(09-14-2017 11:01 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:10 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 09:01 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I was listening to the OhVarsity podcast yesterday and a great point was brought up. If you ever watch the post-game press conferences of the two revenue sports the coaches only speak with the UC backdrop in the back. The coaches of the rest of the sports conduct their interviews on the field right after the game. Stafford insisted he would only conduct post game interviews with the UC backdrop because he wants to convey how serious they take their sport. I think that is awesome on his part.

Now that is a winner's attitude. I like it.

I heard Stafford speak at a UC event last year and I was extremely impressed with what he was doing competitively along with his emphasis on academics. Easy for me to say, but I believe UC should find the resources necessary to keep at least one rising star coach in a non-revenue sport in Clifton. I don't expect all the men's and women's non-revenue programs to win the conference every year but if women's soccer, for instance, became a dominant program in the AAC and established a national reputation it would only enhance the University's overall profile when P5 conferences start window shopping again.

Completely agree...the best Athletics Departments in the country (even those in lesser conferences) have at least one or two very strong non-revenues...and I think there is a lot of potential there in Women's Soccer and Volleyball given the fertile recruiting grounds we have in Ohio for those two sports as well as the strong coaches we've got. I love Coach Dayes (he's the guy who brought me to UC), but I think we need to recharge the coaching ranks in Men's Soccer and we could stand to substantially improve there...I mean, hell, we won a Big East title so there is definitely a chance.

(09-14-2017 11:14 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:01 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:10 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 09:01 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I was listening to the OhVarsity podcast yesterday and a great point was brought up. If you ever watch the post-game press conferences of the two revenue sports the coaches only speak with the UC backdrop in the back. The coaches of the rest of the sports conduct their interviews on the field right after the game. Stafford insisted he would only conduct post game interviews with the UC backdrop because he wants to convey how serious they take their sport. I think that is awesome on his part.

Now that is a winner's attitude. I like it.

I heard Stafford speak at a UC event last year and I was extremely impressed with what he was doing competitively along with his emphasis on academics. Easy for me to say, but I believe UC should find the resources necessary to keep at least one rising star coach in a non-revenue sport in Clifton. I don't expect all the men's and women's non-revenue programs to win the conference every year but if women's soccer, for instance, became a dominant program in the AAC and established a national reputation it would only enhance the University's overall profile when P5 conferences start window shopping again.

Completely agree...the best Athletics Departments in the country (even those in lesser conferences) have at least one or two very strong non-revenues...and I think there is a lot of potential there in Women's Soccer and Volleyball given the fertile recruiting grounds we have in Ohio for those two sports as well as the strong coaches we've got. I love Coach Dayes (he's the guy who brought me to UC), but I think we need to recharge the coaching ranks in Men's Soccer and we could stand to substantially improve there...I mean, hell, we won a Big East title so there is definitely a chance.

I worked at a university - Denver - and now live next to one - Portland - that nail this "non-revenue" sports approach. I put non-revenue in quotes because they each actually have sports - hockey and lacrosse for Denver, soccer for Portland - that generate revenue (just barely in the case of soccer for Portland). Denver has won national titles in hockey and lacrosse that last two years, and very nearly won men's soccer. Portland was a juggernaut in women's soccer last decade, and they average more than 3,000 fans for both men's and women's.

I'm not sure what the sport would be for UC - soccer has clearly become more competitive, especially on the women's side, nationally and more schools are investing in their programs.

Women dropped the game at LSU, 1-0 to end up 6-1-1 in out of conference play, on the flip side, the men have bounced back from an early season lull with a tie against Xavier and consecutive wins away against ranked teams, beating #13 Kentucky (1-0) and #19 BGSU (3-1).

Conference play begins this week and both sides look to have some VERY good teams. Women's AAC has 4 teams out of 10 either ranked or receiving votes (UCF, Memphis, UC, and USF) and Men's has 3 after Tulsa beat #5 Stanford over the weekend.

(09-14-2017 11:14 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:01 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:10 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 09:01 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I was listening to the OhVarsity podcast yesterday and a great point was brought up. If you ever watch the post-game press conferences of the two revenue sports the coaches only speak with the UC backdrop in the back. The coaches of the rest of the sports conduct their interviews on the field right after the game. Stafford insisted he would only conduct post game interviews with the UC backdrop because he wants to convey how serious they take their sport. I think that is awesome on his part.

