The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(04-05-2018 03:40 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:17 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  [I see...so good coaches cost less money? A larger scouting staff costs less money? Playing in front of a larger crowd costs less money?

I had no idea.....

Good coaches, don't guarantee results. Larger staffs, don't guarantee results. Money, doesn't guarantee results.

Good coaches and more money and better (and larger) staffs DO guarantee results over the long haul...to wit...

Duke
UK
UNC
Villanova
KU

every blue-blood perennial powerhouse has a good coach and a considerable amount of $$$ behind it. Your assertion simply isn't accurate.

...and I never said we were "bad" at basketball....we are mediocre...and mediocre doesn't sell tickets and make big $$$.

It's very simple.

(04-05-2018 06:23 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:40 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:17 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  [I see...so good coaches cost less money? A larger scouting staff costs less money? Playing in front of a larger crowd costs less money?

I had no idea.....

Good coaches, don't guarantee results. Larger staffs, don't guarantee results. Money, doesn't guarantee results.

Good coaches and more money and better (and larger) staffs DO guarantee results over the long haul...to wit...

Duke
UK
UNC
Villanova
KU

every blue-blood perennial powerhouse has a good coach and a considerable amount of $$$ behind it. Your assertion simply isn't accurate.

...and I never said we were "bad" at basketball....we are mediocre...and mediocre doesn't sell tickets and make big $$$.

It's very simple.

First of all, we're not mediocre. Mediocre teams don't win the way we do.
Secondly, the teams you just mentioned have completely disproportionate budgets allotted to the respective bball programs.

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/men...73159.html
Kentucky spent 19 million dollars, Michigan spent just shy of 9.
Loyola spent 2.82 million, Duke spent 19 and a half.


We, according to the US Department of Education's EADA (Equity in Athletics Data Analysis) https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/ spent $6,970,262 on men's basketball and $2,406,652 on women's.
I'm sorry, but I don't think the two million dollar difference between us and Michigan made them a final four team. They squeaked by the same Houston team we did. They weren't head and shoulders above us and the "blue bloods" like Duke who spent more than twice what they did, didn't exactly smoke them either. That's not mentioning the people Loyola dropped.

If you can get to the final four for under 3 million dollars, why should I think 7 million is a hindrance?


EDIT: Sorry, I meant Houston not SMU.

(04-04-2018 01:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  As long as students know how much they are being charged to support athletics so be it.

do they even know where any of their money is going outside of books?

(04-05-2018 09:13 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 01:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  As long as students know how much they are being charged to support athletics so be it.

do they even know where any of their money is going outside of books?

IDK google it

(04-05-2018 09:41 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 09:13 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 01:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  As long as students know how much they are being charged to support athletics so be it.

do they even know where any of their money is going outside of books?

IDK google it

so what's the stink, that if they were aware of how much the renovations cost they'd fuss about it and stall the project? well, i haven't read much of any of this thread (nor the articles provided) so spare me your google talk.

when i was a student, all of that information could have been readily available and probably even told me and i wouldn't bat an eye. i woulda been all, so? but maybe that's just me

(04-04-2018 12:56 PM)jarr Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 12:31 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  Doesn't this same article come out once every year? Nothing new here. If you are in the Cartel 5, tv subsidizes the athletic dept, whether or not said dept earned the money. In the P6 or Other 5, you need to use other methods to subsidize.

There are 3 paths - more tv revenue, current structure remains in place or UC starts axing programs. Sounds like some want either fball or basketball to get the axe.

I have no idea, just speculating... but does anyone have any numbers on the overall indirect revenue the football and basketball programs bring to the university? In other words, lets say we whacked football and/or basketball, how would that effect the university as a whole? Does the enrollment go down? Do donations and gifts go down? Does interest in the university go down? How does this affect general student and alumni well being as related to the university?

Its probably easy to point to sports and say, well they aren't making revenue. But some times youbbn have step back and look at the entire picture to see what they are truly bringing to the table. What are the programs bringing in revenue, and which ones are not? Are students paying for these as well?

Ultimately, the student has a choice if they want to pay the tuition, if not they have other options, if its too high and doesn't make sense for them, then why not look elsewhere. Everybody is not a victim.

“Ultimately, the student has a choice if they want to pay the tuition, if not they have other options, if its too high and doesn't make sense for them, “

(04-05-2018 10:21 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 09:41 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 09:13 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 01:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  As long as students know how much they are being charged to support athletics so be it.

do they even know where any of their money is going outside of books?

