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

(04-06-2018 05:28 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 09:05 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 07:54 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 07:15 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 06:23 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  Good coaches and more money and better (and larger) staffs DO guarantee results over the long haul...to wit...

Duke
UK
UNC
Villanova
KU

every blue-blood perennial powerhouse has a good coach and a considerable amount of $$$ behind it. Your assertion simply isn't accurate.

...and I never said we were "bad" at basketball....we are mediocre...and mediocre doesn't sell tickets and make big $$$.

It's very simple.

First of all, we're not mediocre. Mediocre teams don't win the way we do.
Secondly, the teams you just mentioned have completely disproportionate budgets allotted to the respective bball programs.

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/men...73159.html
Kentucky spent 19 million dollars, Michigan spent just shy of 9.
Loyola spent 2.82 million, Duke spent 19 and a half.


We, according to the US Department of Education's EADA (Equity in Athletics Data Analysis) https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/ spent $6,970,262 on men's basketball and $2,406,652 on women's.
I'm sorry, but I don't think the two million dollar difference between us and Michigan made them a final four team. They squeaked by the same Houston team we did. They weren't head and shoulders above us and the "blue bloods" like Duke who spent more than twice what they did, didn't exactly smoke them either. That's not mentioning the people Loyola dropped.

If you can get to the final four for under 3 million dollars, why should I think 7 million is a hindrance?


EDIT: Sorry, I meant Houston not SMU.

All-time post season victories--top 10 programs:

Rank School #
1 Kentucky 124*
2 North Carolina 123
3 Duke 108
4 Kansas 103
5 UCLA 100^
6 Louisville 76
7 Indiana 66
8 Syracuse 65
9 Michigan State 64
10 Villanova 59

All budgets that dwarf UC. All with solid coaches for the bulk of their program's existence. Not luck, not chance, allocation of resources.

Your assertion is incorrect.

Hahahahaha. Do you even know why those programs can spend the way they do? They have millions of fans that donate, watch their games, and spend money on their programs. We.... don’t. We average 10k fans a game with modest ticket prices.

If you want us to spend like UK, Duke, and the like, turn back the clock 30 years and hypnotize more people into caring about UC basketball (And crater X’s program too, because we aren’t getting to that level while sharing our only core market). Because that’s what drives those budgets, not allocation of money out of football.

At this point, you are desperately grasping at straws.

Why do you think those programs have that money to spend?

THEY WIN REGULARLY AND GROW THEIR FANBASE...
MORE (AND LARGER) DONATIONS COME IN....MORE SUCCESS IS GENERATED...

Are you deliberately trying to miss the point or are you simply dense?

Do you even have a point besides showing everyone you don’t know how the business side of sports works? Right now you are complaining just to complain. Shake your fist and show the world that you won’t take it any more.

Sorry bud. Winning alone doesn’t get it done. Just like money alone doesn’t get it done either. The Reds can win the next 10 World Series and they still won’t have a higher payroll than the Yankees or Dodgers. Same with UC. With UC churning out more alumni and getting higher level graduates, there IS room for growth. But it will be slow, very slow. Winning helps that, but the people writing the checks, paying for tickets, and watching the games will ALWAYS dictate the flow of cash in today’s world. Maybe that changes eventually. Things are a heck of a lot different than they were 30 years ago. You never know.

Anyway, I’m not sure what your ‘plan’ would be, but I’m glad it’s not one that’s being heard in UCs board room. Or any board room for that matter.