Daugherty: Bearcats dealt yet another blow, by ACC
Apr. 23, 2013


“Today’s news from the ACC could certainly halt or slow down realignment, at least at the BCS level,” UC athletic director Whit Babcock said Monday in a text message. / The Enquirer/Jeff Swinger

Written by
Paul Daugherty

Whit Babcock has an Enquirer story displayed in his office. He looks at it and offers a dark chuckle. The headline from the story published Oct, 24, 2011 -- the day UC hired Babcock as its athletic director -- says, “Stepping Into Uncertainty.’’

Uncertainty? Babcock bought a four-story house with no stairs. The Big East was crumbling, fast. The Bearcats reaction was to play mediator. Their idea, fronted by then-president Gregory Williams, was to try to keep the peace, and a majority of the schools. It was, as it turned out, a futile and naïve exercise from which UC still staggers.

Babcock has to feel like a guy running a marathon on a treadmill. Or so you’d think.

“We’ve got a big desire to keep moving forward,’’ he said Tuesday. “What can we do to make UC better every day? How do we best position ourselves in our conference and nationally?’’

It’s a fine strategy. If you see yourself as Big Time, it’s the only strategy.

The latest kick to the Bearcats head came Monday. The Atlantic Coast Conference announced its members all had signed what’s called a “grant of media rights’’ binding them for the next 14 years. That means that if a school leaves, media money from all its home games stay with the ACC. That doesn’t count the league’s current $50 million exit fee.

No school is going to lose that kind of cash. No school is going to leave. So much for Cincinnati’s ACC dreams.

The ACC could expand, but no one believes it will. The Big 12 has 10 schools now, but is fat and happy with that, and has no desire to slice its pie twice more, just for the sake of two divisions and a conference title game in football. Why would Texas or Oklahoma want to have to win a Big 12 title game to have a chance at a national title?

UC is stuck, still and again.

The Bearcats are in the same game of musical chairs that started a few years back. The difference is, their likelihood of getting a chair isn’t as good now as it was then. As Babcock puts it, “We had a two-month-to-two-year plan. Now, it’s a one-year-to-five-year plan.’’ Meaning: How do you feel about watching Memphis, Temple and SMU at Nippert Stadium for half a decade?

Babcock says plans to doll up Ol’ Lady Nippert remain in full effect, at an estimated cost of $70 million. That makes sense, no matter what happens, unless you believe Cincinnati belongs in the MAC. Even if UC can’t run with the big dogs, it’s going to make sure it has a fine porch looks nice. Just in case.

“The project is not 100 percent go,’’ says Babcock. “But we’re headed in that direction.’’

Babcock explains it coolly and logically. It might not be what UC fans want to hear; imagine spending the last two years being left at the altar every other day. But it’s definitely what is needed. Someone has to locate the solid ground.

He says the money dedicated to Nippert will be raised through tickets, suites and contributions, and financed over 20 years. Akron has suites; Toledo has suites. Why can’t UC? Babcock reasons, “If (the project) costs $4 million a year and we can generate $6 million, we have $2 million for other things.’’

Plus, if you aspire to the big time, it’s the only thing to do. Now, all the athletic director has to do is figure out who will shell out cash wads for a home schedule that includes Houston and, in 2014, Tulane and Tulsa.

A huge problem is perception. Perception is reality. After a fun run in the Big East that included two BCS bowls and a steady diet of home basketball against Georgetown, UConn, Villanova et al, how does Babcock convince the faithful that home-and-home with Navy is a good thing? Or, more precisely, a thing worth their money?

Athletic directors in 2013 don’t direct athletics. Not exactly. Their ability to schedule opponents is an afterthought, compared with their skill at asking donors for millions of dollars. One of these days, perhaps, Whit Babcock will be able simply to run an athletic department, and not a never-ending mile.

That time isn’t now. You can’t even see it from here. Conference realignment left UC in the ditch. On Monday, the ACC shoveled some dirt into the ditch. Babcock is seeking a hose and some soap. “All we can do is control what we can,’’ he says.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130...low-by-ACC

Salt, meet wound.
How many obituaries can Daugherty write for UC?!

