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

(08-31-2018 08:44 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 04:17 PM)Ring of Black Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 08:23 PM)gerhard911 Wrote:  Didn't follow the link because I knew where it was headed. MC is overpaid and his staff consistently under performs. New arena. What's the next excuse???

We all know you despise Mick, but this is actually a great point.

While many fans (such as yourself) show displeasure for him and his brand of basketball - in the case of some, to the point where they pine for Huggins' return - Mick is fully appreciated where it counts; his bank account. It's an appropriately different angle from where to approach the subject.

I cannot think of anyone pining for Huggs return. The return of that level of success-yes, but not the man himself. This is a Cincinnati media/Lance/Ken Broo red herring. If Mick had deep runs in March and won the conf more than once a decade, no one would care he talks down to the fans, makes excuses or makes the amount he does.

Well said.

I loved Huggs at UC. I was pissed when he was fired. I hope Huggs continues to be successful at WVU. I still think firing him was a terrible decision, but that is so far in the past it doesn't matter. The program is and always has been bigger than the coach and I care about the program going forward.

Mick did a great job picking up the pieces that were left in a horrible position by the handling of Huggs his last couple years and then the timing of his firing. We are long past that now too. We can look at the program right now and think is it where it should be? How can it get there? Will it get there under Mick? We can ask all those questions without pining for Huggins.

(08-31-2018 08:44 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 04:17 PM)Ring of Black Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 08:23 PM)gerhard911 Wrote:  Didn't follow the link because I knew where it was headed. MC is overpaid and his staff consistently under performs. New arena. What's the next excuse???

We all know you despise Mick, but this is actually a great point.

While many fans (such as yourself) show displeasure for him and his brand of basketball - in the case of some, to the point where they pine for Huggins' return - Mick is fully appreciated where it counts; his bank account. It's an appropriately different angle from where to approach the subject.

I cannot think of anyone pining for Huggs return. The return of that level of success-yes, but not the man himself. This is a Cincinnati media/Lance/Ken Broo red herring. If Mick had deep runs in March and won the conf more than once a decade, no one would care he talks down to the fans, makes excuses or makes the amount he does.

There was a whole thread about it after we lost the tourney game this past year. Not many anymore, but clearly some.

(08-31-2018 07:03 PM)Ring of Black Wrote:  There was a whole thread about it after we lost the tourney game this past year. Not many anymore, but clearly some.

Sports fans are an interesting bunch indeed. The topics for a doctoral thesis are endless...for example:

The Forces of Emotional Dynamics: An Analysis of Sports Fans Attitudes and Actions in Correlation With Genetic Composition and Environmental Determinants

(08-31-2018 08:44 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 04:17 PM)Ring of Black Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 08:23 PM)gerhard911 Wrote:  Didn't follow the link because I knew where it was headed. MC is overpaid and his staff consistently under performs. New arena. What's the next excuse???

We all know you despise Mick, but this is actually a great point.

While many fans (such as yourself) show displeasure for him and his brand of basketball - in the case of some, to the point where they pine for Huggins' return - Mick is fully appreciated where it counts; his bank account. It's an appropriately different angle from where to approach the subject.

I cannot think of anyone pining for Huggs return. The return of that level of success-yes, but not the man himself. This is a Cincinnati media/Lance/Ken Broo red herring. If Mick had deep runs in March and won the conf more than once a decade, no one would care he talks down to the fans, makes excuses or makes the amount he does.

You can't think of a single person who would substitute what Huggins has done at WVU for what Mick has done at UC during the same time span?

Then you aren't talking to very many fans.

(08-31-2018 08:30 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 08:44 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 04:17 PM)Ring of Black Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 08:23 PM)gerhard911 Wrote:  Didn't follow the link because I knew where it was headed. MC is overpaid and his staff consistently under performs. New arena. What's the next excuse???

We all know you despise Mick, but this is actually a great point.

While many fans (such as yourself) show displeasure for him and his brand of basketball - in the case of some, to the point where they pine for Huggins' return - Mick is fully appreciated where it counts; his bank account. It's an appropriately different angle from where to approach the subject.

I cannot think of anyone pining for Huggs return. The return of that level of success-yes, but not the man himself. This is a Cincinnati media/Lance/Ken Broo red herring. If Mick had deep runs in March and won the conf more than once a decade, no one would care he talks down to the fans, makes excuses or makes the amount he does.

You can't think of a single person who would substitute what Huggins has done at WVU for what Mick has done at UC during the same time span?

Then you aren't talking to very many fans.