IDK google it

so what's the stink, that if they were aware of how much the renovations cost they'd fuss about it and stall the project? well, i haven't read much of any of this thread (nor the articles provided) so spare me your google talk.

when i was a student, all of that information could have been readily available and probably even told me and i wouldn't bat an eye. i woulda been all, so? but maybe that's just me

This is pretty accurate. Most of my buddies fret about how much they have to pay, very few of them actually care where that money is being spent.

(04-05-2018 07:15 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 06:23 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:40 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:17 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  [I see...so good coaches cost less money? A larger scouting staff costs less money? Playing in front of a larger crowd costs less money?

I had no idea.....

Good coaches, don't guarantee results. Larger staffs, don't guarantee results. Money, doesn't guarantee results.

Good coaches and more money and better (and larger) staffs DO guarantee results over the long haul...to wit...

Duke
UK
UNC
Villanova
KU

every blue-blood perennial powerhouse has a good coach and a considerable amount of $$$ behind it. Your assertion simply isn't accurate.

...and I never said we were "bad" at basketball....we are mediocre...and mediocre doesn't sell tickets and make big $$$.

It's very simple.

First of all, we're not mediocre. Mediocre teams don't win the way we do.
Secondly, the teams you just mentioned have completely disproportionate budgets allotted to the respective bball programs.

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/men...73159.html
Kentucky spent 19 million dollars, Michigan spent just shy of 9.
Loyola spent 2.82 million, Duke spent 19 and a half.


We, according to the US Department of Education's EADA (Equity in Athletics Data Analysis) https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/ spent $6,970,262 on men's basketball and $2,406,652 on women's.
I'm sorry, but I don't think the two million dollar difference between us and Michigan made them a final four team. They squeaked by the same Houston team we did. They weren't head and shoulders above us and the "blue bloods" like Duke who spent more than twice what they did, didn't exactly smoke them either. That's not mentioning the people Loyola dropped.

If you can get to the final four for under 3 million dollars, why should I think 7 million is a hindrance?


EDIT: Sorry, I meant Houston not SMU.

All-time post season victories--top 10 programs:

Rank School #
1 Kentucky 124*
2 North Carolina 123
3 Duke 108
4 Kansas 103
5 UCLA 100^
6 Louisville 76
7 Indiana 66
8 Syracuse 65
9 Michigan State 64
10 Villanova 59

All budgets that dwarf UC. All with solid coaches for the bulk of their program's existence. Not luck, not chance, allocation of resources.

Your assertion is incorrect.

(04-05-2018 01:58 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 09:15 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 07:15 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 11:15 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 08:00 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  XU axed FB long ago and runs a leaner AD with one successful revenue sport. They get along just fine with a substantially smaller student body and a disproportionate share of success. It's a better model for them.

My man, XU pays more than UC on a per student basis in fees to subsidize athletics when accounting the same way. And talk about lack of transparency. They aren’t required to disclose anything. At least any UC student could look at the multitude of sites that aggregate athletics data or even do a public records request and get answers. XU can tell their students to eff off.

They have more success/$ spent by having dumped FB.

Whoa, where'd those goalposts go? So your issue is the money being spent or the level of success?

You really think UC could just dump money in the basketball program by cutting football? Heck naw. UC would and should be expected to scale back the AD budget significantly by cutting football, and significantly reduce the university's contributions to the AD considering the lack of benefit you are getting by axing football.

And by the way, if you are making financial decisions based on a couple rounds of advancement in an inherently fickle tournament (which is literally all you can say they have us on in basketball), you are doing it wrong.

So.....Villanova and XU are "doing it wrong"? Should they go DI in FB and pour loads of $$ into a crappy FB program? Kind of like UConn?

I think they are putting their $$ where it will provide the greatest opportunity for exposure and success.

The measurement of success is advancement in the post-season and putting collegiate athletes in the pros consistently. There is no other yardstick for athletics. The fact that the MBB tourney is a field of 64 makes it theoretically possible to win the National Championship by gaining access to the field....but SUSTAINED success only comes from a consistent record of deep penetration.

Otherwise, why play the GD game at all? If you want to simply field a team and STINK....you can do that for very little $$$$. UC did it in FB for many years--I think we made the Penthouse 20 worst several times in the 70's and 80's....I don't remember high AD fees during those years.

Do I think ALL the $$ donated to shore up FB should go to MBB if cut? In a word...NO....just focus on doing one revenue sport as well as possible and get the bigger bang for the smaller $$$.

First of all, love you how you think money=success. I can assure you there a ton of P5 programs dumping money into their basketball with nothing to show for it.

