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

Why would anyone say we’re “never” going to be P5 eligible? Unless you can see the future, that’s preposterous.

(09-12-2019 07:45 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  Why would anyone say we’re “never” going to be P5 eligible? Unless you can see the future, that’s preposterous.

The only way UC will be P5 eligible is if they can reverse the % of the AD that is subsidized by tuition and other sources than AD revenue. Currently, UC is close to a 50% subsidy...no way the P5 wants that kind of revenue drain since most of their programs are subsidized at 20% or less...with quite a few actually showing a profit.

It's simply a numbers game. The big boys don't want to split the pot with a bunch of poorer schools for no reason.

(09-12-2019 07:32 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 01:23 AM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-08-2019 08:01 PM)mlb Wrote:  I'm guessing he is a professor at UC. He thinks that athletics is a drain on his ability to make money. What he doesn't understand is I give money to UCATS and the college of business and without football I'd never be on campus to be enticed to give that money. I.m quite sure that is a regular occurence. There is a reason why they invite me to CoB tailgates every homecoming where they beg for money for whatever new initiative they have going on.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I am an instructor at UC, but I don't hate athletics...I hate pursuing impossible scenarios that are a waste of $$$..UC FB is NEVER going to be in the conversation for a National Championship...and to spend $$$ like it will be is a waste of time.

MBB on the other hand has a theoretical shot at a NC every year you make the field of 68...unlike the BCS. It's also CHEAPER to maintain.

IF UC had a history of championship FB and IF UC didn't have to recruit against the likes of OSU and Notre Dame and Michigan and UL and on and on...then I'd sing a different tune. But they are where they are.

If UC wants FB, that's fine, but it's time to admit that it will never be P5 eligible, and thus will be locked out of the premiere talent pool. This will make the gulf in quality of play larger as time goes by...not to mention the fact that the P5 will be able to compensate their athletes with $$$ due to recent changes in NCAA policy.

UC could be successful at FB at a lower level...but that also means fewer $$$ going into the program.

But the idea that the UC FB Bearcats will ever be on the same playing field in term of talent as the top of the P5 is a pipe dream, and the pursuit of such a goal is merely a vanity project for the donors.

And just for the record...I'm a rabid MBB, NFL, and MLB fan. I find College FB mildly interesting, but honestly, it looks to me like NFL football played poorly. That's why I prefer the pros.

NBA is OK, but I like NCAA MBB because they actually play DEFENSE..unlike the NBA.

That my 2 cents.

Bruh... UC is a lot closer to P5 than they are to public ivy. Should we can academics and professors instead since we'll never be among the upper crust of academic institutions since it's a waste of money?

You stumbled into your own answer here--academics IS profitable because UC can ask tuition $$ and pull record enrollments. Note that schools unable to do that recently CUT departments and programs that were NOT profitable!!

Example is here:

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/educat...0170320215

Not to mention schools that are closing their doors due to low enrollment:

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-ne...-education

So...to answer your question...if it weren't profitable for UC...then those programs would be cut! If our enrollment were to drop significantly...then UC would close!

(09-12-2019 10:43 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:45 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  Why would anyone say we’re “never” going to be P5 eligible? Unless you can see the future, that’s preposterous.

The only way UC will be P5 eligible is if they can reverse the % of the AD that is subsidized by tuition and other sources than AD revenue. Currently, UC is close to a 50% subsidy...no way the P5 wants that kind of revenue drain since most of their programs are subsidized at 20% or less...with quite a few actually showing a profit.

It's simply a numbers game. The big boys don't want to split the pot with a bunch of poorer schools for no reason.

You're confusing cause and effect. The P5 schools don't have to provide heavy subsidies because of the conference TV revenue. If UC gets into a P5 it will be able to taper the athletic subsidy. The question for P5s is whether UC brings enough eyeballs to TV screens that it's value exceeds the dilution of revenues that would occur by adding it. The answer so far has been "no," and it's probably been the correct one from the P5's point of view.

(09-12-2019 10:48 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:32 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 01:23 AM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-08-2019 08:01 PM)mlb Wrote:  I'm guessing he is a professor at UC. He thinks that athletics is a drain on his ability to make money. What he doesn't understand is I give money to UCATS and the college of business and without football I'd never be on campus to be enticed to give that money. I.m quite sure that is a regular occurence. There is a reason why they invite me to CoB tailgates every homecoming where they beg for money for whatever new initiative they have going on.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I am an instructor at UC, but I don't hate athletics...I hate pursuing impossible scenarios that are a waste of $$$..UC FB is NEVER going to be in the conversation for a National Championship...and to spend $$$ like it will be is a waste of time.