Now that is a winner's attitude. I like it.

I heard Stafford speak at a UC event last year and I was extremely impressed with what he was doing competitively along with his emphasis on academics. Easy for me to say, but I believe UC should find the resources necessary to keep at least one rising star coach in a non-revenue sport in Clifton. I don't expect all the men's and women's non-revenue programs to win the conference every year but if women's soccer, for instance, became a dominant program in the AAC and established a national reputation it would only enhance the University's overall profile when P5 conferences start window shopping again.

Completely agree...the best Athletics Departments in the country (even those in lesser conferences) have at least one or two very strong non-revenues...and I think there is a lot of potential there in Women's Soccer and Volleyball given the fertile recruiting grounds we have in Ohio for those two sports as well as the strong coaches we've got. I love Coach Dayes (he's the guy who brought me to UC), but I think we need to recharge the coaching ranks in Men's Soccer and we could stand to substantially improve there...I mean, hell, we won a Big East title so there is definitely a chance.

Why not cultivate soccer into a revenue sport? If people like bearcat Mark can get excited over FCC, these same people can certainly get excited about Division 1 soccer. I'd like to see our soccer teams play in Nippert.

(09-18-2017 10:29 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:14 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:01 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:10 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 09:01 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I was listening to the OhVarsity podcast yesterday and a great point was brought up. If you ever watch the post-game press conferences of the two revenue sports the coaches only speak with the UC backdrop in the back. The coaches of the rest of the sports conduct their interviews on the field right after the game. Stafford insisted he would only conduct post game interviews with the UC backdrop because he wants to convey how serious they take their sport. I think that is awesome on his part.

Now that is a winner's attitude. I like it.

I heard Stafford speak at a UC event last year and I was extremely impressed with what he was doing competitively along with his emphasis on academics. Easy for me to say, but I believe UC should find the resources necessary to keep at least one rising star coach in a non-revenue sport in Clifton. I don't expect all the men's and women's non-revenue programs to win the conference every year but if women's soccer, for instance, became a dominant program in the AAC and established a national reputation it would only enhance the University's overall profile when P5 conferences start window shopping again.

Completely agree...the best Athletics Departments in the country (even those in lesser conferences) have at least one or two very strong non-revenues...and I think there is a lot of potential there in Women's Soccer and Volleyball given the fertile recruiting grounds we have in Ohio for those two sports as well as the strong coaches we've got. I love Coach Dayes (he's the guy who brought me to UC), but I think we need to recharge the coaching ranks in Men's Soccer and we could stand to substantially improve there...I mean, hell, we won a Big East title so there is definitely a chance.

Why not cultivate soccer into a revenue sport? If people like bearcat Mark can get excited over FCC, these same people can certainly get excited about Division 1 soccer. I'd like to see our soccer teams play in Nippert.

I don't know if that would be logistically possible for a full season given how much overlap there would be there, but it would be a cool idea for a one-off. And comparing college soccer to professional soccer is not really like-to-like. From a former college soccer player, the level of play/competition and overall skill is just light years away...and don't get me started on how un-spectator friendly women's soccer is in college unless you really actively appreciate the sport, rather than just go for the event (like most of the FCC people do.

Let's not turn this thread into another FCC debate though.

When the teams start filling Gettler stadium on a regular basis, I'm sure using Nippert will become a consideration.

Quote:Bearcats Upset No. 13 Kentucky Tuesday in Lexington

Clarke Scores Game Winner in 82nd Minute as UC Hangs on for Victory

LEXINGTON, Ky. – The University of Cincinnati men's soccer team knocked off the 13th-ranked Kentucky Wildcats, 1-0, on Tuesday night at the Bell Soccer Complex. Freshman Sean Clarke tallied the match-winning goal in the 82nd minute.

With the win, UC improves to 3-2-1 on the season and picks up its first road victory of 2017. The win also marks the program's first win over a top-25 team since beating 17th-ranked Temple, 3-2, on Sept. 26, 2015 at Gettler Stadium. It is also UC's first win over UK since 2001. Suffering their first defeat of the year, the Wildcats fall to 4-1-1 overall and drop their first match in Lexington since Nov. 19, 2015.

Playing aggressive late, Clarke (Baltimore, Md./Loyola Blakefield) was finally able to get the Bearcats over the hump in the 82nd minute when he rebounded his own shot and floated the ball over the challenging UK goalkeeper for the first and only score of the match. The goal was the freshman's first of the season.