Second, Villanova was desperately trying to dump money into their football program. That’s part of the reason the BE ended up breaking apart.

And by the way, I believe we spend around 5% less than XU does on basketball. That’s nothing. So again, I think the issue you have is lack of success, not allocation of resources. And money doesn’t just buy success, sorry to say.

(04-06-2018 07:54 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 07:15 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 06:23 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:40 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:17 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  [I see...so good coaches cost less money? A larger scouting staff costs less money? Playing in front of a larger crowd costs less money?

I had no idea.....

Good coaches, don't guarantee results. Larger staffs, don't guarantee results. Money, doesn't guarantee results.

Good coaches and more money and better (and larger) staffs DO guarantee results over the long haul...to wit...

Duke
UK
UNC
Villanova
KU

every blue-blood perennial powerhouse has a good coach and a considerable amount of $$$ behind it. Your assertion simply isn't accurate.

...and I never said we were "bad" at basketball....we are mediocre...and mediocre doesn't sell tickets and make big $$$.

It's very simple.

First of all, we're not mediocre. Mediocre teams don't win the way we do.
Secondly, the teams you just mentioned have completely disproportionate budgets allotted to the respective bball programs.

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/men...73159.html
Kentucky spent 19 million dollars, Michigan spent just shy of 9.
Loyola spent 2.82 million, Duke spent 19 and a half.


We, according to the US Department of Education's EADA (Equity in Athletics Data Analysis) https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/ spent $6,970,262 on men's basketball and $2,406,652 on women's.
I'm sorry, but I don't think the two million dollar difference between us and Michigan made them a final four team. They squeaked by the same Houston team we did. They weren't head and shoulders above us and the "blue bloods" like Duke who spent more than twice what they did, didn't exactly smoke them either. That's not mentioning the people Loyola dropped.

If you can get to the final four for under 3 million dollars, why should I think 7 million is a hindrance?


EDIT: Sorry, I meant Houston not SMU.

All-time post season victories--top 10 programs:

Rank School #
1 Kentucky 124*
2 North Carolina 123
3 Duke 108
4 Kansas 103
5 UCLA 100^
6 Louisville 76
7 Indiana 66
8 Syracuse 65
9 Michigan State 64
10 Villanova 59

All budgets that dwarf UC. All with solid coaches for the bulk of their program's existence. Not luck, not chance, allocation of resources.

Your assertion is incorrect.

Hahahahaha. Do you even know why those programs can spend the way they do? They have millions of fans that donate, watch their games, and spend money on their programs. We.... don’t. We average 10k fans a game with modest ticket prices.

If you want us to spend like UK, Duke, and the like, turn back the clock 30 years and hypnotize more people into caring about UC basketball (And crater X’s program too, because we aren’t getting to that level while sharing our only core market). Because that’s what drives those budgets, not allocation of money out of football.

At this point, you are desperately grasping at straws.

(04-06-2018 09:05 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 07:54 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 07:15 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 06:23 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:40 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  Good coaches, don't guarantee results. Larger staffs, don't guarantee results. Money, doesn't guarantee results.

Good coaches and more money and better (and larger) staffs DO guarantee results over the long haul...to wit...

Duke
UK
UNC
Villanova
KU

every blue-blood perennial powerhouse has a good coach and a considerable amount of $$$ behind it. Your assertion simply isn't accurate.

...and I never said we were "bad" at basketball....we are mediocre...and mediocre doesn't sell tickets and make big $$$.

It's very simple.

First of all, we're not mediocre. Mediocre teams don't win the way we do.
Secondly, the teams you just mentioned have completely disproportionate budgets allotted to the respective bball programs.

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/men...73159.html
Kentucky spent 19 million dollars, Michigan spent just shy of 9.
Loyola spent 2.82 million, Duke spent 19 and a half.


We, according to the US Department of Education's EADA (Equity in Athletics Data Analysis) https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/ spent $6,970,262 on men's basketball and $2,406,652 on women's.
I'm sorry, but I don't think the two million dollar difference between us and Michigan made them a final four team. They squeaked by the same Houston team we did. They weren't head and shoulders above us and the "blue bloods" like Duke who spent more than twice what they did, didn't exactly smoke them either. That's not mentioning the people Loyola dropped.

If you can get to the final four for under 3 million dollars, why should I think 7 million is a hindrance?


EDIT: Sorry, I meant Houston not SMU.

