(11-17-2010 08:46 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I made the decision to keep my UC football season tickets and that's what I'll continue to do. I'll go to one or two basetball games a year now.

That's what I did, too. Of course, I'll have money to go to as many basketball games as I can get to since I won't be spending any money to go to a bowl game this year :(

It has a lot to do with the new president that I have heard is worse than Nancy Zimpher when it comes to athletics. Waddell left to go be the athletic director at Towson University which is a great move for him. Mike Harris, the current SID, was offered the associate athletic director spot but turned it down and will be heading out to Towson with Waddell. He doesn't want to be a part of this sinking ship that is UC sports. Apparently, the new president doesn't care at all about athletics, and don't be surprised if Mike Thomas is out the door before long as well because he is looking.

(11-17-2010 08:46 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  A terrible out of conference schedule
Previous performance/records/lack of NCAA tournament play under Cronin
If you buy season tickets to the Lair, you can have cheap seats per game, but it is still a pretty big investment for season tickets and then you also have to pay $10 for parking. So it's about $20 per game and that's if you go by yourself. I can't afford it right now. I made the decision to keep my UC football season tickets and that's what I'll continue to do. I'll go to one or two basetball games a year now.

Well, its not cost unless 8 bucks a game is outside the budget.

And I don't buy the schedule as being a reason to stay away either. Its not like this is the first time in 20 years a bunch of cupcakes were forced upon the season ticket holders.

Here is the real difference....even with this home OOC schedule that includes X, the overall home schedule is 10X better than it was a decade ago. Do you realize how many years I had to sit through Canisus, Florida Atlantic, Longwood, Elon, Jackson State and dreck like that AND THEN had to pay to watch half a conference home schedule comprised of more dreck in conference opponents like Southern Miss, Tulane, ECU, et al? All just to catch the cream of C-USA (and they were not even always on the home slate).

Not buying the schedule argument. Its this seasons convenient cop out. Folks should just say what it really is. They don't want to support a program that is not tops in a conference with their time and $$. Even then most locals around the 3-4 big UC boards won't spend their sheckles and time to show up. Many of them didn't even in the best of times. Why would they now when the goal going forward for a program with the 13th rated BE budget is to try to get into the top 7-8 in conference?

And paying to park keeps people away? Really? Eastside! Shout out....how many times have we paid to park? Rarely. God love public streets right along campus.

Proof in what I say is in what happens to the season ticket base for football next year. Mass exodus for poor wittle fickle UC fans.

This fanbase gets what it pays for. ROI? Probably gets better than it even deserves, IMO.

PS: And bearcatfan1211, every bit of what you typed is utter hogwash. Straight from the mouths of some of the folks you mention to my ears.

It's easy to blame the fans and yea i wish more fans went to games. (I go to about 10 home games a year since i graduated after attending nearly every game in my four years at UC. I'll be there Saturday) BUT the fact is the Bearcat faithful showed up throughout Huggins career at UC, they will support a program that shows a commitment to success. I don't know many programs that would draw large support if they:

1. Fired a coach who was incredibly successful and loved by pretty much the entire fan base.
2. Went from 13 straight NCAA tournament bids, to 5 straight years without it. (3 of which did not even have an NIT bid)
3. That had an administration that seemed to show no concern over this
4. Absolutely faded down the stretch in conference play the last 3 seasons (though did find a way to win a couple in the Big East tournament last year)

It's easy to blame the fans, but the attendance issues right now are a direct result of decisions made by the people in charge of University of Cincinnati athletics. That simple.

Ummmm... the "crappy product" won the game...

(11-17-2010 09:53 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  Ummmm... the "crappy product" won the game...

I'm not sure the average fan is ready to celebrate a win over Mt St Mary's...

And it is a sad sign for UC basketball if that is the argument to UC not fielding a crappy product.

I'm not celebrating, but I'm hardly using it as basis to jump ship, or mouth off about how bad the team is, either. BIG difference.

I did this analysis some years ago and went back and pulled it out again to prove (once more) that UC played a very strong schedule as shown by the Sagrin Ratings.

CUSA had teams that were tough at the top of the conference in Memphis, Marquette and Louisville. In addition UC played some cupcakes but played a lot of tough OOC games as well bringing their Strength of Schedule (SOS) to a very respectable level. The SOS for CUSA years (46) is very comparable to the BE year (52) (I did this analysis in 2008).