UC showed grit in the final minutes when a UK header off of a corner kick was saved by a UC team defensive effort to protect the lead as the Wildcats sent numbers forward in front of the net searching for the equalizer.

Clarke led the UC offensive with four shots including one of the team's two shots on goal. Redshirt freshman goalkeeper Pearce Skinner (Grand Blanc, Mich./Grand Blanc) was huge in his fourth-career start with a career-best nine saves, UC's most since Pedro Diaz's nine at UCF on Oct. 31, 2015.

Playing in soggy conditions for the second time this month, the Bearcats saw the home team dominate possession for much of the opening half. Looking to get on the board quickly, UC was aggressive early resulting in corner-kick opportunities. In the first few minutes of the match, sophomore midfielder David Sanz (Santander, Spain/IE La Marina) sent a free kick into the box where sophomore forward Austin Smythe (Cincinnati, Ohio/Summit Country Day/Radford) just missed cashing in the first goal of the match. The Red & Black's offensive opportunities were limited for much of the remainder of the period but stayed solid on defense with Skinner recording a then career-high-tying five saves.

The Bearcats had a solid run early in the second half when Clarke got loose and tried to execute a give-and-go with Smythe but was negated. UC again caused some havoc in the box minutes later but weren't quite able to convert. The Red & Black thought it had the go-ahead score in the 76th minute when Clarke raced down center field and dished it to his right to Smythe who struck the ball into the back of the net from inside the box but was called offside. Minutes later, UK had a prime opportunity for a goal from inside the box but Skinner's diving deflection turned the shot away. UC aggressiveness on the offensive end would go on to pay dividends in the final 10 minutes as well as its bend-but-don't-break approach on defense.

// GOAL SCORING SUMMARY
82' – CIN Sean Clarke
Clarke was attacking inside the box and fired a shot that the UK goalkeeper deflected. With the Wildcats goalkeeper off of his line, Clarke rebounded the deflection and flicked the ball over top of the extended defender and into the far corner of the net.

Quote:Bearcats Bounce No. 19 Bowling Green on Road, 3-1

UC Defeats Second-Consecutive Ranked Opponent This Week

BOWLING GREEN, Ohio – The University of Cincinnati men's soccer team went on the road for the second time this week and upset a ranked opponent when it bested the 19th-ranked Bowling Green Falcons, 3-1, on Saturday night at Cochrane Stadium.

UC improves to 4-2-1 on the year and is riding a three-match undefeated streak including back-to-back wins. The Bearcats have now won five straight against the Falcons including the last two played in Bowling Green. Meanwhile, BGSU falls to 5-2-0 on the year and suffers its first loss at Cochrane Stadium since Oct. 3, 2015.

In front of a crowd of over 1,000 fans for the Falcons' Alumni Weekend, the Bearcats got the crucial first score on a BGSU own goal in the 32nd minute. Even with the home-team mistake, the Red & Black were aggressive in the opening period with four shots including a pair on goal. As a result, UC was armed with a 1-0 advantage heading into halftime.

The Bearcats added an insurance goal early in the second half when sophomore midfielder David Sanz (Santander, Spain/IE La Marina) took a left-side cross from freshman midfielder Sean Clarke (Baltimore, Md./Loyola Blakefield) and finished into the net from about six yards out. With BGSU scrambling to climb out of its deficit, UC kept the home team at bay for much of the period. The Falcons did cut their deficit in the 89th minute on a header from Chris Brennan off of assists from Keaton Reynolds and Marshall Mast. The Bearcats scored again moments later when Clarke eluded two defenders with a great individual effort for UC's third goal.

Sanz added his team-leading fourth goal of the season, while Clarke tallied his second goal of the year -- second in as many matches -- as well as his second assist. Redshirt freshman Pearce Skinner (Grand Blanc, Mich./Grand Blanc) continued his strong play between the pipes with four saves to bring his total to 17 in the last three matches.

// UP NEXT
The Bearcats will have a week off before returning to action on Saturday, Sept. 23 when they welcome the Memphis Tigers to Gettler Stadium for a 7 p.m. kickoff in both teams' American Athletic Conference opener. Admission to the match is free as part of the season-long Experience UC initiative.
Print Friendly Version

As a note, Sean Clarke, a freshman midfielder and the top recruit from this year's class, now has two goals and two assists in his first 7 games at UC.