This is one thing I am getting tired of - "Perception is reality". This is not always the case.

The Big 10 was awful last year with the exception of the poster boys for bad behavior - OSU and PSU.

The Big 12, SEC, PAC 10 or is it 12, and the ACC all have their clunker programs. But on the whole they are revered as these spectacular conferences, because the media tells us they are.

But that's another part of the uphill battle UC and the AAC will have to face - no matter how good an AAC team becomes or how many bigger programs they beat, they will be perceived as a bad conference.

I don't pay attention to Daugherty much. He's a self-important blowhard. He's good at writing puff pieces, but not so much about sports news. He's definitely not a UC supporter.

His kid went to O$U along with his $$$$. I question his objectivity. A good scribe gets his facts right and is objective. He is neither.

The basketball schedule argument is a flimsy one at best. Next year's home schedule includes: UConn, Memphis, Louisville, Temple, SDSU, and NC State. While the conference schedule might be a little bit I am excited about the potential for interesting non-conferce games like SDSU, NC State, and Michigan over the next handful of years.

If the Louisville series continues in football we are pretty much looking at an overall football schedules that very enticing for this fan. Losing WVU hurt but the rest of the Big East's football schools did very little for me. Rutgers, Syracuse, and Pitt were not exactly big draws if there was something else attached to that game. If Houston, ECU, UCF, USF, SMU, or Tulsa come in Nippert ranked in the top 25 or the Bearcats are playing for a potential spot in the College Football Playoff I don't see a big difference in the schedule. Lots of local non-conference games in our future too.

By the way is Doc confused about Navy, they are not playing basketball in this league.

Lastly, UC has a lot revenue coming in from many sources. Its not Ohio State or Louisville revenue but to be honest UC is still in better place than most schools in college athletics. It can build for the future like and move up to another league or build this current league by becoming its dominant flagship.

In addition to listing Navy, Doc is also incorrect in listing UCONN among basketball teams that have been part of the, "steady diet." I've got a news flash for him: UCONN has been by far the most successful men's (and women's) program in the old Big East--perhaps the country. They're in the AAC.
Is this whole situation another challenge for UC? Absolutely. Is it a hopeless case? Absolutely not.

The HUGE difference is money at least 16 to 30 million a year difference !!!! .....The next large problem is NO regional rivals....how much more do you have to say?

(04-24-2013 08:39 AM)Bearcat T Wrote:  The HUGE difference is money at least 16 to 30 million a year difference !!!! .....The next large problem is NO regional rivals....how much more do you have to say?

That is the 800 lb gorilla. UC needs that kind of money. The other issue
is future lessened bowl games. TV exposure will be fine.

I am sure Paul had a hard on when he wrote this

He loves misery

(04-24-2013 08:39 AM)Bearcat T Wrote:  The HUGE difference is money at least 16 to 30 million a year difference !!!! .....The next large problem is NO regional rivals....how much more do you have to say?

Exactly and the increased revenue lasts for a very limited amount of time and then UC will be competing against UofL, UK, tOSU, MSU etc. for recruits on a very unlevel playing field $ wise.

I also highly doubt UofL continues the H & H with UC. It'll be play here or don't play if at all. UofL won't need the game. We will become to them like Miami Oxford has been to UC (while UC was in the BCS). In 3-5 years UC won't be able to compete with UofL on the field anyway given the disparity in $ and conference affiliation for recruits.

UC has to hope a lifeline to a Power5 opens up in the next year or 2 or the Cats will be relegated to second tier status — fans will find other places to spend their sport dollars (you can blame the fans but in a town where there is competition for sports dollars unlike most college towns, fans have options and will exercise them) and poof the fun we've had for the past 5 years will be a memory.

In hindsight, I'm very glad I went to the Orange and Sugar Bowls. I didn't really have the $ to spend on the trips but wondered if the opportunity was a once (or twice) in a lifetime so I'm now very glad I went.

