(01-05-2009 10:36 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  To say Nancy doesn't give a "flying fk" if UC has sucessful revenue sports is LAME and simply a lie.

So she fired a legend because she wanted revenue success? How's that half empty Shoe working out for her?...(probably pretty good in her eyes with the money she saves on Cronin over Huggs salary)

She continues to raise ticket prices for an inferior product to have a successful sports revenue? The attendance numbers seem to be making her look foolish on this one as well.

Quote:in sports making money and graduating students means you have a good team...Again, this can be done...see the football program.

Did the football team actually make some money this year with the BCS appearance? If so, it'd be a first.

You really think Nancy Zimpher has anything to do with setting freaking ticket prices? Are you really that delusional or does it just fit your personal agenda?

You really think she doesn't? I already know your delusional and we all know your personal agenda.

I know she doesn't.

You don't need to "get over it." You need to "seek help."

So the President of the University of Cincinnati doesn't have any influence on choices and decisions the University of Cincinnati makes. That's interesting. No wonder we're in this shape.

Setting ticket prices and things of that sort is certainly not something she is going to worry about, Delhi. She cares about the people in the high profile positions within the department, but that is about it, IMO.

I know she doesn't care. The point was made she cares about having "sucessful revenue sports". What has she done to show she cares about gaining revenue from sports? She obviously doesn't want to lose money, but what is she doing to make it? Kelly pretty much had to basically say he couldn't see himself around here forever unless improvements were made...to bring us up to par...for her to agree to practice facilities. If she cared about sports revenue, she'd look into a way to bring more in...right? She'd look for a way to get more asses in the seats...right? They've lost what...over 4,000 a game in attendance from Huggs to now. At $29 a ticket for the 9 home games to date, that's a $1,044,000 loss in sports revenue just on basketball for this season counting only 9 games. That's not counting the last 3 full seasons of lost revenue.

What's she doing again to show she cares about sports revenue? Rath said she does, so I know it must be true.

(01-07-2009 12:52 PM)DelhiBearcat Wrote:  What's she doing again to show she cares about sports revenue? Rath said she does, so I know it must be true.

I said she cares about what? Your posts are starting to trend towards instability.

Do you really think responses like that take away from facts trumping your opinions?

Also...over in the "Give Zimpher the Credit" thread you stated...

"Love to stay and discuss attendance to many of the non-conference games during the Huggins years, but I have to bolt for sunny Miami.".

Glad to see you returned home safely. I know you were in a rush before, but have you had any luck in finding your numbers showing attendance (Hell...I'll give ya) comparable to Huggins attendance numbers? I've been anxiously awaiting your numbers, and with my delusional instability, I don't know how much longer I can hold out without causing harm to myself or others.

I know Mick's averaging 6965 (6189 without Xavier)...atleast that's what I'm seeing on the screen. It maybe just happening in my delusional mind and now the computer screen is lying to me just like the toaster always does (see, I have conversations with inanimate objects around my house because of my illness). My doctors thought I was making progress, but then I told them I was considering paying $29 to sit on a plastic bench in the rafters to watch this crap called Bearcat basketball host Providence, to which they replied..."That's the craziest thing we've ever heard!"

I said "in the rafters"...LOL...I forgot what Nancy had done.

Wha...???

Trying to follow the logic of your meandering posts is making my eyes bleed. I've wearied.

Can I play too?

Who??? I don't get your simple minded logic. You're a simpleton.

I like just saying random things that don't answer any questions posed. You're right...IT IS FUN!!!

(01-04-2009 04:36 PM)DelhiBearcat Wrote:  

(01-04-2009 04:23 PM)mlb Wrote:  If he has until 2013 to make an NCAA then the school doesn't hold him accountable for team progression.

Duh. He recruits non-thugs who are on pace to graduate. That's the main goal here with our student-athletes. Nancy's not going to fire him after next season if they don't make the tournament. Are you kidding? Fire her hire who does things the right way? Fire her hire that was brought in to improve a program that apparently needed to change and improve?

It breaks down like this. This year...no chance. 2010...no chance. 2011...Start of concern. 2012...Strong Concern. 2013...Ultimatum. She won't fire him any sooner...why would she? He inherited a dead program. No one ever expected a chance at a NCAA appearance until next season, so why would he be fired for not making it in the first season anyone reasonablly thought possible? That's 2010, the first year anything could have been expected. The hometown grad at his dream job who came in at the program's darkest moment will receive a longer leash than most. Like I said...2013 without a NCAA.

Do you think we could entice John Wooden to come out of retirement and coach our team?