(09-18-2017 10:29 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:14 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:01 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:10 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 09:01 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I was listening to the OhVarsity podcast yesterday and a great point was brought up. If you ever watch the post-game press conferences of the two revenue sports the coaches only speak with the UC backdrop in the back. The coaches of the rest of the sports conduct their interviews on the field right after the game. Stafford insisted he would only conduct post game interviews with the UC backdrop because he wants to convey how serious they take their sport. I think that is awesome on his part.

Now that is a winner's attitude. I like it.

I heard Stafford speak at a UC event last year and I was extremely impressed with what he was doing competitively along with his emphasis on academics. Easy for me to say, but I believe UC should find the resources necessary to keep at least one rising star coach in a non-revenue sport in Clifton. I don't expect all the men's and women's non-revenue programs to win the conference every year but if women's soccer, for instance, became a dominant program in the AAC and established a national reputation it would only enhance the University's overall profile when P5 conferences start window shopping again.

Completely agree...the best Athletics Departments in the country (even those in lesser conferences) have at least one or two very strong non-revenues...and I think there is a lot of potential there in Women's Soccer and Volleyball given the fertile recruiting grounds we have in Ohio for those two sports as well as the strong coaches we've got. I love Coach Dayes (he's the guy who brought me to UC), but I think we need to recharge the coaching ranks in Men's Soccer and we could stand to substantially improve there...I mean, hell, we won a Big East title so there is definitely a chance.

Why not cultivate soccer into a revenue sport? If people like bearcat Mark can get excited over FCC, these same people can certainly get excited about Division 1 soccer. I'd like to see our soccer teams play in Nippert.

LOL. I'm a casual FCC fan who enjoys getting down to Nippert Stadium in the summer a few times and loves that UC has found a way to bring in revenue / people to campus during the down times. I've gone to 4 or 5 games both years and watch a little less than half of their games if you include TV. This is not UC football/basketball where I typically don't miss a second. Not sure what professional soccer has to do with collegiate women's soccer. Happy the UC women are playing well though. It'd be nice if UC could capitalize, but while professional soccer in the US has been very successful, college soccer isn't exactly a revenue sport anywhere.

I'm going to be in the minority on this, but I'm just going to think out loud here.

What is the long term viability of collegiate soccer? At least on the men's side. As soccer continues to grow in the US (30,000 fans at FCC this past weekend, 70,000 in Atlanta), the more the emphasis on Academies will rise. People comment now how behind American players get when they attend college, so as more pro teams establish academies and provide lower level pro opportunities the smaller and lesser the talent pool gets for the college ranks. As college soccer gets worse and worse, the interest level drops further. Again, I'm speaking long term.

Would it not be more beneficial long term for UC to maybe invest men's soccer resources into let's say baseball? The added resources may help push baseball over the top. Or maybe startup a lacrosse team as college lax is still growing (I'm aware lacrosse would also be a bit more expensive) and may have more appeal at the college ranks than collegiate soccer down the road.

I want to reiterate I'm just speaking hypothetically, I'm not calling for the immediate dropping of men's soccer, or looking to stir the pot. Just something I've thought about.

(09-18-2017 11:00 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  I'm going to be in the minority on this, but I'm just going to think out loud here.

What is the long term viability of collegiate soccer? At least on the men's side. As soccer continues to grow in the US (30,000 fans at FCC this past weekend, 70,000 in Atlanta), the more the emphasis on Academies will rise. People comment now how behind American players get when they attend college, so as more pro teams establish academies and provide lower level pro opportunities the smaller and lesser the talent pool gets for the college ranks. As college soccer gets worse and worse, the interest level drops further. Again, I'm speaking long term.

Would it not be more beneficial long term for UC to maybe invest men's soccer resources into let's say baseball? The added resources may help push baseball over the top. Or maybe startup a lacrosse team as college lax is still growing (I'm aware lacrosse would also be a bit more expensive) and may have more appeal at the college ranks than collegiate soccer down the road.

I want to reiterate I'm just speaking hypothetically, I'm not calling for the immediate dropping of men's soccer, or looking to stir the pot. Just something I've thought about.

