(05-08-2017 11:21 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:18 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:10 AM)dsquare Wrote:  Doesn't have anything to do with it. Teams like byu, houston were hot and they had the same fate. Key is that you have proved you can have success and have a good market. You think Rutgers would be in the big 10 if results mattered. ha!

This. Plus the whole deal was a sham constructed by the Big12 to get more money out of the networks in exchange to eliminating the pro-rats clause in their media contract.

If only Ono didn't fail. He should've overcome all the money the networks threw at the B12 to not expand. Glad that bum is gone!

/s

I mentioned Ono but did not blame him. I suggested not having him in place at UC hurt. From what we had read he developed some good relationships with some B12 schools and I think Oklahoma was one of them.

(05-08-2017 12:33 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 11:21 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:18 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:10 AM)dsquare Wrote:  Doesn't have anything to do with it. Teams like byu, houston were hot and they had the same fate. Key is that you have proved you can have success and have a good market. You think Rutgers would be in the big 10 if results mattered. ha!

This. Plus the whole deal was a sham constructed by the Big12 to get more money out of the networks in exchange to eliminating the pro-rats clause in their media contract.

If only Ono didn't fail. He should've overcome all the money the networks threw at the B12 to not expand. Glad that bum is gone!

/s

I mentioned Ono but did not blame him. I suggested not having him in place at UC hurt. From what we had read he developed some good relationships with some B12 schools and I think Oklahoma was one of them.

I think Ono's relationship-building with the B12 didn't hurt, but it didn't help much either. Ono was still in place and in recent contact with OU when Boren decided to reneg on his statement about the B12 having to expand to survive once ESPN threw some green in his face. We also had K-State in our corner briefly - they turned tail as well.

I will enjoy watching Baylor, K-State, ISU, and others scramble for a new conference once the B12 disintegrates. They are as much to blame for the demise of the B12 as OU and UT are.

Me thinks he's poking fun at some of the other posters who have since blamed Ono for our shortcomings regarding the Big 12

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

(05-08-2017 12:33 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 11:21 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:18 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:10 AM)dsquare Wrote:  Doesn't have anything to do with it. Teams like byu, houston were hot and they had the same fate. Key is that you have proved you can have success and have a good market. You think Rutgers would be in the big 10 if results mattered. ha!

This. Plus the whole deal was a sham constructed by the Big12 to get more money out of the networks in exchange to eliminating the pro-rats clause in their media contract.

If only Ono didn't fail. He should've overcome all the money the networks threw at the B12 to not expand. Glad that bum is gone!

/s

I mentioned Ono but did not blame him. I suggested not having him in place at UC hurt. From what we had read he developed some good relationships with some B12 schools and I think Oklahoma was one of them.

I'm in agreement with you. I'm just feeling a bit sassy today. Cataclysmo got it right.

If only Ono cared about someone other than himself!! He didn't make the goal, and that is solely on him. Those whose schools did switch conferences faced the exact same situation as Ono, but got it done. /s

P5 Expansion of any sort is likely over. What's the motivation now that ESPiN is going broke? No conference will be getting more tv money. It will no doubt be cut when their contracts are renewed. If not before.

(05-08-2017 02:20 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  If only Ono cared about someone other than himself!! He didn't make the goal, and that is solely on him. Those whose schools did switch conferences faced the exact same situation as Ono, but got it done.

Thank you for bringing it up again in an unrelated post. It's good to see you have crawled out of your safe space and come to the see the truth. Keep preachin' brother, and time will prove us right.

(05-08-2017 11:59 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 02:20 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  If only Ono cared about someone other than himself!! He didn't make the goal, and that is solely on him. Those whose schools did switch conferences faced the exact same situation as Ono, but got it done.

Thank you for bringing it up again in an unrelated post. It's good to see you have crawled out of your safe space and come to the see the truth. Keep preachin' brother, and time will prove us right.

Safe space! Snowflake! Cuck! Left! God, somedays it feels like I stumbled onto r/The_Donald when I log in here. How does "safe space" as an insult work anyway, especially on the internet? Instead of asking you to not say those things about Ono, I mocked the ridiculousness of the whole thing head on. SAD!