Ill be there for the Bearcats no matter what but the developments of this week were really really bad for the Bearcats.

UC has already been competing for recruits on an unlevel playing field for many, many years.

When has UC been on a level field with OSU, UK, MSU, etc? They have always had a lot more money/resources and always will.

All of those Big 10 teams that sucked last year had a lot more money than UC did to acomplish their bad seasons.

UC is at a huge disadvantage. But even while in the Big East, they were at a huge disadvantage.

(04-24-2013 08:53 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Exactly and the increased revenue lasts for a very limited amount of time and then UC will be competing against UofL, UK, tOSU, MSU etc. for recruits on a very unlevel playing field $ wise.

I also highly doubt UofL continues the H & H with UC. It'll be play here or don't play if at all. UofL won't need the game. We will become to them like Miami Oxford has been to UC (while UC was in the BCS). In 3-5 years UC won't be able to compete with UofL on the field anyway given the disparity in $ and conference affiliation for recruits.

UC has to hope a lifeline to a Power5 opens up in the next year or 2 or the Cats will be relegated to second tier status — fans will find other places to spend their sport dollars (you can blame the fans but in a town where there is competition for sports dollars unlike most college towns, fans have options and will exercise them) and poof the fun we've had for the past 5 years will be a memory.

In hindsight, I'm very glad I went to the Orange and Sugar Bowls. I didn't really have the $ to spend on the trips but wondered if the opportunity was a once (or twice) in a lifetime so I'm now very glad I went.

Ill be there for the Bearcats no matter what but the developments of this week were really really bad for the Bearcats.

Unfortunately, I have to agree.

(04-24-2013 08:58 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  UC has already been competing for recruits on an unlevel playing field for many, many years.

When has UC been on a level field with OSU, UK, MSU, etc? They have always had a lot more money/resources and always will.

All of those Big 10 teams that sucked last year had a lot more money than UC did to acomplish their bad seasons.

UC is at a huge disadvantage. But even while in the Big East, they were at a huge disadvantage.

UC has been at a small disadvantage but not anywhere as big as the disadvantage they will be facing trying to convince recruits to play in the AAC over the ACC, Big10 or SEC.

The AAC is marginally or no better than the MAC in reality. Playing in the AAC, the caliber of the recruits UC gets will drop for football.

(04-24-2013 08:53 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 08:39 AM)Bearcat T Wrote:  The HUGE difference is money at least 16 to 30 million a year difference !!!! .....The next large problem is NO regional rivals....how much more do you have to say?

Exactly and the increased revenue lasts for a very limited amount of time and then UC will be competing against UofL, UK, tOSU, MSU etc. for recruits on a very unlevel playing field $ wise.

I also highly doubt UofL continues the H & H with UC. It'll be play here or don't play if at all. UofL won't need the game. We will become to them like Miami Oxford has been to UC (while UC was in the BCS). In 3-5 years UC won't be able to compete with UofL on the field anyway given the disparity in $ and conference affiliation for recruits.

UC has to hope a lifeline to a Power5 opens up in the next year or 2 or the Cats will be relegated to second tier status — fans will find other places to spend their sport dollars (you can blame the fans but in a town where there is competition for sports dollars unlike most college towns, fans have options and will exercise them) and poof the fun we've had for the past 5 years will be a memory.

In hindsight, I'm very glad I went to the Orange and Sugar Bowls. I didn't really have the $ to spend on the trips but wondered if the opportunity was a once (or twice) in a lifetime so I'm now very glad I went.

Ill be there for the Bearcats no matter what but the developments of this week were really really bad for the Bearcats.

I wonder if the Uconn and USF boards contain as much doom and gloom as UC ones contain? Also, does Boise feel they can no longer compete, since they are still stuck in a minor conf?

UC was dealt another challenge, not a blow. The 2 areas I see lack of top 5 conf affiliation hurting is TV revenue and bowl access. Our status has not dramatically changed from the BE - we were facing an up hill battle with TV revenue, as compared to other top conf, and bowl access was mediocre. Despite these items and the fact our dept has debt issues/lacks major alumni and local support, UC found a way to win. Winning at a major clip.