1 Big East Tournament Championship
6 Top 25 finishes
1 Top 5 finish
1 Final Four season
4 Sweet Sixteen seasons
9 total NCAAT appearances

Heck yeah, I would trade Huggins' results for Mick's over the same time period. However, the game results are not the only thing to consider.

Anyway... my main point (ignored as it was) was that, while not every UC fan fully appreciates Mick, UC certainly does (pays him a lot, and the arena reno).

(08-29-2018 07:04 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  One word...Nancy Zimpher. I'll hang up now and will let you guys run with this.

I'll take a stab at finishing the sentence.

............did more to improve the University of Cincinnati than any President in its history and what we're seeing now is the benefit of her dragging many of the university's constituencies kicking and screaming into a future where UC could be more than what people had limited it to being for far too long.

(09-01-2018 10:04 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(08-29-2018 07:04 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  One word...Nancy Zimpher. I'll hang up now and will let you guys run with this.

I'll take a stab at finishing the sentence.

............did more to improve the University of Cincinnati than any President in its history and what we're seeing now is the benefit of her dragging many of the university's constituencies kicking and screaming into a future where UC could be more than what people had limited it to being for far too long.

No...that would be Joe Steger.

NZ slapped a filter on enrollments, ran around acting like that was a great accomplishment, destroyed MBB, and then left a smoking hole in her wake. She was so popular that local sentiment ran her out of town in one of the shortest tenures in UC history.

She also alienated a large swath of alumni by implying that the "brand equity" of UC was negligible prior to her arrival. Not only untrue, but absolutely tone-deaf locally and nationally.

Don't re-write history...even if you are secretly in love with NZ.

(09-01-2018 12:25 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 10:04 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(08-29-2018 07:04 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  One word...Nancy Zimpher. I'll hang up now and will let you guys run with this.

I'll take a stab at finishing the sentence.

............did more to improve the University of Cincinnati than any President in its history and what we're seeing now is the benefit of her dragging many of the university's constituencies kicking and screaming into a future where UC could be more than what people had limited it to being for far too long.

No...that would be Joe Steger.

NZ slapped a filter on enrollments, ran around acting like that was a great accomplishment, destroyed MBB, and then left a smoking hole in her wake. She was so popular that local sentiment ran her out of town in one of the shortest tenures in UC history.

She also alienated a large swath of alumni by implying that the "brand equity" of UC was negligible prior to her arrival. Not only untrue, but absolutely tone-deaf locally and nationally.

Don't re-write history...even if you are secretly in love with NZ.

Joe Steger was an embarrassment. He spent a lot of money, let Huggins run wild and did nothing to actually implement policies that improved the university. "A filter on enrollments?" You mean actually having admission standards and not just being the University of Toledo--South? Without selective admissions, we're still a regional commuter school with some nice buildings that Joe borrowed some money to build.

(09-01-2018 03:04 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 12:25 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 10:04 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(08-29-2018 07:04 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  One word...Nancy Zimpher. I'll hang up now and will let you guys run with this.

I'll take a stab at finishing the sentence.

............did more to improve the University of Cincinnati than any President in its history and what we're seeing now is the benefit of her dragging many of the university's constituencies kicking and screaming into a future where UC could be more than what people had limited it to being for far too long.

No...that would be Joe Steger.

NZ slapped a filter on enrollments, ran around acting like that was a great accomplishment, destroyed MBB, and then left a smoking hole in her wake. She was so popular that local sentiment ran her out of town in one of the shortest tenures in UC history.

She also alienated a large swath of alumni by implying that the "brand equity" of UC was negligible prior to her arrival. Not only untrue, but absolutely tone-deaf locally and nationally.

Don't re-write history...even if you are secretly in love with NZ.

Joe Steger was an embarrassment. He spent a lot of money, let Huggins run wild and did nothing to actually implement policies that improved the university. "A filter on enrollments?" You mean actually having admission standards and not just being the University of Toledo--South? Without selective admissions, we're still a regional commuter school with some nice buildings that Joe borrowed some money to build.

Where's Rag? Comments on Oh No! in 3...2...1...

(09-01-2018 03:04 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 12:25 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 10:04 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(08-29-2018 07:04 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  One word...Nancy Zimpher. I'll hang up now and will let you guys run with this.

I'll take a stab at finishing the sentence.

............did more to improve the University of Cincinnati than any President in its history and what we're seeing now is the benefit of her dragging many of the university's constituencies kicking and screaming into a future where UC could be more than what people had limited it to being for far too long.

No...that would be Joe Steger.

NZ slapped a filter on enrollments, ran around acting like that was a great accomplishment, destroyed MBB, and then left a smoking hole in her wake. She was so popular that local sentiment ran her out of town in one of the shortest tenures in UC history.