You're right, the Big 12 was the first conference to finally accept the free money offered by the networks at every other instance of expansion. How much did our last pres have to convince the BE to turn down to not expand? The pres of UL for both the BE and ACC? How much did Rutgers Pres convince the B1G to turn down to not expand? I can't seem to recall, I'd go find the articles, but... wait a sec! Freaking Ono!

(05-09-2017 07:38 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 11:59 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 02:20 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  If only Ono cared about someone other than himself!! He didn't make the goal, and that is solely on him. Those whose schools did switch conferences faced the exact same situation as Ono, but got it done.

Thank you for bringing it up again in an unrelated post. It's good to see you have crawled out of your safe space and come to the see the truth. Keep preachin' brother, and time will prove us right.

Safe space! Snowflake! Cuck! Left! God, somedays it feels like I stumbled onto r/The_Donald when I log in here.

Simple, don't log in.

The students worshipped the social media carnival barker with all his hashtags and selfies. I'm sure you have one posted on your Instagram somewhere.

But most of the senior administrators I know, as well as significant donors thought of him as a shameless self promoter that was all talk and little action. One member of the BOT told me quote, "Ono is like a puppy with a new ball." Another gentleman that frequently worked with him prior to the B12 decision told me that it would be unethical to invest $85M plus 5/3rd costs if a P5 invite was not already signed. He said, "if P5 does not come through the burden will be placed on the student body."

(05-09-2017 08:48 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:38 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 11:59 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 02:20 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  If only Ono cared about someone other than himself!! He didn't make the goal, and that is solely on him. Those whose schools did switch conferences faced the exact same situation as Ono, but got it done.

Thank you for bringing it up again in an unrelated post. It's good to see you have crawled out of your safe space and come to the see the truth. Keep preachin' brother, and time will prove us right.

Safe space! Snowflake! Cuck! Left! God, somedays it feels like I stumbled onto r/The_Donald when I log in here.

Simple, don't log in.

The students worshipped the social media carnival barker with all his hashtags and selfies. I'm sure you have one posted on your Instagram somewhere.

But most of the senior administrators I know, as well as significant donors thought of him as a shameless self promoter that was all talk and little action. One member of the BOT told me quote, "Ono is like a puppy with a new ball." Another gentleman that frequently worked with him prior to the B12 decision told me that it would be unethical to invest $85M plus 5/3rd costs if a P5 invite was not already signed. He said, "if P5 does not come through the burden will be placed on the student body."

Why wouldn't I log in, isn't laughter healthy? Plus, there is kind of an expectation of what to find on a sports forum. Bit of a mixture lately, but the mods don't seem to mind.

You're right, they did worship him. I've never seen so much school pride from freshman and all students than when he was here.

You, and those folks are entitled to your opinion. Investing in athletics has to be a long term investment. That's what UL did. We are just behind. Things will shift again, hopefully those moves will set us up nicely somewhere down the line. I choose to see the man that gave up the presidential housing UC gave him so UC could rent it out, froze tuition instead of raising it, and turning down personal raises, and did the best he could with the B12 despite ESPN intervening and the ulterior motives by that conferences leaders, all for the students.

(05-09-2017 09:24 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:48 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:38 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 11:59 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 02:20 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  If only Ono cared about someone other than himself!! He didn't make the goal, and that is solely on him. Those whose schools did switch conferences faced the exact same situation as Ono, but got it done.

Thank you for bringing it up again in an unrelated post. It's good to see you have crawled out of your safe space and come to the see the truth. Keep preachin' brother, and time will prove us right.

Safe space! Snowflake! Cuck! Left! God, somedays it feels like I stumbled onto r/The_Donald when I log in here.

Simple, don't log in.

The students worshipped the social media carnival barker with all his hashtags and selfies. I'm sure you have one posted on your Instagram somewhere.

But most of the senior administrators I know, as well as significant donors thought of him as a shameless self promoter that was all talk and little action. One member of the BOT told me quote, "Ono is like a puppy with a new ball." Another gentleman that frequently worked with him prior to the B12 decision told me that it would be unethical to invest $85M plus 5/3rd costs if a P5 invite was not already signed. He said, "if P5 does not come through the burden will be placed on the student body."

Why wouldn't I log in, isn't laughter healthy? Plus, there is kind of an expectation of what to find on a sports forum. Bit of a mixture lately, but the mods don't seem to mind.