All-time post season victories--top 10 programs:

Rank School #
1 Kentucky 124*
2 North Carolina 123
3 Duke 108
4 Kansas 103
5 UCLA 100^
6 Louisville 76
7 Indiana 66
8 Syracuse 65
9 Michigan State 64
10 Villanova 59

All budgets that dwarf UC. All with solid coaches for the bulk of their program's existence. Not luck, not chance, allocation of resources.

Your assertion is incorrect.

Hahahahaha. Do you even know why those programs can spend the way they do? They have millions of fans that donate, watch their games, and spend money on their programs. We.... don’t. We average 10k fans a game with modest ticket prices.

If you want us to spend like UK, Duke, and the like, turn back the clock 30 years and hypnotize more people into caring about UC basketball (And crater X’s program too, because we aren’t getting to that level while sharing our only core market). Because that’s what drives those budgets, not allocation of money out of football.

At this point, you are desperately grasping at straws.

Why do you think those programs have that money to spend?

THEY WIN REGULARLY AND GROW THEIR FANBASE...
MORE (AND LARGER) DONATIONS COME IN....MORE SUCCESS IS GENERATED...

Are you deliberately trying to miss the point or are you simply dense?

(04-06-2018 05:28 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 09:05 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 07:54 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 07:15 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 06:23 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  Good coaches and more money and better (and larger) staffs DO guarantee results over the long haul...to wit...

Duke
UK
UNC
Villanova
KU

every blue-blood perennial powerhouse has a good coach and a considerable amount of $$$ behind it. Your assertion simply isn't accurate.

...and I never said we were "bad" at basketball....we are mediocre...and mediocre doesn't sell tickets and make big $$$.

It's very simple.

First of all, we're not mediocre. Mediocre teams don't win the way we do.
Secondly, the teams you just mentioned have completely disproportionate budgets allotted to the respective bball programs.

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/men...73159.html
Kentucky spent 19 million dollars, Michigan spent just shy of 9.
Loyola spent 2.82 million, Duke spent 19 and a half.


We, according to the US Department of Education's EADA (Equity in Athletics Data Analysis) https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/ spent $6,970,262 on men's basketball and $2,406,652 on women's.
I'm sorry, but I don't think the two million dollar difference between us and Michigan made them a final four team. They squeaked by the same Houston team we did. They weren't head and shoulders above us and the "blue bloods" like Duke who spent more than twice what they did, didn't exactly smoke them either. That's not mentioning the people Loyola dropped.

If you can get to the final four for under 3 million dollars, why should I think 7 million is a hindrance?


EDIT: Sorry, I meant Houston not SMU.

All-time post season victories--top 10 programs:

Rank School #
1 Kentucky 124*
2 North Carolina 123
3 Duke 108
4 Kansas 103
5 UCLA 100^
6 Louisville 76
7 Indiana 66
8 Syracuse 65
9 Michigan State 64
10 Villanova 59

All budgets that dwarf UC. All with solid coaches for the bulk of their program's existence. Not luck, not chance, allocation of resources.

Your assertion is incorrect.

Hahahahaha. Do you even know why those programs can spend the way they do? They have millions of fans that donate, watch their games, and spend money on their programs. We.... don’t. We average 10k fans a game with modest ticket prices.

If you want us to spend like UK, Duke, and the like, turn back the clock 30 years and hypnotize more people into caring about UC basketball (And crater X’s program too, because we aren’t getting to that level while sharing our only core market). Because that’s what drives those budgets, not allocation of money out of football.

At this point, you are desperately grasping at straws.

Why do you think those programs have that money to spend?

THEY WIN REGULARLY AND GROW THEIR FANBASE...
MORE (AND LARGER) DONATIONS COME IN....MORE SUCCESS IS GENERATED...

Are you deliberately trying to miss the point or are you simply dense?

Do you even have a point besides showing everyone you don’t know how the business side of sports works? Right now you are complaining just to complain. Shake your fist and show the world that you won’t take it any more.

Sorry bud. Winning alone doesn’t get it done. Just like money alone doesn’t get it done either. The Reds can win the next 10 World Series and they still won’t have a higher payroll than the Yankees or Dodgers. Same with UC. With UC churning out more alumni and getting higher level graduates, there IS room for growth. But it will be slow, very slow. Winning helps that, but the people writing the checks, paying for tickets, and watching the games will ALWAYS dictate the flow of cash in today’s world. Maybe that changes eventually. Things are a heck of a lot different than they were 30 years ago. You never know.

Anyway, I’m not sure what your ‘plan’ would be, but I’m glad it’s not one that’s being heard in UCs board room. Or any board room for that matter.

