So, this is a little taste of what civil war is like. I hope someone's enjoying this, because I'm sure not.
But I got around to reading Paul Daugherty's column, and he's got some good points.
Foremost among them is: What are we all so afraid of? Having lived here my whole life, I feel safe in saying that this is SO Cincinnati. We are so uptight in this town about everything, and we definitely don't like change.
Someone in the past couple of days brought up Pete Rose's name, and I'd agree this feels a lot like the whole Pete ordeal. We're willing to discount some obvious problems that are staring us right in the face because we have this public perception that somebody is a good guy. Those problems speak directly to the integrity of the basketball program, which in turn because of its prominence has an undue amount of influence on how people perceive the university as a whole.
It's a lot easier and satisfying for the purposes of name-calling, etc., to make this out as some sort of personal drama between Bob Huggins and Nancy Zimpher. It's a lot bigger than that.There are principles involved here. Possibly in the past not as much emphasis was placed on those principles, but the program is being asked to go forward in a certain way. Rule No. 1 is "Stop embarrassing the serious mission of the university." Based on evidence in the last 11 months, it doesn't seem like the leadership of Coach Huggins is capable of meeting that test.
I love winning basketball as much as anyone on this board. I grew up idolizing the Bearcats. Being in Kansas City to see the Bearcats advance to the Final Four was probably as big a thrill as I can remember from spectator sports. But I also respect a president who has a goal of taking UC forward to be an even greater institution. Exciting basketball should be a part of that mix, but it's not the alpha and the omega. At this point in his career, I'm not even sure Huggs has the energy left to once again reinvent this program, particularly when he's being asked to improve on the old product.
But that's what is being asked. It's a goal worth embracing, and we need to stop being "Cincinnati" about this and realize we can do even greater things in the future.
OK, now back to the civil war...
Socko Wiethe Wrote:Foremost among them is: What are we all so afraid of? Having lived here my whole life, I feel safe in saying that this is SO Cincinnati. We are so uptight in this town about everything, and we definitely don't like change.
I don't believe the point here is that the fans are afraid of change, i believe the point is the fans do not believe change is necessary (by fans i mean the people who continue to support Huggins for everything he's done for the city and the school and not willing to drop him at the drop of a hat after 16 years because Dr Z doesn't like him). If a change was warranted i would be more supportive, but it isn't. Huggins has done everything asked of him since his DUI charge. You can not possibly expect him to keep tabs of grown men, who can not make intelligent decisions on their own, 24/7. Huggins has shown so much loyalty to this program and I just find it embarassing Dr Z is handling this situation in such a manner.
It is extremely embarrassing to UC. Just look at what ESPN and CBS are saying in the national spotlight. They're all scratching their heads wondering what in the bejesus is Darth Zimpher thinking?
Hey Socko, ever heard the expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
Bob Huggins deserves so much better than this and so do the true UC fans and Boosters that support him. Not that outsider who doesn't know jack when it comes to Athletics. She needs to let her AD handle this instead of trying to do something she has no knowledge of.
UCGipper
Go Bob Huggins and UC!!! :mad: :saber: :mad:
Daugherty's point was that Cincinnati resists change and that it's wrong to assume things will get worse if Coach Huggins is forced out. He's only right on the first part. This is the poorest example of leadership at the University in 30 years and will haunt UC and Zimpher for more than a decade unless some real power brokers don't step in and over-ride her! If you can, and most don't, get past the entire debate of whether Coach Huggins should be treated in this manner after the loyalty, contributions, and success he has delivered to this University and community over the past 16 years, any evaluation of how she has handled this leaves there little debate that this is being handled as poorly as it possibly could be.
She fails miserably in that she's hiding from the press, the fans, and the University community in failing to articulate "why" Coach Huggins is not being offered an extention. Good leaders, even when they make bad decisions LEAD and articulate the reasons justifying their decions. What are Nancy's? She wants a more competitive team? She's tired of 2nd round NCAA exits and wants to bring the next "Rick Pitino" to take us to the Final Four? She's embarrased by graduation rates and that the next coach will have to graduate more than 8 out of 14 Seniors (like coach Huggins did over the past 3 years)? She's tired of off the court image issues? Again, if reports are correct..the buyout was drawn up PRIOR to the Legree and Bright incidents. The only "incidents" that have occured since Nancy took over were the dropped case against Kirkland and Soulymane's condom caper. Those who say the Roy Bright incident broke the camel's back...seem to be in ERROR. All the rumour's over the past two years of Nancy's hidden agenda against Coach Huggins and the basketball program seem to be absolutely true based on her actions!!