You're right, they did worship him. I've never seen so much school pride from freshman and all students than when he was here.

You, and those folks are entitled to your opinion. Investing in athletics has to be a long term investment. That's what UL did. We are just behind. Things will shift again, hopefully those moves will set us up nicely somewhere down the line. I choose to see the man that gave up the presidential housing UC gave him so UC could rent it out, froze tuition instead of raising it, and turning down personal raises, and did the best he could with the B12 despite ESPN intervening and the ulterior motives by that conferences leaders, all for the students.

This is the thing guys like Rag are missing and the thing that handicapped UC the most in its Big 12 quest. Ono refocused a university that had been cutting money to nonrevenue sports, not adequately investing in basketball and had largely failed to capitalize on the momentum from the Kelly era with football investments. Louisville had been building and investing in its athletic department for 2 decades. It's no surprise that they got the call up and UC didn't. Ono tried to get UC there and has UC positioned to be a major player if expansion ever continues. It's hilarious to read posters whine about the AAC and whine about far too late investments in the athletic department at the same time.

(05-09-2017 09:49 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:24 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:48 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:38 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 11:59 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Thank you for bringing it up again in an unrelated post. It's good to see you have crawled out of your safe space and come to the see the truth. Keep preachin' brother, and time will prove us right.

Safe space! Snowflake! Cuck! Left! God, somedays it feels like I stumbled onto r/The_Donald when I log in here.

Simple, don't log in.

The students worshipped the social media carnival barker with all his hashtags and selfies. I'm sure you have one posted on your Instagram somewhere.

But most of the senior administrators I know, as well as significant donors thought of him as a shameless self promoter that was all talk and little action. One member of the BOT told me quote, "Ono is like a puppy with a new ball." Another gentleman that frequently worked with him prior to the B12 decision told me that it would be unethical to invest $85M plus 5/3rd costs if a P5 invite was not already signed. He said, "if P5 does not come through the burden will be placed on the student body."

Why wouldn't I log in, isn't laughter healthy? Plus, there is kind of an expectation of what to find on a sports forum. Bit of a mixture lately, but the mods don't seem to mind.

You're right, they did worship him. I've never seen so much school pride from freshman and all students than when he was here.

You, and those folks are entitled to your opinion. Investing in athletics has to be a long term investment. That's what UL did. We are just behind. Things will shift again, hopefully those moves will set us up nicely somewhere down the line. I choose to see the man that gave up the presidential housing UC gave him so UC could rent it out, froze tuition instead of raising it, and turning down personal raises, and did the best he could with the B12 despite ESPN intervening and the ulterior motives by that conferences leaders, all for the students.

This is the thing guys like Rag are missing and the thing that handicapped UC the most in its Big 12 quest. Ono refocused a university that had been cutting money to nonrevenue sports, not adequately investing in basketball and had largely failed to capitalize on the momentum from the Kelly era with football investments. Louisville had been building and investing in its athletic department for 2 decades. It's no surprise that they got the call up and UC didn't. Ono tried to get UC there and has UC positioned to be a major player if expansion ever continues. It's hilarious to read posters whine about the AAC and whine about far too late investments in the athletic department at the same time.

UofL and, primarily, its city certainly invested in their only major league teams. We have the Reds and the Bengals. The Yum Center is a huge financial problem for the Commonwealth and the City who now have asked UofL to bail them out. UofL so far has said no. So I guess Ramsey and Jurich worked both the State and the City over pretty good to benefit the University they were entrusted to lead. Simply, they found a way.

Pitt is a much better comparison to UC with pro sports throughout the city. Pitt did virtually nothing in upgrading their own facilities borrowing Heinz Field and the Steelers practice facility. The Pete is just 10 years younger than the Shoe.

I'll leave you to your opinions. Time will tell whether UC flourishes or falters due to his tenure.

(05-09-2017 08:48 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:38 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 11:59 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 02:20 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  If only Ono cared about someone other than himself!! He didn't make the goal, and that is solely on him. Those whose schools did switch conferences faced the exact same situation as Ono, but got it done.

Thank you for bringing it up again in an unrelated post. It's good to see you have crawled out of your safe space and come to the see the truth. Keep preachin' brother, and time will prove us right.