(04-06-2018 11:57 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 05:28 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 09:05 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 07:54 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 07:15 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  First of all, we're not mediocre. Mediocre teams don't win the way we do.
Secondly, the teams you just mentioned have completely disproportionate budgets allotted to the respective bball programs.

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/men...73159.html
Kentucky spent 19 million dollars, Michigan spent just shy of 9.
Loyola spent 2.82 million, Duke spent 19 and a half.


We, according to the US Department of Education's EADA (Equity in Athletics Data Analysis) https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/ spent $6,970,262 on men's basketball and $2,406,652 on women's.
I'm sorry, but I don't think the two million dollar difference between us and Michigan made them a final four team. They squeaked by the same Houston team we did. They weren't head and shoulders above us and the "blue bloods" like Duke who spent more than twice what they did, didn't exactly smoke them either. That's not mentioning the people Loyola dropped.

If you can get to the final four for under 3 million dollars, why should I think 7 million is a hindrance?


EDIT: Sorry, I meant Houston not SMU.

All-time post season victories--top 10 programs:

Rank School #
1 Kentucky 124*
2 North Carolina 123
3 Duke 108
4 Kansas 103
5 UCLA 100^
6 Louisville 76
7 Indiana 66
8 Syracuse 65
9 Michigan State 64
10 Villanova 59

All budgets that dwarf UC. All with solid coaches for the bulk of their program's existence. Not luck, not chance, allocation of resources.

Your assertion is incorrect.

Hahahahaha. Do you even know why those programs can spend the way they do? They have millions of fans that donate, watch their games, and spend money on their programs. We.... don’t. We average 10k fans a game with modest ticket prices.

If you want us to spend like UK, Duke, and the like, turn back the clock 30 years and hypnotize more people into caring about UC basketball (And crater X’s program too, because we aren’t getting to that level while sharing our only core market). Because that’s what drives those budgets, not allocation of money out of football.

At this point, you are desperately grasping at straws.

Why do you think those programs have that money to spend?

THEY WIN REGULARLY AND GROW THEIR FANBASE...
MORE (AND LARGER) DONATIONS COME IN....MORE SUCCESS IS GENERATED...

Are you deliberately trying to miss the point or are you simply dense?

Do you even have a point besides showing everyone you don’t know how the business side of sports works? Right now you are complaining just to complain. Shake your fist and show the world that you won’t take it any more.

Sorry bud. Winning alone doesn’t get it done. Just like money alone doesn’t get it done either. The Reds can win the next 10 World Series and they still won’t have a higher payroll than the Yankees or Dodgers. Same with UC. With UC churning out more alumni and getting higher level graduates, there IS room for growth. But it will be slow, very slow. Winning helps that, but the people writing the checks, paying for tickets, and watching the games will ALWAYS dictate the flow of cash in today’s world. Maybe that changes eventually. Things are a heck of a lot different than they were 30 years ago. You never know.

Anyway, I’m not sure what your ‘plan’ would be, but I’m glad it’s not one that’s being heard in UCs board room. Or any board room for that matter.

The plan is easy for MBB:

Shell out money for a proven head coach, hire him, let him recruit, win, and the money flows in.

It isn't rocket science.

Calipari proved it could be done that way when he was at Memphis, Pitino proved it at UL, Donovan proved it at Florida, Martin proved it at USC.

It happens all the time.

(04-07-2018 02:34 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 11:57 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 05:28 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 09:05 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 07:54 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  All-time post season victories--top 10 programs:

Rank School #
1 Kentucky 124*
2 North Carolina 123
3 Duke 108
4 Kansas 103
5 UCLA 100^
6 Louisville 76
7 Indiana 66
8 Syracuse 65
9 Michigan State 64
10 Villanova 59

All budgets that dwarf UC. All with solid coaches for the bulk of their program's existence. Not luck, not chance, allocation of resources.

Your assertion is incorrect.

Hahahahaha. Do you even know why those programs can spend the way they do? They have millions of fans that donate, watch their games, and spend money on their programs. We.... don’t. We average 10k fans a game with modest ticket prices.

If you want us to spend like UK, Duke, and the like, turn back the clock 30 years and hypnotize more people into caring about UC basketball (And crater X’s program too, because we aren’t getting to that level while sharing our only core market). Because that’s what drives those budgets, not allocation of money out of football.

At this point, you are desperately grasping at straws.

Why do you think those programs have that money to spend?