Aside from the fact that this seems to be simply a case of an ego driven administrator who's petrified of an "image" that has been created by enemies of the University, consider the tactical decision making behind this as it relates to all those optimists who thing this will leading to the dawning of new Final Four runs.
Timing: If she wanted Coach out, she should have used the DUI to terminate him last summer. It would have been more justifiable based on HIS actions. She asked him to do change and he did. The program would have been better able to transition if the new coach took over with the senior/jr depth that last year's team had. Anyone who thinks tactically making a change going in to the #1 basketball conference in the countyr with 5 returning seniors.....1 of whom will probably hire an agent the minute Huggins is gone, and the other (Souleymone) nothing more than a walk-on level talent is crazy. The top 20 recruiting class? If you were Ivan Johnson or DeAndre Coleman.....would you feel like you were treated ethically by the shool you just commited to? I guess Nancy doesn't care about image when it comes to being forthright and honest to families deciding where they send their sons to school. Let alone the fall signees, an exit by Coach Huggins now would drive out at least 3-4 of the new recruits if any reasonable lesson can be learned from looking at other programs. You enter the new league with a chance to finish last in your first year with barely 9 scholarship players available.
Fan base: The biggest weakness UC has in "going to the next level" is establishing a larger following in terms of both attendance and giving. Nancy's crystal ball must have told her something. For me, I can't figure out why you'd want to take the most controversial step in the history of the athletic department at a time when you're having to increase UCATs giving and ticket prices to just become competitive in the BE. By any measure I've seen...I believe the sentiment of fans fun 70%+ in favor of retaining Coach Huggins. Nothing like a strong unifying action by the President to motivate the fans we do have to go to battle against the Syracuse's, UCONN's, and UofL's. Those of you who do think this is a GOOD thing.........you better let your asses and your wallets do the talking IF things get bad for next the 5 years. Especially those "Board of Trustee" cowards (are u listening Jeff Wyler?!) who are allowing this, they better be ready to get big $$$ to get the magical coach that will be able to turn Clifton in to the next Durham, NC and Duke. My guess....all those who think this is good......won't be part of the 3,500-4,000 true fans at the Shoe as we get slammed by UCONN for the 10 consecutive time.
Again..IF Nancy has a vision ..what is it? If she wants to make things better how is this the way to do it? If she wanted Coach out...she should have done it last summer or the day after the UK loss. She is about to destroy the b-ball program and those who can't see nor admit this is being bungled...........even if they DO want a change....are ignoring facts so obvious that is hard to imagine they have any grasp of the reality of modern college basketball!!!
Great post MLB.
As far as the assessment of Cincinnati, I don't think the key characteristic is aversion to change (although that probably has some accuracy) as much as loyalty. Once you've proven yourself to Cincinnati, they will stand behind you even if "outsiders" are screaming for your head over real and/or imaginary mistakes. Cincinnati doesn't like to see it's own treated unfairly and as long as the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime, they will continue to stand behind you. Rose fits this pattern even as his popularity swings, Perez being traded and later fired, even Schott was another who the city thought was getting treated worse than she deserved. With Huggins, it's the same thing. Even the supporters don't deny the mistakes, they just weigh it against the good and want to see their own treated "fairly" (however that is defined under the circumstances). As an ex-resident I see that as a positive about the city.
This deal is now all about respect. Huggs has earned it. Z is way out of her league, she has no experience in these matters.
The weakest argument I've heard yet is that Huggins is damaging the "serious mission of the University". What a laugh. There is no basis in fact, not a shred of evidence, that the UC basketball program has any impact on the academic perception of the University. It's a red herring tossed around by narrow minded academians who like to sit around and belch about the "nobility" of academic pursuits, and denigrate everything and everyone else.
I'm under no illusions about Huggs or the program. Whether Zimpher, Wyler and Co. get their way or not, the day will come when Bob Huggins decides his time at UC is up. If the situation is handled correctly, there is a chance that we can come up with an able replacement. That's not the issue. The issue to me is:
1. Why would the President of University and the board of trustees, whose only interest (allegedly) is a return to "integrity" treat a man who has done such amazingly good things for the University and the City in general like dirt beneath their feet?