She also alienated a large swath of alumni by implying that the "brand equity" of UC was negligible prior to her arrival. Not only untrue, but absolutely tone-deaf locally and nationally.

Don't re-write history...even if you are secretly in love with NZ.

Joe Steger was an embarrassment. He spent a lot of money, let Huggins run wild and did nothing to actually implement policies that improved the university. "A filter on enrollments?" You mean actually having admission standards and not just being the University of Toledo--South? Without selective admissions, we're still a regional commuter school with some nice buildings that Joe borrowed some money to build.

A filter on enrollments means that if you only let in the cream of the crop you don't serve the public, and after all, UC is a PUBLIC institution.

Anyone with half a brain knows that what counts coming out of an academic institution is the END PRODUCT and not the STARTING MATERIAL.

In fact, if you can convert struggling students into productive members of society and find them gainful employment, you are doing a much better job of teaching than if you only let geniuses into your classroom and crow about grad rates.

I'm a teacher--you work harder to turn those kids into good students than the smart kids..it shows your academic mettle and your technique as an educator.

It's easy to teach a smart kid--they know how to study, they don't have to work hard to grasp concepts, and they do well in almost any testing environment--you can't say the same for students who struggle.

Try this sometime--try to teach someone with difficulties grasping a subject enough material to turn them into an average student--you'll work a piss-load harder at that than someone who is gifted.

I know--you are probably an elitist who wants to point to metrics and say that the Zimph improved the quality of education at UC.

This is complete bull$hit...she didn't do squat to improve the quality of faculty and serve the general public, and she had NO impact on the academic rigor in the classroom.

She just filtered out the "dummies".

I'm sure that made you feel good...after all you probably don't like to be associated with those type of people.

They aren't worth your time.

Sounds like the typical thinking of an arrogant a$$.

Did I peg it?

Here's Steger's obit:

http://www.fox19.com/story/22212092/form...eph-steger

(09-01-2018 05:17 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 03:04 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 12:25 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 10:04 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(08-29-2018 07:04 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  One word...Nancy Zimpher. I'll hang up now and will let you guys run with this.

I'll take a stab at finishing the sentence.

............did more to improve the University of Cincinnati than any President in its history and what we're seeing now is the benefit of her dragging many of the university's constituencies kicking and screaming into a future where UC could be more than what people had limited it to being for far too long.

No...that would be Joe Steger.

NZ slapped a filter on enrollments, ran around acting like that was a great accomplishment, destroyed MBB, and then left a smoking hole in her wake. She was so popular that local sentiment ran her out of town in one of the shortest tenures in UC history.

She also alienated a large swath of alumni by implying that the "brand equity" of UC was negligible prior to her arrival. Not only untrue, but absolutely tone-deaf locally and nationally.

Don't re-write history...even if you are secretly in love with NZ.

Joe Steger was an embarrassment. He spent a lot of money, let Huggins run wild and did nothing to actually implement policies that improved the university. "A filter on enrollments?" You mean actually having admission standards and not just being the University of Toledo--South? Without selective admissions, we're still a regional commuter school with some nice buildings that Joe borrowed some money to build.

A filter on enrollments means that if you only let in the cream of the crop you don't serve the public, and after all, UC is a PUBLIC institution.

Anyone with half a brain knows that what counts coming out of an academic institution is the END PRODUCT and not the STARTING MATERIAL.

In fact, if you can convert struggling students into productive members of society and find them gainful employment, you are doing a much better job of teaching than if you only let geniuses into your classroom and crow about grad rates.

I'm a teacher--you work harder to turn those kids into good students than the smart kids..it shows your academic mettle and your technique as an educator.

It's easy to teach a smart kid--they know how to study, they don't have to work hard to grasp concepts, and they do well in almost any testing environment--you can't say the same for students who struggle.

Try this sometime--try to teach someone with difficulties grasping a subject enough material to turn them into an average student--you'll work a piss-load harder at that than someone who is gifted.

I know--you are probably an elitist who wants to point to metrics and say that the Zimph improved the quality of education at UC.

This is complete bull$hit...she didn't do squat to improve the quality of faculty and serve the general public, and she had NO impact on the academic rigor in the classroom.

She just filtered out the "dummies".

I'm sure that made you feel good...after all you probably don't like to be associated with those type of people.

They aren't worth your time.

Sounds like the typical thinking of an arrogant a$$.

Did I peg it?