THEY WIN REGULARLY AND GROW THEIR FANBASE...
MORE (AND LARGER) DONATIONS COME IN....MORE SUCCESS IS GENERATED...

Are you deliberately trying to miss the point or are you simply dense?

Do you even have a point besides showing everyone you don’t know how the business side of sports works? Right now you are complaining just to complain. Shake your fist and show the world that you won’t take it any more.

Sorry bud. Winning alone doesn’t get it done. Just like money alone doesn’t get it done either. The Reds can win the next 10 World Series and they still won’t have a higher payroll than the Yankees or Dodgers. Same with UC. With UC churning out more alumni and getting higher level graduates, there IS room for growth. But it will be slow, very slow. Winning helps that, but the people writing the checks, paying for tickets, and watching the games will ALWAYS dictate the flow of cash in today’s world. Maybe that changes eventually. Things are a heck of a lot different than they were 30 years ago. You never know.

Anyway, I’m not sure what your ‘plan’ would be, but I’m glad it’s not one that’s being heard in UCs board room. Or any board room for that matter.

The plan is easy for MBB:

Shell out money for a proven head coach, hire him, let him recruit, win, and the money flows in.

It isn't rocket science.

Calipari proved it could be done that way when he was at Memphis, Pitino proved it at UL, Donovan proved it at Florida, Martin proved it at USC.

It happens all the time.

Mick does win. Maybe not enough in the tournament for some folks but overall he wins. Can we a least see how the program does with new arena before going crazy. This board and another UC board has gone nuts after the Nevada game. The basketball team just finished #12 in the final poll, which is the highest ranking in a long time. They won the conference regular season and tournament championship in a league that finished with two other ranked teams. Our cross-town rival didn't beat a single ranked team in league play all year and still earned a one seed.

The basketball team is still a great source of pride for the university. They win a lot games and do it while players represent the university in a way that pays respect to those that earned our degrees from the University of Cincinnati.

(04-07-2018 02:34 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  Calipari proved it could be done that way when he was at Memphis, Pitino proved it at UL, Donovan proved it at Florida, Martin proved it at USC.

1. Memphis had their success vacated and are now in basketball hell.
2. Pitino is out of a job and looked at as a complete sleaze ball. Nobody respects Louisville as a university and I don't want us to be looked at as a joke.
3. Billy Donovan caliber coaches aren't a dime a dozen. I wouldn't compare anybody else on your list to him. None of them are even remotely close.
4. In the six years Martin has been at USC, they went to the tournament one time. Yeah, they had a run. Anyone can catch lightning in a bottle one time. The rest of his tenure? They had one NIT second round appearance and failed to appear in the post season at all the other 4 times.

(04-04-2018 12:12 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 11:56 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  At some point, we're going to have to realize that Ono and Bohn made a huge gamble to get us into the P5 and came up craps. They bet $100M and lost. While Ono can't be fired (and I've always maintained that he ran away before all his phony promises were exposed), the university can certainly take an honest, hard look at the mistakes and not continue to go down that same path.

Imagine if we'd pumped $100M into the cancer hospital. I'd bet we'd be a lot closer to that Comprehensive Cancer Center designation than hoping some fairy tale Flutie Effect might happen.

Imagine if we'd pumped $100M into merit aid. I'd bet we'd be a lot closer to rising selectivity to Miami's level than waiting for the Flutie Effect to do it.

Imagine if we'd pumped $100M into the underachieving departments at UC. I'd bet we'd be a lot closer to an AAU invite than on waiting for athletics to have some magic effect in that regard.

Merit aid has absolutely no bearing on selectivity and the mystical AAU invite has nothing to do with what departments are, and are not excelling, but I completely agree with your sentiment. Athletics were the catalyst for recent University growth, but it is financially irresponsible to keep something afloat at the rate that they do (along with most every other institution in America).

With that being said, the economics of this isn't simple substitution...Universities would not be charging fee increases like this if athletics simply weren't around, so the $100M isn't a number that could just be lumped to another department. If it were, people would be complaining about it anyways.

Take my current institution for instance, we charged an additional $100 on lab fees for students in order to modernize our technological infrastructure (higher speed wireless internet in the engineering facilities, improved software licensing, every computer in the college has been upgraded in the last two years, we now have two full-dive 3D simulation spaces that every student can reserve and utilize), but people still complain. If we didn't charge that fee and technology was not improving, people would still complain.

In a nutshell ^↑^↑

These stories pop up with the premise that, "why is mid major U spending money on athletics like this??? They need to stay in their lane! "

They also make sure to find and quote anti athletics students to make their case. The fact is that $25M a year out of likely $1B operating budget isn't a lot.