2. Why would Zimpher put a buyout offer on Huggs' desk that she knew would not be accepted, allow him to recruit 3 or 4 more new players to the team and sign them to BINDING LETTERS OF INTENT, just to turn around and show him the door? Not only is that disrespectful to Coach Huggins, but it puts the futures of the kids she allowed him to recruit at risk. They now have to be released from their letters of intent by the University, or go the prep or JUCO route...and even if they were released from their LOIs, it's awfully late in the recruiting year.
My only thought is that she's naive enough to believe that all the incoming frosh and JUCO players will simply stick around for the new coach. If that's the case, she's dumber than I think she is. Or perhaps she simply doesn't care.
In either case...how does any of this reconcile itself with the moral, upstanding, noble person you Zimpher apologists believe her to be? Either she's spearheading an effort to humiliate one of the most beloved figures in UC/Cincinnati history, or she's trying to squeeze every last drop of recruiting she can out of the man, then trying to strong arm those recruits into staying with or without Huggs...or both.
Yep, you're right Socko. That's one fine President we have there.
How hard would it have been, if the board truly wanted to make a change at Head Coach sometime soon, to simply come to a compromise with the man. Show him the respect he's earned long before she arrived on campus, and do something like this:
Coach, I have a lot of respect for you and what you've done at the University of Cincinnati. The things you've given both UC and the City in general can never be repaid. At the same time, we feel that the program, regardless of whether or not certain events were within the parameters of your supervision and jurisdiction, has been saddled with a reputation which can no longer be ignored or accepted.
Please do not misconstrue this as an attack on you. I certainly understand what you've tried to do within the basketball program and I believe many of your efforts have been extremely noble. The board and I just feel like at some point in the near future, it might be the best thing for all involved if you turned the program over to someone else, to allow a fresh start for everyone involved.
What we would like to do is extend your contract for another 2 years, giving you a full 4 years left at the University. This would allow all of your current incoming freshman to play their full tenure at UC with you as their Head Coach. It would also help prevent future recruiting from being damaged by uncertainty - any recruit for the next 4 years will understand that at some point during their career, you will no longer be the head basketball coach.
We would also like you to have input into who that next coach will be. This is not a Gene Keady-like situation - you will not be "hand picking" your successor. But we do value your input and would like to have a coach that you approve of, to continue your legacy here at the University, if you will. This coach will be hired at the end of your tenure, but interviews may be conducted during your final year as Head Coach.
While this may seem like a forcible removal to you, we feel it is a very good compromise and would allow you the graceful exit and preserved status as a UC icon that you so richly deserve. We also feel like it allows you to leave your mark at UC and remain a large part of what we're trying to accomplish.
Now, is this scenario flawless? Of course not. Would Huggins accept such a deal? Maybe not. But it's clearly a classier, better way to handle the situation then our intellectually superior University President devised.
You just don't treat someone who has meant as much as Bob Huggins has like a 2nd class citizen. And if you're not at least offended by the way President Zimpher has treated him, then I question your judgment and your loyalty. You can't bray about academic missions and higher purposes while you're spitting in the face of one of your University's most beloved benefactors.
SuperFlyBCat Wrote:This deal is now all about respect. Huggs has earned it. Z is way out of her league, she has no experience in these matters.
I agree. Daugherty is wrong here. As a long-time UCAT, my concern is not change or what would happen with a new Coach. Perhaps I am alone in my thinking, but my big issue is that this is completely unfair and unjust treatment of a man who is singlehandedly responsible for the success of the basketball team and all the money it has brought it and is largely responsible for why UC will be playing in the Big East and all the athletic buildings which are sprouting up on campus. Not to mention the good and charitable things he has done for the City (arthritis foundation, charity golf outings, etc.). Who cares what they do win or loss-wise if they get rid of Huggs, I won't be able to root for or support an institution that could do Huggs wrong like this and show such a lack of loyalty. I hope most UC fans are more sickened by the thought of what is being done to this man (who is the sole reason we have a program to be passionate about) as opposed to merely be concerned with what happens to the program without him. I personally will not care what happens to the program without him because my loyalty will go out the door with Bob.
The loyalty that Darth Z is showing Huggins right now is disgusting. Huggins has had his chances to leave UC and stayed. When the NBA came calling with more money he stayed. When his alma mater came calling with more money again he stayed. How many of us would pass up the chance to work for our alma mater, especially when more money is involved. Huggins has showed this university loyalty his whole time here. He took what could have been percieved as a stepping stone job, and turned it into a career position. Coming off of UC's woes in the 1980s I'm sure that in today's terms UC would have been seen as a mid major school. If for no other reason Huggins loyalty to the school and the city need to be rewarded. Anything else is just sickening
.