Safe space! Snowflake! Cuck! Left! God, somedays it feels like I stumbled onto r/The_Donald when I log in here.

Simple, don't log in.

The students worshipped the social media carnival barker with all his hashtags and selfies. I'm sure you have one posted on your Instagram somewhere.

But most of the senior administrators I know, as well as significant donors thought of him as a shameless self promoter that was all talk and little action. One member of the BOT told me quote, "Ono is like a puppy with a new ball." Another gentleman that frequently worked with him prior to the B12 decision told me that it would be unethical to invest $85M plus 5/3rd costs if a P5 invite was not already signed. He said, "if P5 does not come through the burden will be placed on the student body."

(05-09-2017 12:59 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:49 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:24 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:48 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:38 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  Safe space! Snowflake! Cuck! Left! God, somedays it feels like I stumbled onto r/The_Donald when I log in here.

Simple, don't log in.

The students worshipped the social media carnival barker with all his hashtags and selfies. I'm sure you have one posted on your Instagram somewhere.

But most of the senior administrators I know, as well as significant donors thought of him as a shameless self promoter that was all talk and little action. One member of the BOT told me quote, "Ono is like a puppy with a new ball." Another gentleman that frequently worked with him prior to the B12 decision told me that it would be unethical to invest $85M plus 5/3rd costs if a P5 invite was not already signed. He said, "if P5 does not come through the burden will be placed on the student body."

Why wouldn't I log in, isn't laughter healthy? Plus, there is kind of an expectation of what to find on a sports forum. Bit of a mixture lately, but the mods don't seem to mind.

You're right, they did worship him. I've never seen so much school pride from freshman and all students than when he was here.

You, and those folks are entitled to your opinion. Investing in athletics has to be a long term investment. That's what UL did. We are just behind. Things will shift again, hopefully those moves will set us up nicely somewhere down the line. I choose to see the man that gave up the presidential housing UC gave him so UC could rent it out, froze tuition instead of raising it, and turning down personal raises, and did the best he could with the B12 despite ESPN intervening and the ulterior motives by that conferences leaders, all for the students.

This is the thing guys like Rag are missing and the thing that handicapped UC the most in its Big 12 quest. Ono refocused a university that had been cutting money to nonrevenue sports, not adequately investing in basketball and had largely failed to capitalize on the momentum from the Kelly era with football investments. Louisville had been building and investing in its athletic department for 2 decades. It's no surprise that they got the call up and UC didn't. Ono tried to get UC there and has UC positioned to be a major player if expansion ever continues. It's hilarious to read posters whine about the AAC and whine about far too late investments in the athletic department at the same time.

UofL and, primarily, its city certainly invested in their only major league teams. We have the Reds and the Bengals. The Yum Center is a huge financial problem for the Commonwealth and the City who now have asked UofL to bail them out. UofL so far has said no. So I guess Ramsey and Jurich worked both the State and the City over pretty good to benefit the University they were entrusted to lead. Simply, they found a way.

Pitt is a much better comparison to UC with pro sports throughout the city. Pitt did virtually nothing in upgrading their own facilities borrowing Heinz Field and the Steelers practice facility. The Pete is just 10 years younger than the Shoe.

I'll leave you to your opinions. Time will tell whether UC flourishes or falters due to his tenure.

Definitely count me in among those who saw him as the consummate, big talking sunshine pumper who promised the world. Sure he instilled the students and community with pride and optimism. That's what con men do. And like any good grifter, he kneww when it was time to get the hell out of town right before his marks realized that none of those big promises (P5, AAU, co-flagship and Comprehensive Cancer Center) was going to happen.

(05-09-2017 01:23 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:48 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:38 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 11:59 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 02:20 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  If only Ono cared about someone other than himself!! He didn't make the goal, and that is solely on him. Those whose schools did switch conferences faced the exact same situation as Ono, but got it done.

Thank you for bringing it up again in an unrelated post. It's good to see you have crawled out of your safe space and come to the see the truth. Keep preachin' brother, and time will prove us right.

Safe space! Snowflake! Cuck! Left! God, somedays it feels like I stumbled onto r/The_Donald when I log in here.

Simple, don't log in.