No, I completely agree. I think the competition level of collegiate soccer is dropping more and more each year, and that is due to the push for more academy/professional training on the sport side (which is a good thing for our international competitiveness). I have said to numerous people, including teammates at UC, that the long-term prospects for Men's soccer is probably as a club-level sport as soon as USSF/MLS get their **** together when it comes to youth training and support. That's the same model that most universities in other countries see, but then again, we are pretty much the only country on the globe that monetizes collegiate athletics to begin with, so I don't think that's an apt comparison.

However, until that point I think the funding should still be allocated towards soccer...and I don't think Baseball, given that they're the only sport with heavy competition over all of their incoming athletes with professional ranks, would be where that money should go. Personally, I think they'd be better suited moving money off of baseball to sports with growing national popularity (lacrosse, volleyball, etc), because I think that sport is about to have the bottom drop out in the upcoming generation.

(09-18-2017 10:34 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I don't know if that would be logistically possible for a full season given how much overlap there would be there, but it would be a cool idea for a one-off. And comparing college soccer to professional soccer is not really like-to-like. From a former college soccer player, the level of play/competition and overall skill is just light years away...and don't get me started on how un-spectator friendly women's soccer is in college unless you really actively appreciate the sport, rather than just go for the event (like most of the FCC people do.

Let's not turn this thread into another FCC debate though.

Division I soccer at its best is very similar to the minor league that FCC plays in.

And with the small crowds at Gettler, its painfully obvious not many people actually care about the sport. Hard to make the 'its fun in Clifton' argument either.

(09-11-2017 11:00 AM)vabearcat Wrote:  

(09-11-2017 09:17 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  I don't care to spectate soccer, but have been extremely proud of our women's soccer program. Their coach, IMO, has proven to be the best coach of their respective sport in our athletic department. CLF may prove to be better, but 2 games is not nearly enough to make a determination.

Have you heard about the UC men's basketball program? Eight (8) consecutive trips to the NCAA tournament. Coached by this short guy. Name is Cronin.

Really. What a bogus comment.

(09-18-2017 11:24 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 10:34 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I don't know if that would be logistically possible for a full season given how much overlap there would be there, but it would be a cool idea for a one-off. And comparing college soccer to professional soccer is not really like-to-like. From a former college soccer player, the level of play/competition and overall skill is just light years away...and don't get me started on how un-spectator friendly women's soccer is in college unless you really actively appreciate the sport, rather than just go for the event (like most of the FCC people do.

Let's not turn this thread into another FCC debate though.

Division I soccer at its best is very similar to the minor league that FCC plays in.

And with the small crowds at Gettler, its painfully obvious not many people actually care about the sport. Hard to make the 'its fun in Clifton' argument either.

I'm guessing you haven't watched much of either...I played for a Big East Championship winning team and we would've gotten run out of practically every game in the NASL, USL, etc. There is an incredibly big gap between college and the professional game. There's a reason why very few American college players make it any further.

(09-18-2017 11:30 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:24 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 10:34 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I don't know if that would be logistically possible for a full season given how much overlap there would be there, but it would be a cool idea for a one-off. And comparing college soccer to professional soccer is not really like-to-like. From a former college soccer player, the level of play/competition and overall skill is just light years away...and don't get me started on how un-spectator friendly women's soccer is in college unless you really actively appreciate the sport, rather than just go for the event (like most of the FCC people do.

Let's not turn this thread into another FCC debate though.

Division I soccer at its best is very similar to the minor league that FCC plays in.

And with the small crowds at Gettler, its painfully obvious not many people actually care about the sport. Hard to make the 'its fun in Clifton' argument either.

I'm guessing you haven't watched much of either...I played for a Big East Championship winning team and we would've gotten run out of practically every game in the NASL, USL, etc. There is an incredibly big gap between college and the professional game. There's a reason why very few American college players make it any further.

You got to this before me, but exactly right. Talked to a few people that played D1 soccer... the level of competition from D1 and these professional leagues isn't close.

(09-18-2017 11:09 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:00 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  I'm going to be in the minority on this, but I'm just going to think out loud here.

What is the long term viability of collegiate soccer? At least on the men's side. As soccer continues to grow in the US (30,000 fans at FCC this past weekend, 70,000 in Atlanta), the more the emphasis on Academies will rise. People comment now how behind American players get when they attend college, so as more pro teams establish academies and provide lower level pro opportunities the smaller and lesser the talent pool gets for the college ranks. As college soccer gets worse and worse, the interest level drops further. Again, I'm speaking long term.