UofL has openly expressed the desire to continue the series in some capacity. I have not heard comments from their coaches or AD, which would indicate feelings of superiority. I could understand those feelings however, not because they are in the ACC, but because they won a BCS Bowl and NC in BBall recently.

UC has and always will have to compete with regional schools, ie osu, uk, uofl and a host of others in recruiting. This is a constant and will not change no matter what conf we end up participating within.

I hate to make the comment - UC does not deserve nor should expect to join a power conf without a high level of support from its alums and the local area. The economic benefits of being in a major conf not only help the institution, but the local economy as well.

As a side note - the best way to combat PD, Enquirer, Cunningham, wlw and the rest of the Cincy Circus is to succeed in all endeavors the University enters. Whether that be athletics, research, individual alumni accomplishments, or academics.

IMO you guys are being way too hard on Doc. He is the best sports newspaper writer in the city and one of the better columnists nationally. Unfortuantely he doesn't write to please. But I have come to accept that.

On this one, I think he is mostly correct with one glaring exception:

To have a conference title game the Big 12 would need to expand beyond 10 teams to 12 or even 14.

So Doc says:

Quote:The Big 12 has 10 schools now, but is fat and happy with that, and has no desire to slice its pie twice more, just for the sake of two divisions and a conference title game in football. Why would Texas or Oklahoma want to have to win a Big 12 title game to have a chance at a national title?

IMO he is right Texas and Oklahoma would have NO desire to have to play a title game to advance to a national title. But the rest of the conference sure as heck would. It greatly increases the chances for every other team to have a title and NC game shot.

But the main reason b12 expansion is likely to happen eventually is MONEY. A big 12 title game is a big time TV event and that means a more lucrative TV rights contract and more money for the conference. And if all the other big time conferences have big splashy title games with huge national viewership and you don't. Well lets face it, the big 12 not only misses out on a huge payday, they also look like the dowdy, old hat, scaredy cat league.

Yes, this might dim the chances for the ACC, for now. But IMO he is avoiding the strong fundamental reasons FOR expansion in the Big 12, in order to prove his overall point.

(04-24-2013 09:25 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 08:53 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 08:39 AM)Bearcat T Wrote:  The HUGE difference is money at least 16 to 30 million a year difference !!!! .....The next large problem is NO regional rivals....how much more do you have to say?

Exactly and the increased revenue lasts for a very limited amount of time and then UC will be competing against UofL, UK, tOSU, MSU etc. for recruits on a very unlevel playing field $ wise.

I also highly doubt UofL continues the H & H with UC. It'll be play here or don't play if at all. UofL won't need the game. We will become to them like Miami Oxford has been to UC (while UC was in the BCS). In 3-5 years UC won't be able to compete with UofL on the field anyway given the disparity in $ and conference affiliation for recruits.

UC has to hope a lifeline to a Power5 opens up in the next year or 2 or the Cats will be relegated to second tier status — fans will find other places to spend their sport dollars (you can blame the fans but in a town where there is competition for sports dollars unlike most college towns, fans have options and will exercise them) and poof the fun we've had for the past 5 years will be a memory.

In hindsight, I'm very glad I went to the Orange and Sugar Bowls. I didn't really have the $ to spend on the trips but wondered if the opportunity was a once (or twice) in a lifetime so I'm now very glad I went.

Ill be there for the Bearcats no matter what but the developments of this week were really really bad for the Bearcats.

I wonder if the Uconn and USF boards contain as much doom and gloom as UC ones contain? Also, does Boise feel they can no longer compete, since they are still stuck in a minor conf?

UC was dealt another challenge, not a blow. The 2 areas I see lack of top 5 conf affiliation hurting is TV revenue and bowl access. Our status has not dramatically changed from the BE - we were facing an up hill battle with TV revenue, as compared to other top conf, and bowl access was mediocre. Despite these items and the fact our dept has debt issues/lacks major alumni and local support, UC found a way to win. Winning at a major clip.