The students worshipped the social media carnival barker with all his hashtags and selfies. I'm sure you have one posted on your Instagram somewhere.

But most of the senior administrators I know, as well as significant donors thought of him as a shameless self promoter that was all talk and little action. One member of the BOT told me quote, "Ono is like a puppy with a new ball." Another gentleman that frequently worked with him prior to the B12 decision told me that it would be unethical to invest $85M plus 5/3rd costs if a P5 invite was not already signed. He said, "if P5 does not come through the burden will be placed on the student body."

(05-09-2017 12:59 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:49 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:24 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:48 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Simple, don't log in.

The students worshipped the social media carnival barker with all his hashtags and selfies. I'm sure you have one posted on your Instagram somewhere.

But most of the senior administrators I know, as well as significant donors thought of him as a shameless self promoter that was all talk and little action. One member of the BOT told me quote, "Ono is like a puppy with a new ball." Another gentleman that frequently worked with him prior to the B12 decision told me that it would be unethical to invest $85M plus 5/3rd costs if a P5 invite was not already signed. He said, "if P5 does not come through the burden will be placed on the student body."

Why wouldn't I log in, isn't laughter healthy? Plus, there is kind of an expectation of what to find on a sports forum. Bit of a mixture lately, but the mods don't seem to mind.

You're right, they did worship him. I've never seen so much school pride from freshman and all students than when he was here.

You, and those folks are entitled to your opinion. Investing in athletics has to be a long term investment. That's what UL did. We are just behind. Things will shift again, hopefully those moves will set us up nicely somewhere down the line. I choose to see the man that gave up the presidential housing UC gave him so UC could rent it out, froze tuition instead of raising it, and turning down personal raises, and did the best he could with the B12 despite ESPN intervening and the ulterior motives by that conferences leaders, all for the students.

This is the thing guys like Rag are missing and the thing that handicapped UC the most in its Big 12 quest. Ono refocused a university that had been cutting money to nonrevenue sports, not adequately investing in basketball and had largely failed to capitalize on the momentum from the Kelly era with football investments. Louisville had been building and investing in its athletic department for 2 decades. It's no surprise that they got the call up and UC didn't. Ono tried to get UC there and has UC positioned to be a major player if expansion ever continues. It's hilarious to read posters whine about the AAC and whine about far too late investments in the athletic department at the same time.

UofL and, primarily, its city certainly invested in their only major league teams. We have the Reds and the Bengals. The Yum Center is a huge financial problem for the Commonwealth and the City who now have asked UofL to bail them out. UofL so far has said no. So I guess Ramsey and Jurich worked both the State and the City over pretty good to benefit the University they were entrusted to lead. Simply, they found a way.

Pitt is a much better comparison to UC with pro sports throughout the city. Pitt did virtually nothing in upgrading their own facilities borrowing Heinz Field and the Steelers practice facility. The Pete is just 10 years younger than the Shoe.

I'll leave you to your opinions. Time will tell whether UC flourishes or falters due to his tenure.

Definitely count me in among those who saw him as the consummate, big talking sunshine pumper who promised the world. Sure he instilled the students and community with pride and optimism. That's what con men do. And like any good grifter, he kneww when it was time to get the hell out of town right before his marks realized that none of those big promises (P5, AAU, co-flagship and Comprehensive Cancer Center) was going to happen.

Yes... what happened to the days where university presidents kept their promises? They broke the mold when they made Nancy Zimpher. /s

(05-09-2017 02:00 PM)crex043 Wrote:  Yes... what happened to the days where university presidents kept their promises? They broke the mold when they made Nancy Zimpher. /s

Victor Frankenstein did not use molds for his creations.

(05-08-2017 12:05 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:46 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:18 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:10 AM)dsquare Wrote:  Doesn't have anything to do with it. Teams like byu, houston were hot and they had the same fate. Key is that you have proved you can have success and have a good market. You think Rutgers would be in the big 10 if results mattered. ha!

This. Plus the whole deal was a sham constructed by the Big12 to get more money out of the networks in exchange to eliminating the pro-rats clause in their media contract.

Which leads to the question - if the pro-rata clause is gone now and with ESPN even further from a position where they would be willing to offer more money, why are we still talking about expansion? It's over with respect to the B12. If the ACC doesn't come calling, we will be stuffed into a "best of the rest" conference.