Would it not be more beneficial long term for UC to maybe invest men's soccer resources into let's say baseball? The added resources may help push baseball over the top. Or maybe startup a lacrosse team as college lax is still growing (I'm aware lacrosse would also be a bit more expensive) and may have more appeal at the college ranks than collegiate soccer down the road.

I want to reiterate I'm just speaking hypothetically, I'm not calling for the immediate dropping of men's soccer, or looking to stir the pot. Just something I've thought about.

No, I completely agree. I think the competition level of collegiate soccer is dropping more and more each year, and that is due to the push for more academy/professional training on the sport side (which is a good thing for our international competitiveness). I have said to numerous people, including teammates at UC, that the long-term prospects for Men's soccer is probably as a club-level sport as soon as USSF/MLS get their **** together when it comes to youth training and support. That's the same model that most universities in other countries see, but then again, we are pretty much the only country on the globe that monetizes collegiate athletics to begin with, so I don't think that's an apt comparison.

However, until that point I think the funding should still be allocated towards soccer...and I don't think Baseball, given that they're the only sport with heavy competition over all of their incoming athletes with professional ranks, would be where that money should go. Personally, I think they'd be better suited moving money off of baseball to sports with growing national popularity (lacrosse, volleyball, etc), because I think that sport is about to have the bottom drop out in the upcoming generation.

That last bit I can agree with. I think if UC were to jump in on the D1 lacrosse game they'd be setting themselves up nicely for the future. Also agree with your thoughts on baseball, I used baseball though because it is, for the moment, still viable for TV content (CWS). But even still, it's mostly just popular in the south, and like you said is far from interesting to the next few generations.

Maybe drop mens soccer AND baseball and double down on the Makers Game, this continents truest past time, the fastest sport on two feet: Lacrosse?!?! I kid, I kid not really, would totally love this to happen, but know it's unrealistic

In all seriousness, I don't think it would be terrible if UC was a bit proactive on this. Why hold out on a "dying" product? I struggled with how to phrase this, because I'm not trying to troll, but this is as best I could do.

(09-18-2017 11:39 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:09 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:00 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  I'm going to be in the minority on this, but I'm just going to think out loud here.

What is the long term viability of collegiate soccer? At least on the men's side. As soccer continues to grow in the US (30,000 fans at FCC this past weekend, 70,000 in Atlanta), the more the emphasis on Academies will rise. People comment now how behind American players get when they attend college, so as more pro teams establish academies and provide lower level pro opportunities the smaller and lesser the talent pool gets for the college ranks. As college soccer gets worse and worse, the interest level drops further. Again, I'm speaking long term.

Would it not be more beneficial long term for UC to maybe invest men's soccer resources into let's say baseball? The added resources may help push baseball over the top. Or maybe startup a lacrosse team as college lax is still growing (I'm aware lacrosse would also be a bit more expensive) and may have more appeal at the college ranks than collegiate soccer down the road.

I want to reiterate I'm just speaking hypothetically, I'm not calling for the immediate dropping of men's soccer, or looking to stir the pot. Just something I've thought about.

No, I completely agree. I think the competition level of collegiate soccer is dropping more and more each year, and that is due to the push for more academy/professional training on the sport side (which is a good thing for our international competitiveness). I have said to numerous people, including teammates at UC, that the long-term prospects for Men's soccer is probably as a club-level sport as soon as USSF/MLS get their **** together when it comes to youth training and support. That's the same model that most universities in other countries see, but then again, we are pretty much the only country on the globe that monetizes collegiate athletics to begin with, so I don't think that's an apt comparison.

However, until that point I think the funding should still be allocated towards soccer...and I don't think Baseball, given that they're the only sport with heavy competition over all of their incoming athletes with professional ranks, would be where that money should go. Personally, I think they'd be better suited moving money off of baseball to sports with growing national popularity (lacrosse, volleyball, etc), because I think that sport is about to have the bottom drop out in the upcoming generation.

That last bit I can agree with. I think if UC were to jump in on the D1 lacrosse game they'd be setting themselves up nicely for the future. Also agree with your thoughts on baseball, I used baseball though because it is, for the moment, still viable for TV content (CWS). But even still, it's mostly just popular in the south, and like you said is far from interesting to the next few generations.

Maybe drop soccer AND baseball and double down on the Makers Game, this continents truest past time, the fastest sport on two feet: Lacrosse?!?! I kid, I kid not really, would totally love this to happen, but know it's unrealistic

In all seriousness, I don't think it would be terrible if UC was a bit proactive on this. Why hold out on a "dying" product? I struggled with how to phrase this, because I'm not trying to troll, but this is as best I could do.

