


mc

(03-13-2017 10:40 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  The concept of "we will build it and they will come" was flat out wrong in both realignment and attendance.

Actually, it has worked that way as far as building of the football program has led to greater student enrollment (bucking the trend of many school in the state of Ohio).

(03-14-2017 07:45 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 10:40 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  The concept of "we will build it and they will come" was flat out wrong in both realignment and attendance.

Actually, it has worked that way as far as building of the football program has led to greater student enrollment (bucking the trend of many school in the state of Ohio).

On that I agree. What MD started, BK exploded, and BJ maintained definitely increased enrollment, alumni donations, merchandising revenues, and national cache. And.....and it's a big AND.... we had a seat at the big boy table.

What dreck bowl did the AAC Champ receive? What dreck seed did the AAC Champ get? Too many sit quietly and think it's going to be OK. Luke will save us. The new Arena will bring in McDonald's All-Americans. Remain calm, all is well.

Keep turning a blind eye to the erosion of UC athletics and one day we will be in the MAC, or worse, Independent. Not a matter of opinion but a matter of history.

(03-13-2017 05:07 PM)bearcat54 Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 06:31 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  The only thing that bums me out is being shipped out to Sacramento. Makes it very difficult to go.

almost always getting a bad location to start out in the NCAA's. Too bad we can't be taken care of like North Carolina and Duke usually are. Usually one and most of the time both schools start out in North Carolina. Cincinnati always gets told that if Cincy hosted one in Cincinnati that we couldn't play in that one.

People act like this is random. NC and Duke get good draws because they are the best teams in the regular season.

(03-14-2017 08:13 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 05:07 PM)bearcat54 Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 06:31 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  The only thing that bums me out is being shipped out to Sacramento. Makes it very difficult to go.

almost always getting a bad location to start out in the NCAA's. Too bad we can't be taken care of like North Carolina and Duke usually are. Usually one and most of the time both schools start out in North Carolina. Cincinnati always gets told that if Cincy hosted one in Cincinnati that we couldn't play in that one.

People act like this is random. NC and Duke get good draws because they are the best teams in the regular season.

Exactly. If UC had the kind of season that made them 3rd or 7th on the Seed-list (Where UNC / Duke are respectively)...they'd be in Indy. As I noted in another thread they were actually really close to being placed in Indy anyways as all they needed was to have the committee place Oregon ahead of Louisville (they were 8 and 9) and UC would have been the 6 in Indy drawing Louisville in the second round. Bad luck that two west teams were 3 seeds placed in Sacramento. So it goes.

(03-14-2017 08:45 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:13 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 05:07 PM)bearcat54 Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 06:31 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  The only thing that bums me out is being shipped out to Sacramento. Makes it very difficult to go.

almost always getting a bad location to start out in the NCAA's. Too bad we can't be taken care of like North Carolina and Duke usually are. Usually one and most of the time both schools start out in North Carolina. Cincinnati always gets told that if Cincy hosted one in Cincinnati that we couldn't play in that one.

People act like this is random. NC and Duke get good draws because they are the best teams in the regular season.

Exactly. If UC had the kind of season that made them 3rd or 7th on the Seed-list (Where UNC / Duke are respectively)...they'd be in Indy. As I noted in another thread they were actually really close to being placed in Indy anyways as all they needed was to have the committee place Oregon ahead of Louisville (they were 8 and 9) and UC would have been the 6 in Indy drawing Louisville in the second round. Bad luck that two west teams were 3 seeds placed in Sacramento. So it goes.

Do you think they would have kept UC out west to protect Louisville? Wouldn't it be against that rule to have Louisville playing a team just as close to Indy in the 2nd round? Not exactly protecting Louisville.

(03-14-2017 09:06 AM)BigDawg Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:45 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:13 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 05:07 PM)bearcat54 Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 06:31 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  The only thing that bums me out is being shipped out to Sacramento. Makes it very difficult to go.

almost always getting a bad location to start out in the NCAA's. Too bad we can't be taken care of like North Carolina and Duke usually are. Usually one and most of the time both schools start out in North Carolina. Cincinnati always gets told that if Cincy hosted one in Cincinnati that we couldn't play in that one.

People act like this is random. NC and Duke get good draws because they are the best teams in the regular season.

Exactly. If UC had the kind of season that made them 3rd or 7th on the Seed-list (Where UNC / Duke are respectively)...they'd be in Indy. As I noted in another thread they were actually really close to being placed in Indy anyways as all they needed was to have the committee place Oregon ahead of Louisville (they were 8 and 9) and UC would have been the 6 in Indy drawing Louisville in the second round. Bad luck that two west teams were 3 seeds placed in Sacramento. So it goes.

Do you think they would have kept UC out west to protect Louisville? Wouldn't it be against that rule to have Louisville playing a team just as close to Indy in the 2nd round? Not exactly protecting Louisville.

No I do not. There is no such rule in place. They didn't send SMU away from Tulsa to protect Baylor.

(03-14-2017 08:13 AM)uccheese Wrote:  People act like this is random. NC and Duke get good draws because they are the best teams in the regular season.

And others act as though they have not been coddled and protected into such a position. UNC's massive and institutionalized academic fraud and recruiting violations were ignored. Coach K (and now Calipari) are given exclusive access to blue chip recruits via USA Basketball. Their Laettners and Graysons can act like thugs in the true sense of the word, without Duke being held at all accountable for their lack of discipline. ESPN promotes them endlessly, to the point that our Crosstown Shootout was often being played on half a screen so that ESPN could remind us of a better game we might want to watch. My point is, if you think this is a meritocracy, then you're ignorant of the special advantages built into this system.

And by the way, Duke was not the best team during the regular season. They lost five of their last six and finished fifth.

(03-14-2017 09:07 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 09:06 AM)BigDawg Wrote:  Do you think they would have kept UC out west to protect Louisville? Wouldn't it be against that rule to have Louisville playing a team just as close to Indy in the 2nd round? Not exactly protecting Louisville.

No I do not. There is no such rule in place. They didn't send SMU away from Tulsa to protect Baylor.

There would've been no need to protect them. They're just as close to Indianapolis and have a larger fan base. The only reason crowd may favor us would be because UK wanting to see UL lose.