MBB on the other hand has a theoretical shot at a NC every year you make the field of 68...unlike the BCS. It's also CHEAPER to maintain.

IF UC had a history of championship FB and IF UC didn't have to recruit against the likes of OSU and Notre Dame and Michigan and UL and on and on...then I'd sing a different tune. But they are where they are.

If UC wants FB, that's fine, but it's time to admit that it will never be P5 eligible, and thus will be locked out of the premiere talent pool. This will make the gulf in quality of play larger as time goes by...not to mention the fact that the P5 will be able to compensate their athletes with $$$ due to recent changes in NCAA policy.

UC could be successful at FB at a lower level...but that also means fewer $$$ going into the program.

But the idea that the UC FB Bearcats will ever be on the same playing field in term of talent as the top of the P5 is a pipe dream, and the pursuit of such a goal is merely a vanity project for the donors.

And just for the record...I'm a rabid MBB, NFL, and MLB fan. I find College FB mildly interesting, but honestly, it looks to me like NFL football played poorly. That's why I prefer the pros.

NBA is OK, but I like NCAA MBB because they actually play DEFENSE..unlike the NBA.

That my 2 cents.

Bruh... UC is a lot closer to P5 than they are to public ivy. Should we can academics and professors instead since we'll never be among the upper crust of academic institutions since it's a waste of money?

You stumbled into your own answer here--academics IS profitable because UC can ask tuition $$ and pull record enrollments. Note that schools unable to do that recently CUT departments and programs that were NOT profitable!!

Example is here:

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/educat...0170320215

Not to mention schools that are closing their doors due to low enrollment:

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-ne...-education

So...to answer your question...if it weren't profitable for UC...then those programs would be cut! If our enrollment were to drop significantly...then UC would close!

And why is it that UC is able to continue to set a record enrollment every year?

(09-12-2019 11:00 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:48 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:32 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 01:23 AM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-08-2019 08:01 PM)mlb Wrote:  I'm guessing he is a professor at UC. He thinks that athletics is a drain on his ability to make money. What he doesn't understand is I give money to UCATS and the college of business and without football I'd never be on campus to be enticed to give that money. I.m quite sure that is a regular occurence. There is a reason why they invite me to CoB tailgates every homecoming where they beg for money for whatever new initiative they have going on.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I am an instructor at UC, but I don't hate athletics...I hate pursuing impossible scenarios that are a waste of $$$..UC FB is NEVER going to be in the conversation for a National Championship...and to spend $$$ like it will be is a waste of time.

MBB on the other hand has a theoretical shot at a NC every year you make the field of 68...unlike the BCS. It's also CHEAPER to maintain.

IF UC had a history of championship FB and IF UC didn't have to recruit against the likes of OSU and Notre Dame and Michigan and UL and on and on...then I'd sing a different tune. But they are where they are.

If UC wants FB, that's fine, but it's time to admit that it will never be P5 eligible, and thus will be locked out of the premiere talent pool. This will make the gulf in quality of play larger as time goes by...not to mention the fact that the P5 will be able to compensate their athletes with $$$ due to recent changes in NCAA policy.

UC could be successful at FB at a lower level...but that also means fewer $$$ going into the program.

But the idea that the UC FB Bearcats will ever be on the same playing field in term of talent as the top of the P5 is a pipe dream, and the pursuit of such a goal is merely a vanity project for the donors.

And just for the record...I'm a rabid MBB, NFL, and MLB fan. I find College FB mildly interesting, but honestly, it looks to me like NFL football played poorly. That's why I prefer the pros.

NBA is OK, but I like NCAA MBB because they actually play DEFENSE..unlike the NBA.

That my 2 cents.

Bruh... UC is a lot closer to P5 than they are to public ivy. Should we can academics and professors instead since we'll never be among the upper crust of academic institutions since it's a waste of money?

You stumbled into your own answer here--academics IS profitable because UC can ask tuition $$ and pull record enrollments. Note that schools unable to do that recently CUT departments and programs that were NOT profitable!!