Possibly. But the Big 12 proved once again to be the most dysfunctional branch of the P5 family tree. There were other valid reasons for expansion that they chose to ignore. I can't wait to watch their first CCG when team #2 upsets team #1 and both stay home to watch the college football playoff again.

Many of us knew UC could compete in the old Big East and the Bearcats made good on that bet. Let's hope Cincinnati gets that chance again as I see them competing effectively early on in either the B12 or ACC.

I agree.

In 1991 we were in a similar position. It looked like UC would be small-time forever, making it pointless to invest more money in Nippert.

But luckily they did expand Nippert in 1991. Without that decision, we never would have been invited to the Big East 13 years later. No Orange Bowl, no Sugar Bowl, and none of the huge increase in student quality/quantity that resulted from it.

(05-09-2017 06:54 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 12:05 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:46 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:18 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:10 AM)dsquare Wrote:  Doesn't have anything to do with it. Teams like byu, houston were hot and they had the same fate. Key is that you have proved you can have success and have a good market. You think Rutgers would be in the big 10 if results mattered. ha!

This. Plus the whole deal was a sham constructed by the Big12 to get more money out of the networks in exchange to eliminating the pro-rats clause in their media contract.

Which leads to the question - if the pro-rata clause is gone now and with ESPN even further from a position where they would be willing to offer more money, why are we still talking about expansion? It's over with respect to the B12. If the ACC doesn't come calling, we will be stuffed into a "best of the rest" conference.

Possibly. But the Big 12 proved once again to be the most dysfunctional branch of the P5 family tree. There were other valid reasons for expansion that they chose to ignore. I can't wait to watch their first CCG when team #2 upsets team #1 and both stay home to watch the college football playoff again.

Many of us knew UC could compete in the old Big East and the Bearcats made good on that bet. Let's hope Cincinnati gets that chance again as I see them competing effectively early on in either the B12 or ACC.

I agree.

In 1991 we were in a similar position. It looked like UC would be small-time forever, making it pointless to invest more money in Nippert.

But luckily they did expand Nippert in 1991. Without that decision, we never would have been invited to the Big East 13 years later. No Orange Bowl, no Sugar Bowl, and none of the huge increase in student quality/quantity that resulted from it.

Ugggh! The increases in student quality didn't have a damned thing to do with the BCS bowls. They had everything to do with moving away from open admissions and rejecting a quarter of the kids that would previously have been accepted. That it also happened during a favorable demographic bump in the number of high school graduates in Ohio only added to the effect. Those moves were put into place before the bowl games.

The Flutie Effect has been studied up and down, and the general consensus is that, at best, it provides a temporary bump in the number of applications that a school gets but no increase in the quality of the applicant pool.

(05-10-2017 10:52 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:54 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 12:05 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:46 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:18 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This. Plus the whole deal was a sham constructed by the Big12 to get more money out of the networks in exchange to eliminating the pro-rats clause in their media contract.

Which leads to the question - if the pro-rata clause is gone now and with ESPN even further from a position where they would be willing to offer more money, why are we still talking about expansion? It's over with respect to the B12. If the ACC doesn't come calling, we will be stuffed into a "best of the rest" conference.

Possibly. But the Big 12 proved once again to be the most dysfunctional branch of the P5 family tree. There were other valid reasons for expansion that they chose to ignore. I can't wait to watch their first CCG when team #2 upsets team #1 and both stay home to watch the college football playoff again.

Many of us knew UC could compete in the old Big East and the Bearcats made good on that bet. Let's hope Cincinnati gets that chance again as I see them competing effectively early on in either the B12 or ACC.

I agree.

In 1991 we were in a similar position. It looked like UC would be small-time forever, making it pointless to invest more money in Nippert.

But luckily they did expand Nippert in 1991. Without that decision, we never would have been invited to the Big East 13 years later. No Orange Bowl, no Sugar Bowl, and none of the huge increase in student quality/quantity that resulted from it.

Ugggh! The increases in student quality didn't have a damned thing to do with the BCS bowls. They had everything to do with moving away from open admissions and rejecting a quarter of the kids that would previously have been accepted. That it also happened during a favorable demographic bump in the number of high school graduates in Ohio only added to the effect. Those moves were put into place before the bowl games.

