Agreed. This has little to do with Cincinnati leadership - it is a power play/money grab by ESPN and Cable Providers.

We could be in the big-12 and it would be nice but college sports and the thing that actually makes them fun (regional rivalries) would still be dead. We'd never play Louisville or other local teams.

(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.

Maybe it's just me, but I just don't find the conference argument within the college basketball world compelling.

UC's best years in hoops have ALWAYS been outside of the traditional basketball conference hierarchy. 100% of the time. The Metro, The Great Midwest, or whatever we were in while I was in college in the late 90s. We had the same gripes then. We had to go play meh conference games against forgettable teams, and maaaaaybe once a season play a nationally known team in an early season tournament.

More, or less, the same deal as now.

College basketball differs from football because access to a championship is afforded to each and every team who qualifies. Whereas UC could go 12-1 and never have a chance for a football championship.

We're splitting hairs with seeding gripes. The bottom line is, win your way to a chip. It's the same for every team. On one hand we argue that UC is so good that they should have a higher seed, then on the other we're nervous that they may have to play X team that's good. I feel like if we're TRULY good, we'll find out sooner, rather than later.

I just get the sense that ppl (or fans included) question our mettle, and quite frankly I find that to be reasonable. Our claim to fame at this point is participation, not winning actual games in the tournament. So hedging against disappointment by grounding our collective anxiety in talk of seeding, conference stuff, etc makes sense.....but let's just call a spade a spade.


mc

(03-13-2017 06:49 AM)marcuscan Wrote:  Maybe it's just me, but I just don't find the conference argument within the college basketball world compelling.

UC's best years in hoops have ALWAYS been outside of the traditional basketball conference hierarchy. 100% of the time. The Metro, The Great Midwest, or whatever we were in while I was in college in the late 90s. We had the same gripes then. We had to go play meh conference games against forgettable teams, and maaaaaybe once a season play a nationally known team in an early season tournament.

More, or less, the same deal as now.

College basketball differs from football because access to a championship is afforded to each and every team who qualifies. Whereas UC could go 12-1 and never have a chance for a football championship.

We're splitting hairs with seeding gripes. The bottom line is, win your way to a chip. It's the same for every team. On one hand we argue that UC is so good that they should have a higher seed, then on the other we're nervous that they may have to play X team that's good. I feel like if we're TRULY good, we'll find out sooner, rather than later.

I just get the sense that ppl (or fans included) question our mettle, and quite frankly I find that to be reasonable. Our claim to fame at this point is participation, not winning actual games in the tournament. So hedging against disappointment by grounding our collective anxiety in talk of seeding, conference stuff, etc makes sense.....but let's just call a spade a spade.


mc

+1

(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.

Just looked it up. UCLA played a schedule ranked 79, UC 61. Non-conference was 257 to 31. If UC can get past the first round, maybe UCLA is the one getting punished and not UC. Seriously if UC can get past the the play-in winner do you think the Bruins want to see a 30 win team in their second game?

(03-13-2017 08:34 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Just looked it up. UCLA played a schedule ranked 79, UC 61. Non-conference was 257 to 31. If UC can get past the first round, maybe UCLA is the one getting punished and not UC. Seriously if UC can get past the the play-in winner do you think the Bruins want to see a 30 win team in their second game?

agree 100%

(03-13-2017 08:34 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Just looked it up. UCLA played a schedule ranked 79, UC 61. Non-conference was 257 to 31. If UC can get past the first round, maybe UCLA is the one getting punished and not UC. Seriously if UC can get past the the play-in winner do you think the Bruins want to see a 30 win team in their second game?

Oh UCLA definitely didn't get a favorable draw. If they get by UC their reward is U.K. in the sweet sixteen in Memphis (a team they already beat on the road).

But UC is only 4 spots lower than UCLA on kenpom. That's a rough draw for someone who earned a 3 seed. It will be a virtual home game for them though (although the Oregon fans there could root for UC).


But UC struggles with teams who take away scoring from opposing front courts (teams like SMU and UCF). UCLA is not a team that does that. Should be interesting.

If UC/UCLA/Witchita/and UK all win their opening round games that pod will have 4 30 win teams playing to play in the seeet sixteen.

It's just such bullshi* that going watch UC in the first weekend game isn't even a *ucking option for me because of the time/cost to get to Sacramento and back.

In March is comes down to Guard Play and if you have NBA Talent. We had that the first 2 game of the Conf. Tourney. If we get that in the NCAA then we have a chance but if we don't we may not make it out of the first round. Plain and simple.