I don't think that college soccer (and the USSF) in its current form is dying...that's the one issue with the logic. It would take a complete paradigm shift away from college/college athletics into professional development and eschewing the amateurism in sport mentality, something that is completely against the current sporting culture in America....and something I don't see happening any time soon. The sheer lack of opportunities (I stated this in the soccer thread on the main conference board, but most countries have roughly 7 times the amount of professional team per soccer player ratio that we do) and the precedent set by the other leagues to not enact policies that will negative affect college athletics would make it damn near impossible, even if it is the best course of action for the sport's competitiveness on an international stage.

On a different note, if not for the dated balancing requirements in Title IX, I would be all for UC having a lacrosse team simply because the amount of high quality recruits that come from Ohio (10-20 nation-level players per year) would make us immediately have the potential to be relevant...plus I love UA's lacrosse uniforms.

(09-18-2017 11:48 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:39 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:09 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:00 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  I'm going to be in the minority on this, but I'm just going to think out loud here.

What is the long term viability of collegiate soccer? At least on the men's side. As soccer continues to grow in the US (30,000 fans at FCC this past weekend, 70,000 in Atlanta), the more the emphasis on Academies will rise. People comment now how behind American players get when they attend college, so as more pro teams establish academies and provide lower level pro opportunities the smaller and lesser the talent pool gets for the college ranks. As college soccer gets worse and worse, the interest level drops further. Again, I'm speaking long term.

Would it not be more beneficial long term for UC to maybe invest men's soccer resources into let's say baseball? The added resources may help push baseball over the top. Or maybe startup a lacrosse team as college lax is still growing (I'm aware lacrosse would also be a bit more expensive) and may have more appeal at the college ranks than collegiate soccer down the road.

I want to reiterate I'm just speaking hypothetically, I'm not calling for the immediate dropping of men's soccer, or looking to stir the pot. Just something I've thought about.

No, I completely agree. I think the competition level of collegiate soccer is dropping more and more each year, and that is due to the push for more academy/professional training on the sport side (which is a good thing for our international competitiveness). I have said to numerous people, including teammates at UC, that the long-term prospects for Men's soccer is probably as a club-level sport as soon as USSF/MLS get their **** together when it comes to youth training and support. That's the same model that most universities in other countries see, but then again, we are pretty much the only country on the globe that monetizes collegiate athletics to begin with, so I don't think that's an apt comparison.

However, until that point I think the funding should still be allocated towards soccer...and I don't think Baseball, given that they're the only sport with heavy competition over all of their incoming athletes with professional ranks, would be where that money should go. Personally, I think they'd be better suited moving money off of baseball to sports with growing national popularity (lacrosse, volleyball, etc), because I think that sport is about to have the bottom drop out in the upcoming generation.

That last bit I can agree with. I think if UC were to jump in on the D1 lacrosse game they'd be setting themselves up nicely for the future. Also agree with your thoughts on baseball, I used baseball though because it is, for the moment, still viable for TV content (CWS). But even still, it's mostly just popular in the south, and like you said is far from interesting to the next few generations.

Maybe drop soccer AND baseball and double down on the Makers Game, this continents truest past time, the fastest sport on two feet: Lacrosse?!?! I kid, I kid not really, would totally love this to happen, but know it's unrealistic

In all seriousness, I don't think it would be terrible if UC was a bit proactive on this. Why hold out on a "dying" product? I struggled with how to phrase this, because I'm not trying to troll, but this is as best I could do.

I don't think that college soccer (and the USSF) in its current form is dying...that's the one issue with the logic. It would take a complete paradigm shift away from college/college athletics into professional development and eschewing the amateurism in sport mentality, something that is completely against the current sporting culture in America....and something I don't see happening any time soon. The sheer lack of opportunities (I stated this in the soccer thread on the main conference board, but most countries have roughly 7 times the amount of professional team per soccer player ratio that we do) and the precedent set by the other leagues to not enact policies that will negative affect college athletics would make it damn near impossible, even if it is the best course of action for the sport's competitiveness on an international stage.

On a different note, if not for the dated balancing requirements in Title IX, I would be all for UC having a lacrosse team simply because the amount of high quality recruits that come from Ohio (10-20 nation-level players per year) would make us immediately have the potential to be relevant...plus I love UA's lacrosse uniforms.