The Flutie Effect has been studied up and down, and the general consensus is that, at best, it provides a temporary bump in the number of applications that a school gets but no increase in the quality of the applicant pool.

So why do UC's recent class sizes and total enrollment continue to grow every year despite rejecting a quarter of the kids that apply? I'm not saying athletics has everything to do with it - UC is definitely growing in stature from a campus quality and academic standpoint - but you can't discount it.

(05-10-2017 11:22 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 10:52 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:54 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 12:05 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:46 AM)crex043 Wrote:  Which leads to the question - if the pro-rata clause is gone now and with ESPN even further from a position where they would be willing to offer more money, why are we still talking about expansion? It's over with respect to the B12. If the ACC doesn't come calling, we will be stuffed into a "best of the rest" conference.

Possibly. But the Big 12 proved once again to be the most dysfunctional branch of the P5 family tree. There were other valid reasons for expansion that they chose to ignore. I can't wait to watch their first CCG when team #2 upsets team #1 and both stay home to watch the college football playoff again.

Many of us knew UC could compete in the old Big East and the Bearcats made good on that bet. Let's hope Cincinnati gets that chance again as I see them competing effectively early on in either the B12 or ACC.

I agree.

In 1991 we were in a similar position. It looked like UC would be small-time forever, making it pointless to invest more money in Nippert.

But luckily they did expand Nippert in 1991. Without that decision, we never would have been invited to the Big East 13 years later. No Orange Bowl, no Sugar Bowl, and none of the huge increase in student quality/quantity that resulted from it.

Ugggh! The increases in student quality didn't have a damned thing to do with the BCS bowls. They had everything to do with moving away from open admissions and rejecting a quarter of the kids that would previously have been accepted. That it also happened during a favorable demographic bump in the number of high school graduates in Ohio only added to the effect. Those moves were put into place before the bowl games.

The Flutie Effect has been studied up and down, and the general consensus is that, at best, it provides a temporary bump in the number of applications that a school gets but no increase in the quality of the applicant pool.

So why do UC's recent class sizes and total enrollment continue to grow every year despite rejecting a quarter of the kids that apply? I'm not saying athletics has everything to do with it - UC is definitely growing in stature from a campus quality and academic standpoint - but you can't discount it.

I think you answered your own question: "not because of football" since increases in applications/enrollment continued despite UC's football teams falling off a clif.

As for increases in quality, as I posted in a different thread, they have begun to plateau. The easy part is lopping off that bottom quarter of the applicant pool (presto, your average ACT jumps from 22 to 25), and it has separated UC's selectivity from the Bowling Greens and Kent States and taken it up to the level of OU. That was the easy part. The higher you go up on the food chain though, the more you're competing with better universities with higher rankings and richer endowments. And the higher you go up that food chain, the less football is going to matter to the best students you're trying to attract. A cool football program might make the difference for a kid with a 24 ACT deciding between UC and Bowling Green and Akron. For a kid with a 30 ACT deciding between UC, Miami and OSU (and maybe some privates and out of state schools too), not so much. What matter most is the school's overall academic reputation, quality of the student body and the amount of merit aid available.

(05-10-2017 11:32 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 11:22 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 10:52 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:54 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 12:05 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  [/b]

Possibly. But the Big 12 proved once again to be the most dysfunctional branch of the P5 family tree. There were other valid reasons for expansion that they chose to ignore. I can't wait to watch their first CCG when team #2 upsets team #1 and both stay home to watch the college football playoff again.

Many of us knew UC could compete in the old Big East and the Bearcats made good on that bet. Let's hope Cincinnati gets that chance again as I see them competing effectively early on in either the B12 or ACC.

I agree.

In 1991 we were in a similar position. It looked like UC would be small-time forever, making it pointless to invest more money in Nippert.

But luckily they did expand Nippert in 1991. Without that decision, we never would have been invited to the Big East 13 years later. No Orange Bowl, no Sugar Bowl, and none of the huge increase in student quality/quantity that resulted from it.