Example is here:

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/educat...0170320215

Not to mention schools that are closing their doors due to low enrollment:

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-ne...-education

So...to answer your question...if it weren't profitable for UC...then those programs would be cut! If our enrollment were to drop significantly...then UC would close!

And why is it that UC is able to continue to set a record enrollment every year?

2 big reasons:

1. Holding tuition steady.
2. Providing programs that result in job placement for the applicants.

It isn't the FB program.

(09-12-2019 10:54 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:43 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:45 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  Why would anyone say we’re “never” going to be P5 eligible? Unless you can see the future, that’s preposterous.

The only way UC will be P5 eligible is if they can reverse the % of the AD that is subsidized by tuition and other sources than AD revenue. Currently, UC is close to a 50% subsidy...no way the P5 wants that kind of revenue drain since most of their programs are subsidized at 20% or less...with quite a few actually showing a profit.

It's simply a numbers game. The big boys don't want to split the pot with a bunch of poorer schools for no reason.

You're confusing cause and effect. The P5 schools don't have to provide heavy subsidies because of the conference TV revenue. If UC gets into a P5 it will be able to taper the athletic subsidy. The question for P5s is whether UC brings enough eyeballs to TV screens that it's value exceeds the dilution of revenues that would occur by adding it. The answer so far has been "no," and it's probably been the correct one from the P5's point of view.

That does not explain why UL got in. The smart $$ is on the quality of the, MBB and FB programs (beating name opponents, winning NC's and so on).

(09-13-2019 01:16 AM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:54 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:43 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:45 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  Why would anyone say we’re “never” going to be P5 eligible? Unless you can see the future, that’s preposterous.

The only way UC will be P5 eligible is if they can reverse the % of the AD that is subsidized by tuition and other sources than AD revenue. Currently, UC is close to a 50% subsidy...no way the P5 wants that kind of revenue drain since most of their programs are subsidized at 20% or less...with quite a few actually showing a profit.

It's simply a numbers game. The big boys don't want to split the pot with a bunch of poorer schools for no reason.

You're confusing cause and effect. The P5 schools don't have to provide heavy subsidies because of the conference TV revenue. If UC gets into a P5 it will be able to taper the athletic subsidy. The question for P5s is whether UC brings enough eyeballs to TV screens that it's value exceeds the dilution of revenues that would occur by adding it. The answer so far has been "no," and it's probably been the correct one from the P5's point of view.

That does not explain why UL got in. They smart $$ is on the quality of the, MBB and FB programs (beating name opponents, winning NC's and so on).

Don’t forget the part where they cheated a lot and had the championship vacated.

(09-13-2019 04:54 AM)Bearcatbdub Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 01:16 AM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:54 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:43 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:45 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  Why would anyone say we’re “never” going to be P5 eligible? Unless you can see the future, that’s preposterous.

The only way UC will be P5 eligible is if they can reverse the % of the AD that is subsidized by tuition and other sources than AD revenue. Currently, UC is close to a 50% subsidy...no way the P5 wants that kind of revenue drain since most of their programs are subsidized at 20% or less...with quite a few actually showing a profit.

It's simply a numbers game. The big boys don't want to split the pot with a bunch of poorer schools for no reason.

You're confusing cause and effect. The P5 schools don't have to provide heavy subsidies because of the conference TV revenue. If UC gets into a P5 it will be able to taper the athletic subsidy. The question for P5s is whether UC brings enough eyeballs to TV screens that it's value exceeds the dilution of revenues that would occur by adding it. The answer so far has been "no," and it's probably been the correct one from the P5's point of view.

That does not explain why UL got in. They smart $$ is on the quality of the, MBB and FB programs (beating name opponents, winning NC's and so on).

Don’t forget the part where they cheated a lot and had the championship vacated.

Seems like that happened after they got in...it also doesn't erase the other NC's and deep runs in the tourney.

(09-12-2019 10:43 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:45 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  Why would anyone say we’re “never” going to be P5 eligible? Unless you can see the future, that’s preposterous.

The only way UC will be P5 eligible is if they can reverse the % of the AD that is subsidized by tuition and other sources than AD revenue. Currently, UC is close to a 50% subsidy...no way the P5 wants that kind of revenue drain since most of their programs are subsidized at 20% or less...with quite a few actually showing a profit.

It's simply a numbers game. The big boys don't want to split the pot with a bunch of poorer schools for no reason.