"The weakest argument I've heard yet is that Huggins is damaging the "serious mission of the University".
You've got to be kidding right? Do you not think that the football situation at Colorado didn't damage the serious mission at Colorado? How about Baylor where one bb player murders another? How about point shaving at Boston College? I want Huggins to stay but he is dancing close to the line as a result of things he has control over and some things that he doesn't but will be judged for regardless.
I wouldn't have two degrees framed on my office wall from UC if I didn't think UC's mission first and foremost was educating men and women.
Wow, a kid leaves to be with a sick family member and another brings a gun on campus and we are suddenly right up there with illegal gambling, murder, and sexual assault? Let's not get carried away. Find me one person who chose not to attend UC because of the image of the basketball program. I must say your parellel is quite a stretch....
Arsenal: Vince Banks, in my book, is a hero. You may not want to reference sexual assaults. The point I was trying to make is that perception for many people is reality. If it wasn't so, we wouldn't be where we are with this mess. It would be very difficult to quantify real or imagined damage to UC's reputation through the machinations of the basketball or other athletic programs or US News rankings for that matter. However, I think it is valid to suggest that these incidents or events are not positive. Zimpher's job as president is to maximize and grow the positive while minimizing the negative. Her handling of this situation has been poor. She could have avoided this situation by saying that the new AD would manage the contracting process. Huggins would still have two years, he could have been told privately what needed to be achieved for him to have his contract extended. She still would have caught some flack from fans who wanted to see the rollover restored but it would have been over in a couple of days. This could easily spin out of her control. UC would take a far greater hit if she left over this than Huggins because the mission of the university is education not basketball. The story would be "basketball wins out over academics at UC". I don't want that.
All that is fine for the forum board and a utopian state, but it doesn't matter one damn bit. All this talk about UC's image is really our problem within the city. anyone outside of cincinnati could care less. sure we may be known as "horse punching thugs" as a basketball team, but do you really think that matters? last i checked we have no problems getting sponsors for our games, NIKE for god's sake sponsors our coach and team, and enrollment at the school continues to grow. please point out to me again where the problem is here?
people can talk about mimizing problem all they want, but they won't go away. these kids, whether they are rioting on cinco de mayo or playing basketball are 18-24 years old. what do you expect? it's garbage to continually read people saying the image of the bball program hurts the school...show me the proof. when Z got shot down for 4 grants recently was the bball team named???????
every fight needs a bully, an instigator...why are we afraid of being that person? intimadate, dominate, celebrate.....maybe we should blame our own pr people for promoting the image, or maybe we should say "bring it on".....
Shenandoah: prove that basketball is hurting academics at UC, or football at Colorado. You can't...because it doesn't. Proof would be a decline in enrollment, or test scores, or number of graduates. Proof would not be some fan at a sports bar dogging you about UC's renegade program.
When I tell people I'm a UC grad, they ask me about CCM or the Engineering school...not the basketball team. When I tell them I'm a UC FAN, I get something completely different.
Just because you want there to be a connection, doesn't mean there is one. And if you can show me one example of a UC grad that didn't get hired because of the reputation of the basketball program, I'll show you a UC grad that shouldn't be applying for jobs at Xavier.
Again, prove it. You can't.
Here, Here Arsenal!
Bring it on!! Nancyferatu will have to come out into the daylight and fight like, uh. Fight like the person she real wants to be.
She is a witch, burn her;-) She turned me into a newt, well I got better
Socko Wiethe Wrote:There are principles involved here... the program is being asked to go forward in a certain way. Rule No. 1 is "Stop embarrassing the serious mission of the university."
Let's talk about the "serious mission of the University". Here's a <a href='http://www.uc.edu/ucinfo/ranking.htm' target='_blank'>Link to UC Accomplishments</a> found on the UC main website. A few highlights:
*UC Libraries ranks #45, up 31 spots over last 10 years
*NACUBO Endowments Rank #12 among all public institutions
*$5.4 million in patents/licenses ranks #28, up 5 spots
*UC's criminal justice div is nations leader in publication research (I just had to post this one considering our "image" :D ). UC had 32 articles published, only one other institution had over 21
*Interior Design Program #1 (6 straight years), Architecture #2, School of Design in WORLD top 10, only public institution on the list
*College of Business Admin 40th out of 700+ MBA programs in USA
*Coop Educ 4th in country
*CCM 7 programs in country's top 50
*The Economics Center for Education & Research received the 1st ever outstanding performance award vs 250+ other centers
The next item is from a previous report released during the NCAA tourney
*Re: grad rates - Huggins and UC graduate a higher % of black male students than the University as a whole or average of all NCAA Div 1 hoops programs
So someone please tell me again how UC has "suffered" in the SERIOUS MISSION of the UNIVERSITY area? It seems like the University as a whole has been more successful against its peers than the basketball team has been. Next excuse please.
