CSNbbs
Yearly Article About Athletic Spending - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: The Gregory A. Ruehlmann Sr. Memorial Cincinnati Board (/forum-404.html)
+----- Thread: Yearly Article About Athletic Spending (/thread-939885.html)



Yearly Article About Athletic Spending - CliftonAve - 01-10-2022 12:51 PM

John McNay at it again.

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/i-team/uc-athletes-succeed-as-deficits-rise


RE: Yearly Article About Athletic Spending - BearcatMan - 01-10-2022 01:00 PM

Nothing like a branch campus professor of an irrelevant major to try to be a dick about something...faculty relations is the most incredibly frustrating part of any administrator in higher education.


RE: Yearly Article About Athletic Spending - UCGrad1992 - 01-10-2022 01:05 PM

Who? One tree in the wilderness? Exactly.


RE: Yearly Article About Athletic Spending - CliftonAve - 01-10-2022 01:12 PM

(01-10-2022 01:00 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Nothing like a branch campus professor of an irrelevant major to try to be a dick about something...faculty relations is the most incredibly frustrating part of any administrator in higher education.


There was a thread a few weeks ago on the Conference Realignment Forum of this board about 4-year universities without college athletics. If people like John McNay are to believed, those universities should have the highest paid faculty and staff, the best academic programs in the country and be in the black financially. I looked up one of the universities, Metropolitan State University (Minnesota). The school has 10K students and its endowment is $6M. It offers 62 undergraduate degrees, 25 structured master's degree programs. How can this be?


RE: Yearly Article About Athletic Spending - CliftonAve - 01-10-2022 01:14 PM

(01-10-2022 01:05 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Who? One tree in the wilderness? Exactly.

There was a professor on twitter a year or two complaining after Coach Fick got a raise. She got "ratioed" severely, especially when people kept bringing up his raise included private funding.


RE: Yearly Article About Athletic Spending - bcat1997 - 01-10-2022 01:32 PM

And I still want to pay Fickell $7M next year.


RE: Yearly Article About Athletic Spending - rath v2.0 - 01-10-2022 04:15 PM

People are funny. I remember there was a guy named Richard K. or something over on bearcatnews preaching we should not accept the BE offer and should stay in CUSA. Lol.


RE: Yearly Article About Athletic Spending - OKIcat - 01-10-2022 05:19 PM

The naysayers will always be with us, especially a few disgruntled faculty members.

To my way of thinking, much of this has been an "investment phase" in athletics ramping us up to Big 12 membership that will take our athletic program, and our university, to an entirely new level. It's so much more than just the substantial bump in TV and bowl revenue. It's the "major leagues" of collegiate athletics where our previous stay in the BCS 6 was all too brief. This platform will create exceptional opportunity with conference mates such as Kansas, Baylor, Iowa State and others that are both respected schools and big brands. I can't wait to see that first football schedule. And basketball too for that matter.


RE: Yearly Article About Athletic Spending - namrag - 01-10-2022 08:30 PM

I wonder how much of that deficit spending goes towards men’s basketball and football, after calculating in the revenue they both generate in ticket sales and conference media rights.

Compare them to women’s sports that generate little to no revenue in ticket sales, and are not a factor in conference media rights.

The same can be said about the rest of the men’s sports that are not basketball or football.


RE: Yearly Article About Athletic Spending - CliftonAve - 01-11-2022 08:20 AM

(01-10-2022 08:30 PM)namrag Wrote:  I wonder how much of that deficit spending goes towards men’s basketball and football, after calculating in the revenue they both generate in ticket sales and conference media rights.

Compare them to women’s sports that generate little to no revenue in ticket sales, and are not a factor in conference media rights.

The same can be said about the rest of the men’s sports that are not basketball or football.

Found this on Equity in Athletics site.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details


RE: Yearly Article About Athletic Spending - Bcatbog - 01-11-2022 08:29 AM

(01-10-2022 05:19 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  The naysayers will always be with us, especially a few disgruntled faculty members.

To my way of thinking, much of this has been an "investment phase" in athletics ramping us up to Big 12 membership that will take our athletic program, and our university, to an entirely new level. It's so much more than just the substantial bump in TV and bowl revenue. It's the "major leagues" of collegiate athletics where our previous stay in the BCS 6 was all too brief. This platform will create exceptional opportunity with conference mates such as Kansas, Baylor, Iowa State and others that are both respected schools and big brands. I can't wait to see that first football schedule. And basketball too for that matter.


While UC athletics have prospered so has the university. Enrollment has soared. Alumni prestige has soared. UC gear in NE Ohio gets encouraging “Go Bearcats” from complete strangers. For the Cotton Bowl I got messages from supporters all across the country.

Go Bearcats!


RE: Yearly Article About Athletic Spending - BearcatMan - 01-11-2022 08:38 AM

Yep...anyone with their head so far into the sand that they couldn't see what athletics can do at UC from this past year is never going to be coming up for air. Leave them to complain in their closet on Plainfield Rd. and let the important people on the meaningful campus keep doing what they've been doing to lead our University onward and upward.


RE: Yearly Article About Athletic Spending - BearcatMan - 01-11-2022 08:43 AM

(01-11-2022 08:20 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(01-10-2022 08:30 PM)namrag Wrote:  I wonder how much of that deficit spending goes towards men’s basketball and football, after calculating in the revenue they both generate in ticket sales and conference media rights.

Compare them to women’s sports that generate little to no revenue in ticket sales, and are not a factor in conference media rights.

The same can be said about the rest of the men’s sports that are not basketball or football.

Found this on Equity in Athletics site.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

$17M in student fees allocated is WAYYYY less than in previous years, under 20% which is a pretty solid threshold to remain below moving forward (no P5 team is above that number, but many are around it).