Damn I wonder where those P5 schools are getting all that extra money from.

(09-13-2019 01:16 AM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:54 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:43 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:45 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  Why would anyone say we’re “never” going to be P5 eligible? Unless you can see the future, that’s preposterous.

The only way UC will be P5 eligible is if they can reverse the % of the AD that is subsidized by tuition and other sources than AD revenue. Currently, UC is close to a 50% subsidy...no way the P5 wants that kind of revenue drain since most of their programs are subsidized at 20% or less...with quite a few actually showing a profit.

It's simply a numbers game. The big boys don't want to split the pot with a bunch of poorer schools for no reason.

You're confusing cause and effect. The P5 schools don't have to provide heavy subsidies because of the conference TV revenue. If UC gets into a P5 it will be able to taper the athletic subsidy. The question for P5s is whether UC brings enough eyeballs to TV screens that it's value exceeds the dilution of revenues that would occur by adding it. The answer so far has been "no," and it's probably been the correct one from the P5's point of view.

That does not explain why UL got in. The smart $$ is on the quality of the, MBB and FB programs (beating name opponents, winning NC's and so on).

I thought it was the cable TV networks and TV based consultants that resulted in UL to ACC and WV to B12. Basically it was a pressure rush for $$ in both cases.

If the college presidents sat down with time to deliberate and really think about it, neither of those schools would be in their present leagues.

And remind me again how we got here from discussion of the OSU game?

(09-13-2019 10:01 AM)ucbandguy Wrote:  And remind me again how we got here from discussion of the OSU game?

converrl

(09-13-2019 09:05 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:43 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:45 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  Why would anyone say we’re “never” going to be P5 eligible? Unless you can see the future, that’s preposterous.

The only way UC will be P5 eligible is if they can reverse the % of the AD that is subsidized by tuition and other sources than AD revenue. Currently, UC is close to a 50% subsidy...no way the P5 wants that kind of revenue drain since most of their programs are subsidized at 20% or less...with quite a few actually showing a profit.

It's simply a numbers game. The big boys don't want to split the pot with a bunch of poorer schools for no reason.

Damn I wonder where those P5 schools are getting all that extra money from.

Of course they get if from the TV networks...BUT...the networks wouldn't pay if the programs weren't quality programs..so ultimately, they got in because they play ball at a higher level.

(09-13-2019 02:41 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 09:05 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:43 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:45 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  Why would anyone say we’re “never” going to be P5 eligible? Unless you can see the future, that’s preposterous.

The only way UC will be P5 eligible is if they can reverse the % of the AD that is subsidized by tuition and other sources than AD revenue. Currently, UC is close to a 50% subsidy...no way the P5 wants that kind of revenue drain since most of their programs are subsidized at 20% or less...with quite a few actually showing a profit.

It's simply a numbers game. The big boys don't want to split the pot with a bunch of poorer schools for no reason.

Damn I wonder where those P5 schools are getting all that extra money from.

Of course they get if from the TV networks...BUT...the networks wouldn't pay if the programs weren't quality programs..so ultimately, they got in because they play ball at a higher level.

So Purdue, Indiana, Iowa State, Wake Forest, Washington State, etc., etc... are much more valuable than UC? Sorry... no. They've just been in one of those conferences for a long time and won the lottery thanks to it.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Sure, and it's not like I disagree. But you're speaking in defeatist absolutes that don't really help right now. You could've said the same thing about the football program before Bob Goin arrived too. I don't like the trajectory CFB is heading but it was only two years ago that we were first in line for Big 12 expansion. Certainly not time for us to surrender yet.

(09-13-2019 02:49 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 02:41 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 09:05 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:43 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:45 PM)Dannyboy Wrote:  Why would anyone say we’re “never” going to be P5 eligible? Unless you can see the future, that’s preposterous.

The only way UC will be P5 eligible is if they can reverse the % of the AD that is subsidized by tuition and other sources than AD revenue. Currently, UC is close to a 50% subsidy...no way the P5 wants that kind of revenue drain since most of their programs are subsidized at 20% or less...with quite a few actually showing a profit.

It's simply a numbers game. The big boys don't want to split the pot with a bunch of poorer schools for no reason.

Damn I wonder where those P5 schools are getting all that extra money from.