For those that perpetuate the myth that UC "Never Played anyone in the Old Days" Here are some strength of schedule numbers from Sagrin (keep in mind these numbers are from a relatively weak CUSA schedule).

The Sagrins read overall rank, college, rating, won/loss record, and in parenthesis strength of schedule (SOS):

Early 2008 season (when I did this analysis): 154 Cincinnati 73.53 3 2 65.65 (313) 313 Prior to BE play.

2006 - 2007 138 Cincinnati 73.86 11 19 77.50 (52) TY BE schedule

2005 - 2006: 33 Cincinnati 84.10 20 13 80.01 (12) Good SOS

2004 - 2005: 21 Cincinnati 86.49 25 8 77.04 (77)

2003 - 2004: 18 Cincinnati 87.63 25 7 77.80 (56) 56th without the benefit of BE schedule?

2002 - 2003: 47 Cincinnati 82.60 17 12 79.10 (36) 36th WTF?

2001 - 2002: 4 Cincinnati 93.67 31 4 78.12 (46) 46th? Playing in CUSA? 4th best Sagrin? WTF x 2..?!

2000 - 2001 22 Cincinnati 86.10 25 10 78.25 (46) 46th?

So they argument that UC played no one is in my opinion a non-starter.

A lot of people have a preconceived notion about the state of UC basketball from what they have seen the past few years under Cronin. What they saw in the Mt St mary's game was more of the same... A stretch of really good basketball followed by poor basketball.. I worry about that too, though i'm willing to give this team a chance.

Fans are not happy with where the program is...they see this team as a bottom tier Big East team... UC is going to have to prove them otherwise and I don't think they came close to doing that against M St Mary's.

Mark, you give way too much credit. You feel that way. The masses don't drill down as far as you do.

They come only when its easy. Been that way since before you were born.

(11-17-2010 08:46 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  UC fans, and Cincinnati fans in general, are not like most other college sports fans. They are fickle. We all know it.

Yet for some reason, people in this town will shell out $75 or more per game to fill up PBS year after year to watch the BEngals lose games after game after game.

You have to admit though - UC basketball has provided plenty of reasons for not going to many of their games.

A terrible out of conference schedule
Previous performance/records/lack of NCAA tournament play under Cronin
If you buy season tickets to the Lair, you can have cheap seats per game, but it is still a pretty big investment for season tickets and then you also have to pay $10 for parking. So it's about $20 per game and that's if you go by yourself. I can't afford it right now. I made the decision to keep my UC football season tickets and that's what I'll continue to do. I'll go to one or two basketball games a year now.

I couldn't agree more. As a first time football season ticket holder, I have been pleased with my investment regardless of the record. As for basketball, I vowed not to invest money in it until we have change in leadership.

After 5 years of Cronin, I am on the verge of throwing in the towel and becoming a fan of the other Cincinnati team. They at least have shown a will to win.

I'd have to agree it is not cost that keeps fans away, it is time.

A UC basketball games costs me a 2 hour drive, 2 hours for the game, a 2 hour drive home, and about an hour before/after the game.

That is seven hours out of my life. Well worthwhile to watch an exciting team battle another such team. Not worthwhile to watch a frustrating team struggle with some nobody opponent.

If you are 2 hours away, I would not consider you local. If I was 2 hours away, I'd only go to 3 games a year.

(11-17-2010 09:39 AM)bearcatfan1211 Wrote:  It has a lot to do with the new president that I have heard is worse than Nancy Zimpher when it comes to athletics. Waddell left to go be the athletic director at Towson University which is a great move for him. Mike Harris, the current SID, was offered the associate athletic director spot but turned it down and will be heading out to Towson with Waddell. He doesn't want to be a part of this sinking ship that is UC sports. Apparently, the new president doesn't care at all about athletics, and don't be surprised if Mike Thomas is out the door before long as well because he is looking.

The new President is behind athletics. He is also behind bolstering our academic profile, so we can achieve AAU accreditation. Too many are under the false assumption that if you improve academics you are hurting athletics.

Wadell left because his goal was to become an AD. He was given a good opportunity to do so. Mike Harris leaving to work with Wadell is a reflection on Wadell not UC's athletic department. I worked with Wadell and he is a great guy, with some great insights into collegiate athletics. I am sure anyone would have been jumping at the chance to work for him.