Bottom line is that students and faculty complaining about this would find something else to complain about if you elliminated athletics completely.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(04-07-2018 03:22 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 02:34 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 11:57 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 05:28 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 09:05 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  Hahahahaha. Do you even know why those programs can spend the way they do? They have millions of fans that donate, watch their games, and spend money on their programs. We.... don’t. We average 10k fans a game with modest ticket prices.

If you want us to spend like UK, Duke, and the like, turn back the clock 30 years and hypnotize more people into caring about UC basketball (And crater X’s program too, because we aren’t getting to that level while sharing our only core market). Because that’s what drives those budgets, not allocation of money out of football.

At this point, you are desperately grasping at straws.

Why do you think those programs have that money to spend?

THEY WIN REGULARLY AND GROW THEIR FANBASE...
MORE (AND LARGER) DONATIONS COME IN....MORE SUCCESS IS GENERATED...

Are you deliberately trying to miss the point or are you simply dense?

Do you even have a point besides showing everyone you don’t know how the business side of sports works? Right now you are complaining just to complain. Shake your fist and show the world that you won’t take it any more.

Sorry bud. Winning alone doesn’t get it done. Just like money alone doesn’t get it done either. The Reds can win the next 10 World Series and they still won’t have a higher payroll than the Yankees or Dodgers. Same with UC. With UC churning out more alumni and getting higher level graduates, there IS room for growth. But it will be slow, very slow. Winning helps that, but the people writing the checks, paying for tickets, and watching the games will ALWAYS dictate the flow of cash in today’s world. Maybe that changes eventually. Things are a heck of a lot different than they were 30 years ago. You never know.

Anyway, I’m not sure what your ‘plan’ would be, but I’m glad it’s not one that’s being heard in UCs board room. Or any board room for that matter.

The plan is easy for MBB:

Shell out money for a proven head coach, hire him, let him recruit, win, and the money flows in.

It isn't rocket science.

Calipari proved it could be done that way when he was at Memphis, Pitino proved it at UL, Donovan proved it at Florida, Martin proved it at USC.

It happens all the time.

Mick does win. Maybe not enough in the tournament for some folks but overall he wins. Can we a least see how the program does with new arena before going crazy. This board and another UC board has gone nuts after the Nevada game. The basketball team just finished #12 in the final poll, which is the highest ranking in a long time. They won the conference regular season and tournament championship in a league that finished with two other ranked teams. Our cross-town rival didn't beat a single ranked team in league play all year and still earned a one seed.

The basketball team is still a great source of pride for the university. They win a lot games and do it while players represent the university in a way that pays respect to those that earned our degrees from the University of Cincinnati.

Mick wins games but who does he beat? Buffalo? Small directional schools that are just collecting a check? We know one team he can't beat is Xavier.

when last time Mick beat a team he wasn't supposed to beat? 3-4yrs ago?

(04-08-2018 12:59 PM)Blitz0921 Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 03:22 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 02:34 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 11:57 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 05:28 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  Why do you think those programs have that money to spend?

THEY WIN REGULARLY AND GROW THEIR FANBASE...
MORE (AND LARGER) DONATIONS COME IN....MORE SUCCESS IS GENERATED...

Are you deliberately trying to miss the point or are you simply dense?

Do you even have a point besides showing everyone you don’t know how the business side of sports works? Right now you are complaining just to complain. Shake your fist and show the world that you won’t take it any more.

Sorry bud. Winning alone doesn’t get it done. Just like money alone doesn’t get it done either. The Reds can win the next 10 World Series and they still won’t have a higher payroll than the Yankees or Dodgers. Same with UC. With UC churning out more alumni and getting higher level graduates, there IS room for growth. But it will be slow, very slow. Winning helps that, but the people writing the checks, paying for tickets, and watching the games will ALWAYS dictate the flow of cash in today’s world. Maybe that changes eventually. Things are a heck of a lot different than they were 30 years ago. You never know.

Anyway, I’m not sure what your ‘plan’ would be, but I’m glad it’s not one that’s being heard in UCs board room. Or any board room for that matter.

The plan is easy for MBB:

Shell out money for a proven head coach, hire him, let him recruit, win, and the money flows in.

It isn't rocket science.

Calipari proved it could be done that way when he was at Memphis, Pitino proved it at UL, Donovan proved it at Florida, Martin proved it at USC.

It happens all the time.