UofL has openly expressed the desire to continue the series in some capacity. I have not heard comments from their coaches or AD, which would indicate feelings of superiority. I could understand those feelings however, not because they are in the ACC, but because they won a BCS Bowl and NC in BBall recently.

UC has and always will have to compete with regional schools, ie osu, uk, uofl and a host of others in recruiting. This is a constant and will not change no matter what conf we end up participating within.

I hate to make the comment - UC does not deserve nor should expect to join a power conf without a high level of support from its alums and the local area. The economic benefits of being in a major conf not only help the institution, but the local economy as well.

As a side note - the best way to combat PD, Enquirer, Cunningham, wlw and the rest of the Cincy Circus is to succeed in all endeavors the University enters. Whether that be athletics, research, individual alumni accomplishments, or academics.

The problem is that UC has so many of what Butch Jones has described as conditional fans. The attitude of we'll wait to buy tickets, join UCats, donate for new facilities, etc... until we see how things turn out is what has helped get us in this fix in the first place. No major conference is going to consider us if we don't crank up the support. Boise State recruits well despite being located in a backwater with a crappy conference and terrible academics. TCU had to wonder in the wilderness for a few years but stuck to their guns and recruited well, retained their coach and invested in facilities and look how that worked out. UC has advantages over both in many ways. The biggest obstacle seems to be this pernicous Cincinnati mindset of think small, won't work, can't do it, can't afford it. Then everyone scratches their heads and wonders why things don't work out.

(04-24-2013 08:44 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 08:39 AM)Bearcat T Wrote:  The HUGE difference is money at least 16 to 30 million a year difference !!!! .....The next large problem is NO regional rivals....how much more do you have to say?

That is the 800 lb gorilla. UC needs that kind of money. The other issue
is future lessened bowl games. TV exposure will be fine.

TV exposure is going to be lots of games on weeknights and lots of games sold off to local providers (FSN, for example) or direct-broadcast to the internet on ESPN3. Basically, the future of AAC football on TV looks a lot like the current MAC setup, if what I'm seeing in the contracts are correct.

Exposure is going to be an issue, because I don't think there are going to be any future national telecast Saturday games, even on ESPN or ESPN2 (to say nothing of ABC).

And the money is really the giant issue -- Boise State and TCU never had this kind of uphill battle regarding money when they were ascending. It's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to sell top-tier recruits on playing in an AAC school when the financial disadvantage is 10-1 before the first ticket is even sold.

(04-24-2013 11:22 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  The problem is that UC has so many of what Butch Jones has described as conditional fans. The attitude of we'll wait to buy tickets, join UCats, donate for new facilities, etc... until we see how things turn out is what has helped get us in this fix in the first place. No major conference is going to consider us if we don't crank up the support. Boise State recruits well despite being located in a backwater with a crappy conference and terrible academics. TCU had to wonder in the wilderness for a few years but stuck to their guns and recruited well, retained their coach and invested in facilities and look how that worked out. UC has advantages over both in many ways. The biggest obstacle seems to be this pernicous Cincinnati mindset of think small, won't work, can't do it, can't afford it. Then everyone scratches their heads and wonders why things don't work out.

The Cincinnati mindset is that of a professional-sports city. We have a baseball team and a football team that both compete at the highest level for their respective sports. We talk about wanting the Reds to win a World Series and the Bengals to win a Super Bowl.

Minor league sports are always a tough sell in a major league city because the perception quickly becomes "it doesn't matter." People might attend a Cyclones game, but very few people have any passion about the Cyclones because they play in a league that isn't the NHL and doesn't matter in the grand scheme.

The Bearcats captured the city's imagination during the Brian Kelly years because, for the first time in the football program's history, what they were doing started to be important. They were in contention (theoretically) for a national title. They were playing in major bowl games against major college opponents. The Bearcats mattered -- there were championship to possibly win. They were MAJOR LEAGUE as far as college sports goes.