Ugggh! The increases in student quality didn't have a damned thing to do with the BCS bowls. They had everything to do with moving away from open admissions and rejecting a quarter of the kids that would previously have been accepted. That it also happened during a favorable demographic bump in the number of high school graduates in Ohio only added to the effect. Those moves were put into place before the bowl games.

The Flutie Effect has been studied up and down, and the general consensus is that, at best, it provides a temporary bump in the number of applications that a school gets but no increase in the quality of the applicant pool.

So why do UC's recent class sizes and total enrollment continue to grow every year despite rejecting a quarter of the kids that apply? I'm not saying athletics has everything to do with it - UC is definitely growing in stature from a campus quality and academic standpoint - but you can't discount it.

I think you answered your own question: "not because of football" since increases in applications/enrollment continued despite UC's football teams falling off a clif.

As for increases in quality, as I posted in a different thread, they have begun to plateau. The easy part is lopping off that bottom quarter of the applicant pool (presto, your average ACT jumps from 22 to 25), and it has separated UC's selectivity from the Bowling Greens and Kent States and taken it up to the level of OU. That was the easy part. The higher you go up on the food chain though, the more you're competing with better universities with higher rankings and richer endowments. And the higher you go up that food chain, the less football is going to matter to the best students you're trying to attract. A cool football program might make the difference for a kid with a 24 ACT deciding between UC and Bowling Green and Akron. For a kid with a 30 ACT deciding between UC, Miami and OSU (and maybe some privates and out of state schools too), not so much. What matter most is the school's overall academic reputation, quality of the student body and the amount of merit aid available.

Tell that to Butler, which has continued to see an increase in student quality/quantity that started with their Final Four runs and has continued with their Big East membership.

Or look at Notre Dame. My friends who are Notre Dame alums repeatedly insist that if it weren't for football, Notre Dame would be equal/below Marquette academically.

(05-10-2017 11:43 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 11:32 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 11:22 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 10:52 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:54 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I agree.

In 1991 we were in a similar position. It looked like UC would be small-time forever, making it pointless to invest more money in Nippert.

But luckily they did expand Nippert in 1991. Without that decision, we never would have been invited to the Big East 13 years later. No Orange Bowl, no Sugar Bowl, and none of the huge increase in student quality/quantity that resulted from it.

Ugggh! The increases in student quality didn't have a damned thing to do with the BCS bowls. They had everything to do with moving away from open admissions and rejecting a quarter of the kids that would previously have been accepted. That it also happened during a favorable demographic bump in the number of high school graduates in Ohio only added to the effect. Those moves were put into place before the bowl games.

The Flutie Effect has been studied up and down, and the general consensus is that, at best, it provides a temporary bump in the number of applications that a school gets but no increase in the quality of the applicant pool.

So why do UC's recent class sizes and total enrollment continue to grow every year despite rejecting a quarter of the kids that apply? I'm not saying athletics has everything to do with it - UC is definitely growing in stature from a campus quality and academic standpoint - but you can't discount it.

I think you answered your own question: "not because of football" since increases in applications/enrollment continued despite UC's football teams falling off a clif.

As for increases in quality, as I posted in a different thread, they have begun to plateau. The easy part is lopping off that bottom quarter of the applicant pool (presto, your average ACT jumps from 22 to 25), and it has separated UC's selectivity from the Bowling Greens and Kent States and taken it up to the level of OU. That was the easy part. The higher you go up on the food chain though, the more you're competing with better universities with higher rankings and richer endowments. And the higher you go up that food chain, the less football is going to matter to the best students you're trying to attract. A cool football program might make the difference for a kid with a 24 ACT deciding between UC and Bowling Green and Akron. For a kid with a 30 ACT deciding between UC, Miami and OSU (and maybe some privates and out of state schools too), not so much. What matter most is the school's overall academic reputation, quality of the student body and the amount of merit aid available.

Tell that to Butler, which has continued to see an increase in student quality/quantity that started with their Final Four runs and has continued with their Big East membership.

Or look at Notre Dame. My friends who are Notre Dame alums repeatedly insist that if it weren't for football, Notre Dame would be equal/below Marquette academically.

I remember Ono saying how the number and quality of our applicants kept increasing with each BCS appearance. Yes our requirements increased, but the better applicants that may not have even realized UC's existence certainly helped and was aided by the football success.