BearcatCarl Wrote:Shenandoah: prove that basketball is hurting academics at UC, or football at Colorado. You can't...because it doesn't. Proof would be a decline in enrollment, or test scores, or number of graduates. Proof would not be some fan at a sports bar dogging you about UC's renegade program.
When I tell people I'm a UC grad, they ask me about CCM or the Engineering school...not the basketball team. When I tell them I'm a UC FAN, I get something completely different.
Just because you want there to be a connection, doesn't mean there is one. And if you can show me one example of a UC grad that didn't get hired because of the reputation of the basketball program, I'll show you a UC grad that shouldn't be applying for jobs at Xavier.
Again, prove it. You can't.
Carl --
I'm trying my damnedest to stay quiet and let peace once again reign over our valley, but you're making this hard.
You took your stab at narrow-minded academics earlier in this thread and I wanted to let it pass. But on some of this stuff, as Huggs would say, "you're just misinformed."
I may agree with you that ideally there ought to be a dichotomy between athletic behavior and academic rank, but it's not the case in the real world.
Those hard-number factors you cite for proof -- enrollment, test scores, number of graduates -- are all influenced by the rankings of the school (i.e. the higher the school is ranked, the more competitive admission becomes and the higher the average test score of incoming students becomes). And those rankings? In some cases, up to 50 percent of the criteria behind them is based on reputational score.
Now here you can fault other pointy-headed professors, but the truth is these reputational scores are far from a scientific process and the people voting are from all over the country. Other than a handful of obvious top programs in each discipline, there's a lot of programs at or near the same level in terms of scholarship, distinction of faculty, etc. So if a program at School A and a program at UC are roughly equal in their accomplishments, but School A is in a more established athletic conference or doesn't have the stigma of a nationally known reputation for running an out-of-control basketball program, you can guess who is going to get the benefit of the doubt and the higher endorsement from some peer rater off in Florida or Idaho.
Multiply this across the dozens of programs at a university the size of UC, and it has considerable impact on the school's overall reputation, as well as the quality of the students it has the ability to attract going forward.
That may be goofy, but it is, in fact, the way the system operates.
Cal1362 Wrote:Socko Wiethe Wrote:There are principles involved here... the program is being asked to go forward in a certain way. Rule No. 1 is "Stop embarrassing the serious mission of the university."
Let's talk about the "serious mission of the University". Here's a <a href='http://www.uc.edu/ucinfo/ranking.htm' target='_blank'>Link to UC Accomplishments</a> found on the UC main website. A few highlights:
*UC Libraries ranks #45, up 31 spots over last 10 years
*NACUBO Endowments Rank #12 among all public institutions
*$5.4 million in patents/licenses ranks #28, up 5 spots
*UC's criminal justice div is nations leader in publication research (I just had to post this one considering our "image" :D ). UC had 32 articles published, only one other institution had over 21
*Interior Design Program #1 (6 straight years), Architecture #2, School of Design in WORLD top 10, only public institution on the list
*College of Business Admin 40th out of 700+ MBA programs in USA
*Coop Educ 4th in country
*CCM 7 programs in country's top 50
*The Economics Center for Education & Research received the 1st ever outstanding performance award vs 250+ other centers
The next item is from a previous report released during the NCAA tourney
*Re: grad rates - Huggins and UC graduate a higher % of black male students than the University as a whole or average of all NCAA Div 1 hoops programs
So someone please tell me again how UC has "suffered" in the SERIOUS MISSION of the UNIVERSITY area? It seems like the University as a whole has been more successful against its peers than the basketball team has been. Next excuse please.
Bravo, Cal
Socko Wiethe Wrote:So if a program at School A and a program at UC are roughly equal in their accomplishments, but School A is in a more established athletic conference or doesn't have the stigma of a nationally known reputation for running an out-of-control basketball program, you can guess who is going to get the benefit of the doubt and the higher endorsement from some peer rater off in Florida or Idaho.
IF this is the case, it certainly hasn't hurt enrollments, as far as I can tell.