You take that away, and you're left with trying to convince fans that they should what? Support the team as they try to win the conference title of a 6th tier conference? Travel to watch them play a bowl game against some MWC opponent on a Tuesday in December?

Once the city decides that the Bearcats are minor league again, they'll return to being disinterested in the product -- just like they are with Miami football (MAC football doesn't matter), Cyclones hockey, Florence Freedom baseball, etc.

(04-24-2013 11:11 AM)Eastside_J Wrote:  IMO you guys are being way too hard on Doc. He is the best sports newspaper writer in the city and one of the better columnists nationally. Unfortuantely he doesn't write to please. But I have come to accept that.

On this one, I think he is mostly correct with one glaring exception:

To have a conference title game the Big 12 would need to expand beyond 10 teams to 12 or even 14.

So Doc says:

Quote:The Big 12 has 10 schools now, but is fat and happy with that, and has no desire to slice its pie twice more, just for the sake of two divisions and a conference title game in football. Why would Texas or Oklahoma want to have to win a Big 12 title game to have a chance at a national title?

IMO he is right Texas and Oklahoma would have NO desire to have to play a title game to advance to a national title. But the rest of the conference sure as heck would. It greatly increases the chances for every other team to have a title and NC game shot.

But the main reason b12 expansion is likely to happen eventually is MONEY. A big 12 title game is a big time TV event and that means a more lucrative TV rights contract and more money for the conference. And if all the other big time conferences have big splashy title games with huge national viewership and you don't. Well lets face it, the big 12 not only misses out on a huge payday, they also look like the dowdy, old hat, scaredy cat league.

Yes, this might dim the chances for the ACC, for now. But IMO he is avoiding the strong fundamental reasons FOR expansion in the Big 12, in order to prove his overall point.

Totally agree. Eventually the Big 12 is going to have to expand IMO. Having a conference championship game is absolutely huge for TV and national exposure. And the geography of the league is just plain bad. Eventually the Big 12 is going to start being ignored IMO as one of the Big 5 conferences if they dont get into some more markets and dont have a big year ending event like the other conferences will with their championship games.

(04-24-2013 11:32 AM)#41 Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 11:22 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  The problem is that UC has so many of what Butch Jones has described as conditional fans. The attitude of we'll wait to buy tickets, join UCats, donate for new facilities, etc... until we see how things turn out is what has helped get us in this fix in the first place. No major conference is going to consider us if we don't crank up the support. Boise State recruits well despite being located in a backwater with a crappy conference and terrible academics. TCU had to wonder in the wilderness for a few years but stuck to their guns and recruited well, retained their coach and invested in facilities and look how that worked out. UC has advantages over both in many ways. The biggest obstacle seems to be this pernicous Cincinnati mindset of think small, won't work, can't do it, can't afford it. Then everyone scratches their heads and wonders why things don't work out.

The Cincinnati mindset is that of a professional-sports city. We have a baseball team and a football team that both compete at the highest level for their respective sports. We talk about wanting the Reds to win a World Series and the Bengals to win a Super Bowl.

Minor league sports are always a tough sell in a major league city because the perception quickly becomes "it doesn't matter." People might attend a Cyclones game, but very few people have any passion about the Cyclones because they play in a league that isn't the NHL and doesn't matter in the grand scheme.

The Bearcats captured the city's imagination during the Brian Kelly years because, for the first time in the football program's history, what they were doing started to be important. They were in contention (theoretically) for a national title. They were playing in major bowl games against major college opponents. The Bearcats mattered -- there were championship to possibly win. They were MAJOR LEAGUE as far as college sports goes.

You take that away, and you're left with trying to convince fans that they should what? Support the team as they try to win the conference title of a 6th tier conference? Travel to watch them play a bowl game against some MWC opponent on a Tuesday in December?

Once the city decides that the Bearcats are minor league again, they'll return to being disinterested in the product -- just like they are with Miami football (MAC football doesn't matter), Cyclones hockey, Florence Freedom baseball, etc.

I don't always agree with you #41 (still think you are P-DOC but I digress)--- but I do agree with you on this point.