Mick does win. Maybe not enough in the tournament for some folks but overall he wins. Can we a least see how the program does with new arena before going crazy. This board and another UC board has gone nuts after the Nevada game. The basketball team just finished #12 in the final poll, which is the highest ranking in a long time. They won the conference regular season and tournament championship in a league that finished with two other ranked teams. Our cross-town rival didn't beat a single ranked team in league play all year and still earned a one seed.

The basketball team is still a great source of pride for the university. They win a lot games and do it while players represent the university in a way that pays respect to those that earned our degrees from the University of Cincinnati.

Mick wins games but who does he beat? Buffalo? Small directional schools that are just collecting a check? We know one team he can't beat is Xavier.

Didn't know UCLA, Kansas State, Xavier, Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville, Villanova, Texas, and Iowa State were directional schools.
As for Xu, then why'd we beat them the previous season?
But of course, it's all on Cronin. Ignore reality and reduce everything to "If our head coach was such and such person, we'd magically land nothing but McDonalds All Americans, have displays decked out in nothing but Championship trophies and be in an elite conference as well!"... Addendum: "and we'd all wake up with multiple bisexual, open minded playmate wives, no kids, millions in the bank, with a vacation home in Monaco!"

Jesus. Do you people listen to yourselves? We lost by two. It happens. These are teenage/20 something year old kids playing a game. They're not that consistent, they weren't that consistent under the previous guy or any of the ones before him, and they're not going to be consistent under whoever else you hire.

That's college basketball, GTFO it.

(04-08-2018 10:30 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 12:59 PM)Blitz0921 Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 03:22 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 02:34 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 11:57 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  Do you even have a point besides showing everyone you don’t know how the business side of sports works? Right now you are complaining just to complain. Shake your fist and show the world that you won’t take it any more.

Sorry bud. Winning alone doesn’t get it done. Just like money alone doesn’t get it done either. The Reds can win the next 10 World Series and they still won’t have a higher payroll than the Yankees or Dodgers. Same with UC. With UC churning out more alumni and getting higher level graduates, there IS room for growth. But it will be slow, very slow. Winning helps that, but the people writing the checks, paying for tickets, and watching the games will ALWAYS dictate the flow of cash in today’s world. Maybe that changes eventually. Things are a heck of a lot different than they were 30 years ago. You never know.

Anyway, I’m not sure what your ‘plan’ would be, but I’m glad it’s not one that’s being heard in UCs board room. Or any board room for that matter.

The plan is easy for MBB:

Shell out money for a proven head coach, hire him, let him recruit, win, and the money flows in.

It isn't rocket science.

Calipari proved it could be done that way when he was at Memphis, Pitino proved it at UL, Donovan proved it at Florida, Martin proved it at USC.

It happens all the time.

Mick does win. Maybe not enough in the tournament for some folks but overall he wins. Can we a least see how the program does with new arena before going crazy. This board and another UC board has gone nuts after the Nevada game. The basketball team just finished #12 in the final poll, which is the highest ranking in a long time. They won the conference regular season and tournament championship in a league that finished with two other ranked teams. Our cross-town rival didn't beat a single ranked team in league play all year and still earned a one seed.

The basketball team is still a great source of pride for the university. They win a lot games and do it while players represent the university in a way that pays respect to those that earned our degrees from the University of Cincinnati.

Mick wins games but who does he beat? Buffalo? Small directional schools that are just collecting a check? We know one team he can't beat is Xavier.

Didn't know UCLA, Kansas State, Xavier, Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville, Villanova, Texas, and Iowa State were directional schools.
As for Xu, then why'd we beat them the previous season?
But of course, it's all on Cronin. Ignore reality and reduce everything to "If our head coach was such and such person, we'd magically land nothing but McDonalds All Americans, have displays decked out in nothing but Championship trophies and be in an elite conference as well!"... Addendum: "and we'd all wake up with multiple bisexual, open minded playmate wives, no kids, millions in the bank, with a vacation home in Monaco!"

Jesus. Do you people listen to yourselves? We lost by two. It happens. These are teenage/20 something year old kids playing a game. They're not that consistent, they weren't that consistent under the previous guy or any of the ones before him, and they're not going to be consistent under whoever else you hire.

That's college basketball, GTFO it.

Way to cherry pick--the beef is over the 13-year record, not isolated games. That tells you more about the coach than a single game or single season. Mick's record in the post-season is crystal clear...he does not penetrate.

Those who are upset with 13 years of post-season mediocrity are simply asking:

"can we try something else now?"

Apparently your end of the argument is saying "Never!!"