(11-17-2010 09:45 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  It's easy to blame the fans and yea i wish more fans went to games. (I go to about 10 home games a year since i graduated after attending nearly every game in my four years at UC. I'll be there Saturday) BUT the fact is the Bearcat faithful showed up throughout Huggins career at UC, they will support a program that shows a commitment to success. I don't know many programs that would draw large support if they:

1. Fired a coach who was incredibly successful and loved by pretty much the entire fan base.
2. Went from 13 straight NCAA tournament bids, to 5 straight years without it. (3 of which did not even have an NIT bid)
3. That had an administration that seemed to show no concern over this
4. Absolutely faded down the stretch in conference play the last 3 seasons (though did find a way to win a couple in the Big East tournament last year)

It's easy to blame the fans, but the attendance issues right now are a direct result of decisions made by the people in charge of University of Cincinnati athletics. That simple.

IU fans are still supporting their team. After the ouster of an iconic coach, bad hire, and losing that equals UC's. Some programs support the home team and others do not. UC falls into the others do not category. By the way, in Huggs last few years the attendance was already on the decline.

Well, I think you guys are looking at two problems.

Short term, winning and losing affect attendance. I don't think who you play has as much of an effect, Xavier almost sells out every game playing a SubAtlantic 10 schedule. I believe Xavier fans are from Cincinnati. If X were to start losing, I'd be willing to bet you would see empty seats at Cintas. Also, pro sports and college sports are two different animals.

Longer term, you need a commitment to athletics from much higher up. For now, X has that. In this area UC blows in the wind. I'd be willing to bet many if not most of the people on here are only familiar with the Huggins era in basketball. If you trace UC back further you will see the directionless ups and downs through the years.

With that pattern in basketball through the years, do you think football will be any different?

(11-17-2010 11:17 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(11-17-2010 09:45 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  It's easy to blame the fans and yea i wish more fans went to games. (I go to about 10 home games a year since i graduated after attending nearly every game in my four years at UC. I'll be there Saturday) BUT the fact is the Bearcat faithful showed up throughout Huggins career at UC, they will support a program that shows a commitment to success. I don't know many programs that would draw large support if they:

1. Fired a coach who was incredibly successful and loved by pretty much the entire fan base.
2. Went from 13 straight NCAA tournament bids, to 5 straight years without it. (3 of which did not even have an NIT bid)
3. That had an administration that seemed to show no concern over this
4. Absolutely faded down the stretch in conference play the last 3 seasons (though did find a way to win a couple in the Big East tournament last year)

It's easy to blame the fans, but the attendance issues right now are a direct result of decisions made by the people in charge of University of Cincinnati athletics. That simple.

IU fans are still supporting their team. After the ouster of an iconic coach, bad hire, and losing that equals UC's. Some programs support the home team and others do not. UC falls into the others do not category. By the way, in Huggs last few years the attendance was already on the decline.

IU's administration has shown a commitment to winning. They fired Knight after giving him a chance there was another incident... not the case with Huggs. Also they hired Davis, when he was not working out they moved on...the Sampson hire proved bad, but they went out and got a proven winner in Tom Crean. The IU administration has shown far more commitment to fielding a successful basketball program after Knight than the UC administration has after Huggins and there was not near the bad blood over the Bob Knight dismissal as there was over the Bob Huggins dismissal. IU's fans have rewarded the administrations efforts by continuing to support the program.

Oh please.

(11-17-2010 11:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  IU's administration has shown a commitment to winning. They fired Knight after giving him a chance there was another incident... not the case with Huggs. Also they hired Davis, when he was not working out they moved on...the Sampson hire proved bad, but they went out and got a proven winner in Tom Crean. The IU administration has shown far more commitment to fielding a successful basketball program after Knight than the UC administration has after Huggins and there was not near the bad blood over the Bob Knight dismissal as there was over the Bob Huggins dismissal. IU's fans have rewarded the administrations efforts by continuing to support the program.

I could not disagree more. There are still IU fans angered by Knight being let go. Instead of whining 10 years later they continue to support the program. Mike Davis was fired after 6 seasons at IU.....6. IU fans support the program and fill the coffers. That is why they can hire a coach like Crean. It has nothing to do with the administrations commitment to winning.

Bingo. Every IU fan I know has bile in their mouth over what the IU admin did and then what they did again by knowingly hiring a shady guy with a scarlet letter already attached to come in and get put on probation.

Just love the continued externalization of why folks don't support the program.