Of course they get if from the TV networks...BUT...the networks wouldn't pay if the programs weren't quality programs..so ultimately, they got in because they play ball at a higher level.

So Purdue, Indiana, Iowa State, Wake Forest, Washington State, etc., etc... are much more valuable than UC? Sorry... no. They've just been in one of those conferences for a long time and won the lottery thanks to it.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Hold on their podner!!! Let's take a few of those names:

Purdue--how many deep runs and NC's in the last 50?
IU--same question
Wake Forest--same question
Iowa State--likely to be shed
Washington State--likely to be shed

I'm with you regarding a lot of these schools...they aren't more valuable...that's why they will likely get dumped soon....

(09-13-2019 01:13 AM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 11:00 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:48 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:32 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 01:23 AM)converrl Wrote:  I am an instructor at UC, but I don't hate athletics...I hate pursuing impossible scenarios that are a waste of $$$..UC FB is NEVER going to be in the conversation for a National Championship...and to spend $$$ like it will be is a waste of time.

MBB on the other hand has a theoretical shot at a NC every year you make the field of 68...unlike the BCS. It's also CHEAPER to maintain.

IF UC had a history of championship FB and IF UC didn't have to recruit against the likes of OSU and Notre Dame and Michigan and UL and on and on...then I'd sing a different tune. But they are where they are.

If UC wants FB, that's fine, but it's time to admit that it will never be P5 eligible, and thus will be locked out of the premiere talent pool. This will make the gulf in quality of play larger as time goes by...not to mention the fact that the P5 will be able to compensate their athletes with $$$ due to recent changes in NCAA policy.

UC could be successful at FB at a lower level...but that also means fewer $$$ going into the program.

But the idea that the UC FB Bearcats will ever be on the same playing field in term of talent as the top of the P5 is a pipe dream, and the pursuit of such a goal is merely a vanity project for the donors.

And just for the record...I'm a rabid MBB, NFL, and MLB fan. I find College FB mildly interesting, but honestly, it looks to me like NFL football played poorly. That's why I prefer the pros.

NBA is OK, but I like NCAA MBB because they actually play DEFENSE..unlike the NBA.

That my 2 cents.

Bruh... UC is a lot closer to P5 than they are to public ivy. Should we can academics and professors instead since we'll never be among the upper crust of academic institutions since it's a waste of money?

You stumbled into your own answer here--academics IS profitable because UC can ask tuition $$ and pull record enrollments. Note that schools unable to do that recently CUT departments and programs that were NOT profitable!!

Example is here:

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/educat...0170320215

Not to mention schools that are closing their doors due to low enrollment:

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-ne...-education

So...to answer your question...if it weren't profitable for UC...then those programs would be cut! If our enrollment were to drop significantly...then UC would close! Basketball a

And why is it that UC is able to continue to set a record enrollment every year?

2 big reasons:

1. Holding tuition steady.
2. Providing programs that result in job placement for the applicants.

It isn't the FB program.

Oh be quiet. The reason most people came to this school my record setting enrollment year was the basketball team. This school wouldn't even be known by the wider population if it wasn't on TV sometimes. I'm from Michigan and northern Ohio and we literally didn't hear about UC outside of sports. I originally came to be a walk on for football. You have an agenda to push because you are bias but before you say words recognize the effects of advertisement in any form. Stop being annoying

(09-13-2019 06:44 PM)TheUnruly1 Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 01:13 AM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 11:00 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:48 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:32 PM)crex043 Wrote:  Bruh... UC is a lot closer to P5 than they are to public ivy. Should we can academics and professors instead since we'll never be among the upper crust of academic institutions since it's a waste of money?

You stumbled into your own answer here--academics IS profitable because UC can ask tuition $$ and pull record enrollments. Note that schools unable to do that recently CUT departments and programs that were NOT profitable!!

Example is here:

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/educat...0170320215

Not to mention schools that are closing their doors due to low enrollment:

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-ne...-education

So...to answer your question...if it weren't profitable for UC...then those programs would be cut! If our enrollment were to drop significantly...then UC would close! Basketball a

And why is it that UC is able to continue to set a record enrollment every year?

2 big reasons:

1. Holding tuition steady.
2. Providing programs that result in job placement for the applicants.

It isn't the FB program.