Here's Steger's obit:

http://www.fox19.com/story/22212092/form...eph-steger

So let the best and brightest leave Cincinnati (or never come) for Miami and OSU? We'll just be their good ol' safety, commuter school that poses no threat to them? There is nothing wrong with being a selective public university. Cal Berkeley is a public university that seems to do quite well at serving the California public. Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and OSU are all public universities that do a great job at serving the public of their states. As long as the state offers options for the C students out there, there is nothing wrong with being a selective public university. The choice for UC was whether we were going to be one of the selective public universities or one of the safety schools for the C students. Zimpher absolutely made the right choice in putting us on the path to be the former rather than the latter.

(08-31-2018 08:30 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 08:44 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 04:17 PM)Ring of Black Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 08:23 PM)gerhard911 Wrote:  Didn't follow the link because I knew where it was headed. MC is overpaid and his staff consistently under performs. New arena. What's the next excuse???

We all know you despise Mick, but this is actually a great point.

While many fans (such as yourself) show displeasure for him and his brand of basketball - in the case of some, to the point where they pine for Huggins' return - Mick is fully appreciated where it counts; his bank account. It's an appropriately different angle from where to approach the subject.

I cannot think of anyone pining for Huggs return. The return of that level of success-yes, but not the man himself. This is a Cincinnati media/Lance/Ken Broo red herring. If Mick had deep runs in March and won the conf more than once a decade, no one would care he talks down to the fans, makes excuses or makes the amount he does.

You can't think of a single person who would substitute what Huggins has done at WVU for what Mick has done at UC during the same time span?

Then you aren't talking to very many fans.

Thanks Lance for that amazing response. Now go back to talking about a hapless Reds team.

(09-01-2018 09:47 AM)Ring of Black Wrote:  Anyway... my main point (ignored as it was) was that, while not every UC fan fully appreciates Mick, UC certainly does (pays him a lot, and the arena reno).

Your point was well taken. Whoever is actually calling the shots appreciates him. That or they fear life without him. Mick’s been given what he’s asked for. When he feels unappreciated he goes to the media and whines until UC caves

(09-01-2018 05:17 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 03:04 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 12:25 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 10:04 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(08-29-2018 07:04 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  One word...Nancy Zimpher. I'll hang up now and will let you guys run with this.

I'll take a stab at finishing the sentence.

............did more to improve the University of Cincinnati than any President in its history and what we're seeing now is the benefit of her dragging many of the university's constituencies kicking and screaming into a future where UC could be more than what people had limited it to being for far too long.

No...that would be Joe Steger.

NZ slapped a filter on enrollments, ran around acting like that was a great accomplishment, destroyed MBB, and then left a smoking hole in her wake. She was so popular that local sentiment ran her out of town in one of the shortest tenures in UC history.

She also alienated a large swath of alumni by implying that the "brand equity" of UC was negligible prior to her arrival. Not only untrue, but absolutely tone-deaf locally and nationally.

Don't re-write history...even if you are secretly in love with NZ.

Joe Steger was an embarrassment. He spent a lot of money, let Huggins run wild and did nothing to actually implement policies that improved the university. "A filter on enrollments?" You mean actually having admission standards and not just being the University of Toledo--South? Without selective admissions, we're still a regional commuter school with some nice buildings that Joe borrowed some money to build.

A filter on enrollments means that if you only let in the cream of the crop you don't serve the public, and after all, UC is a PUBLIC institution.

Anyone with half a brain knows that what counts coming out of an academic institution is the END PRODUCT and not the STARTING MATERIAL.

In fact, if you can convert struggling students into productive members of society and find them gainful employment, you are doing a much better job of teaching than if you only let geniuses into your classroom and crow about grad rates.

I'm a teacher--you work harder to turn those kids into good students than the smart kids..it shows your academic mettle and your technique as an educator.

It's easy to teach a smart kid--they know how to study, they don't have to work hard to grasp concepts, and they do well in almost any testing environment--you can't say the same for students who struggle.

Try this sometime--try to teach someone with difficulties grasping a subject enough material to turn them into an average student--you'll work a piss-load harder at that than someone who is gifted.

I know--you are probably an elitist who wants to point to metrics and say that the Zimph improved the quality of education at UC.

This is complete bull$hit...she didn't do squat to improve the quality of faculty and serve the general public, and she had NO impact on the academic rigor in the classroom.

She just filtered out the "dummies".

I'm sure that made you feel good...after all you probably don't like to be associated with those type of people.

They aren't worth your time.

Sounds like the typical thinking of an arrogant a$$.

Did I peg it?

Here's Steger's obit:

http://www.fox19.com/story/22212092/form...eph-steger

I’m not a Zimpher supporter. However, UC should be selective. Let the marginal students attend Toledo or some other MAC school.