(03-13-2017 09:48 AM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  It's just such bullshi* that going watch UC in the first weekend game isn't even a *ucking option for me because of the time/cost to get to Sacramento and back.

Exactly m. Would really like to attend a UC Tournament game(s) but three out of 4 years they are on the west coast. Other year they were in Louisville where Kentucky fans had already bought all the tickets for that pod.

(03-13-2017 09:24 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 08:34 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Just looked it up. UCLA played a schedule ranked 79, UC 61. Non-conference was 257 to 31. If UC can get past the first round, maybe UCLA is the one getting punished and not UC. Seriously if UC can get past the the play-in winner do you think the Bruins want to see a 30 win team in their second game?

agree 100%

+1

I think if we knock off K state, we're actually in a pretty good spot. Lets be objective about this, we're not playing 3 games in a row like the conference championship, our shooting isn't going to drop off like it did yesterday and we play better defense than most are used to facing. I think UCLA is a very good offensive team, but they and Kentucky(the 2 seed in our part of the bracket) both look mortal. It's not going to be a cakewalk, but I think we can still do a lot of damage and I know our guys don't want their season to end. We're talented, deep and experienced. Our ability bodes well for us, even if the seeding is less than favorable.

(03-13-2017 10:30 AM)marcuscan Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:24 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 08:34 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Just looked it up. UCLA played a schedule ranked 79, UC 61. Non-conference was 257 to 31. If UC can get past the first round, maybe UCLA is the one getting punished and not UC. Seriously if UC can get past the the play-in winner do you think the Bruins want to see a 30 win team in their second game?

agree 100%

+1

Outside of being in the top three seed lines everyone has to play a real game during round one except for a couple of teams on the four line or five lines playing teams that were overseeded. You are looking at either a mid-pack high major or really good mid-major in round 1. Round 2 is almost a tossup for everyone. Kentucky might have to get through Wichita State and UCLA/Cincinnati. Louisville could have Michigan and Oregon looming. I wouldn't want to play St. Mary's (Kenpom 14) in the second round if I was Arizona. Even Duke might to play Marquette and SMU, both include former Duke players in Wojo and Semi.

I have started to view the tournament like a TV event instead of a championship pursuit. Is this the best way to crown a champion, no way. Is this the best way to create excitement, conflict, and made for TV story lines? Heck yes!

Northwestern just happens to play Vandy. How many SAT and nerd references are we going to get this week?

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.

(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.

(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.

Zimpher did raise the academic profile which is great but ignored what was happening sports wise as UofL was building a sports machine.
Then she blew up the basketball program with her inept hamfisted handling of Huggins.

Williams was just as bad cheerleading and lauding being downgraded to the AAC as Pitt, Cuse, WVU and UofL all left for sweeter digs. He could've railed against what was happening but either didn't care, didn't understand, or actually wanted the downgrade.

The UC administration deserves some blame.

(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.

I'll definitely give you UofL, and to a lesser extent, Pitt and Syracuse. UofL made it because they completely sold out academics and are essentially running a minor league athletic program (not sure we want to be wherever they are for that reason, though academics seem strangely enough to not be a sticking point anymore). Pitt and Syracuse didn't have the performance necessarily as much as the pedigree.

TCU was a convenience add due to their proximity to the other B12 schools. Rutgers was added for their market.

I think Bohn is doing everything he can, but the window for opportunity is currently shut. His predecessor wasn't here long enough to know, though he will likely be judged by the Tuberville hire which definitely hurt the stature of our football program.

(03-13-2017 12:48 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(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.

Zimpher did raise the academic profile which is great but ignored what was happening sports wise as UofL was building a sports machine.
Then she blew up the basketball program with her inept hamfisted handling of Huggins.

Williams was just as bad cheerleading and lauding being downgraded to the AAC as Pitt, Cuse, WVU and UofL all left for sweeter digs. He could've railed against what was happening but either didn't care, didn't understand, or actually wanted the downgrade.

The UC administration deserves some blame.

I'm not sure what Williams ever did for athletics, but I think it's important to note that Zimpher had to dial back spending due to the financial crisis that began in early 2007. There was also the issue of debt for Varsity Village that was incurred for getting UC into the Big East.

I think you have to go back farther on the timeline to get a full grasp of what UC did and did not do to get itself noticed by a P5 league. By the time Williams and Zimpher came around they were already behind.

I know I shouldn't go there, but if you're going to bring up the Huggins' firing, one should not ignore the Bob and Andy Scorched Earth Show that decimated the program. Personally, I think this is a nonissue in the realignment discussion.