Oh be quiet. The reason most people came to this school my record setting enrollment year was the basketball team. This school wouldn't even be known by the wider population if it wasn't on TV sometimes. I'm from Michigan and northern Ohio and we literally didn't hear about UC outside of sports. I originally came to be a walk on for football. You have an agenda to push because you are bias but before you say words recognize the effects of advertisement in any form. Stop being annoying

Ummm...no....as much as I value MBB at UC, it's the quality of certain programs at UC that pulls the enrollments...DAAP, Engineering, the Medical School are just a few examples...all top notch nationally. If those programs were junk, then enrollments would drop like a rock.

(09-14-2019 05:51 AM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 06:44 PM)TheUnruly1 Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 01:13 AM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 11:00 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:48 PM)converrl Wrote:  You stumbled into your own answer here--academics IS profitable because UC can ask tuition $$ and pull record enrollments. Note that schools unable to do that recently CUT departments and programs that were NOT profitable!!

Example is here:

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/educat...0170320215

Not to mention schools that are closing their doors due to low enrollment:

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-ne...-education

So...to answer your question...if it weren't profitable for UC...then those programs would be cut! If our enrollment were to drop significantly...then UC would close! Basketball a

And why is it that UC is able to continue to set a record enrollment every year?

2 big reasons:

1. Holding tuition steady.
2. Providing programs that result in job placement for the applicants.

It isn't the FB program.

Oh be quiet. The reason most people came to this school my record setting enrollment year was the basketball team. This school wouldn't even be known by the wider population if it wasn't on TV sometimes. I'm from Michigan and northern Ohio and we literally didn't hear about UC outside of sports. I originally came to be a walk on for football. You have an agenda to push because you are bias but before you say words recognize the effects of advertisement in any form. Stop being annoying

Ummm...no....as much as I value MBB at UC, it's the quality of certain programs at UC that pulls the enrollments...DAAP, Engineering, the Medical School are just a few examples...all top notch nationally. If those programs were junk, then enrollments would drop like a rock.

No it wouldn't. People going into the education field could care less about what's happening in those other schools. Hell I thought it was cool but it wasn't what drove me to attend the school. Hell I've never been in the DAAP building or the Medical school. Only people who care about those schools are people who are going into those schools. People come for the college experience. Stop with your nonsense; you sound ridiculous. I'm coming from the student perspective you sound like a cry baby instructor hoping it's the programs the bring the students and not the recreational activities.

(09-14-2019 10:13 AM)TheUnruly1 Wrote:  

(09-14-2019 05:51 AM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 06:44 PM)TheUnruly1 Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 01:13 AM)converrl Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 11:00 PM)crex043 Wrote:  And why is it that UC is able to continue to set a record enrollment every year?

2 big reasons:

1. Holding tuition steady.
2. Providing programs that result in job placement for the applicants.

It isn't the FB program.

Oh be quiet. The reason most people came to this school my record setting enrollment year was the basketball team. This school wouldn't even be known by the wider population if it wasn't on TV sometimes. I'm from Michigan and northern Ohio and we literally didn't hear about UC outside of sports. I originally came to be a walk on for football. You have an agenda to push because you are bias but before you say words recognize the effects of advertisement in any form. Stop being annoying

Ummm...no....as much as I value MBB at UC, it's the quality of certain programs at UC that pulls the enrollments...DAAP, Engineering, the Medical School are just a few examples...all top notch nationally. If those programs were junk, then enrollments would drop like a rock.

No it wouldn't. People going into the education field could care less about what's happening in those other schools. Hell I thought it was cool but it wasn't what drove me to attend the school. Hell I've never been in the DAAP building or the Medical school. Only people who care about those schools are people who are going into those schools. People come for the college experience. Stop with your nonsense; you sound ridiculous. I'm coming from the student perspective you sound like a cry baby instructor hoping it's the programs the bring the students and not the recreational activities.

Let me guess...Other than participating athletes, the kids who go to UC because they're more impressed with its sports or with the promise of its college experience rather than with its academics are the ones who flunk out at the end of their first year, never to return.

"Yeah man, I've been accepted into some other schools, but I'm going to UC because they have decent sports programs."

"Oh, have you received an athletic scholarship?"

"No, but I really like UC's long string of one-and-outs in the NCAA tourney. I dig the football uniforms, too. Being close to the action is all part of the college experience."

"So, what are you going to major in?"

"I don't know yet. But it doesn't matter I long as I get to attend some games and enjoy some nachos."