I would love if UC had a men's lacrosse team. I played back in high school, and with the amount of talent in Columbus, and Cincinnati you could likely field a competitive team.

(09-18-2017 11:48 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:39 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:09 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:00 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  I'm going to be in the minority on this, but I'm just going to think out loud here.

What is the long term viability of collegiate soccer? At least on the men's side. As soccer continues to grow in the US (30,000 fans at FCC this past weekend, 70,000 in Atlanta), the more the emphasis on Academies will rise. People comment now how behind American players get when they attend college, so as more pro teams establish academies and provide lower level pro opportunities the smaller and lesser the talent pool gets for the college ranks. As college soccer gets worse and worse, the interest level drops further. Again, I'm speaking long term.

Would it not be more beneficial long term for UC to maybe invest men's soccer resources into let's say baseball? The added resources may help push baseball over the top. Or maybe startup a lacrosse team as college lax is still growing (I'm aware lacrosse would also be a bit more expensive) and may have more appeal at the college ranks than collegiate soccer down the road.

I want to reiterate I'm just speaking hypothetically, I'm not calling for the immediate dropping of men's soccer, or looking to stir the pot. Just something I've thought about.

No, I completely agree. I think the competition level of collegiate soccer is dropping more and more each year, and that is due to the push for more academy/professional training on the sport side (which is a good thing for our international competitiveness). I have said to numerous people, including teammates at UC, that the long-term prospects for Men's soccer is probably as a club-level sport as soon as USSF/MLS get their **** together when it comes to youth training and support. That's the same model that most universities in other countries see, but then again, we are pretty much the only country on the globe that monetizes collegiate athletics to begin with, so I don't think that's an apt comparison.

However, until that point I think the funding should still be allocated towards soccer...and I don't think Baseball, given that they're the only sport with heavy competition over all of their incoming athletes with professional ranks, would be where that money should go. Personally, I think they'd be better suited moving money off of baseball to sports with growing national popularity (lacrosse, volleyball, etc), because I think that sport is about to have the bottom drop out in the upcoming generation.

That last bit I can agree with. I think if UC were to jump in on the D1 lacrosse game they'd be setting themselves up nicely for the future. Also agree with your thoughts on baseball, I used baseball though because it is, for the moment, still viable for TV content (CWS). But even still, it's mostly just popular in the south, and like you said is far from interesting to the next few generations.

Maybe drop soccer AND baseball and double down on the Makers Game, this continents truest past time, the fastest sport on two feet: Lacrosse?!?! I kid, I kid not really, would totally love this to happen, but know it's unrealistic

In all seriousness, I don't think it would be terrible if UC was a bit proactive on this. Why hold out on a "dying" product? I struggled with how to phrase this, because I'm not trying to troll, but this is as best I could do.

I don't think that college soccer (and the USSF) in its current form is dying...that's the one issue with the logic. It would take a complete paradigm shift away from college/college athletics into professional development and eschewing the amateurism in sport mentality, something that is completely against the current sporting culture in America....and something I don't see happening any time soon. The sheer lack of opportunities (I stated this in the soccer thread on the main conference board, but most countries have roughly 7 times the amount of professional team per soccer player ratio that we do) and the precedent set by the other leagues to not enact policies that will negative affect college athletics would make it damn near impossible, even if it is the best course of action for the sport's competitiveness on an international stage.

On a different note, if not for the dated balancing requirements in Title IX, I would be all for UC having a lacrosse team simply because the amount of high quality recruits that come from Ohio (10-20 nation-level players per year) would make us immediately have the potential to be relevant...plus I love UA's lacrosse uniforms.

I appreciate your insights, and I do think "dying" was too harsh a word. Regardless of what could, may, or should happen, as long as UC has a team, I'm gonna enjoy watching them succeed and beat ranked teams.

I also wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. The growth of men's lacrosse has been slowed by those requirements and they should be reevaluated. However, I'm not gonna let myself go down that road and turn this thread into what I would assume would be a very colorful set of posts on Title IX. The longer it takes for us to tap our local D1 lacrosse talent, the harder it'll be to catch up.

(09-18-2017 11:55 AM)Banter Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:48 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:39 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:09 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:00 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  I'm going to be in the minority on this, but I'm just going to think out loud here.

What is the long term viability of collegiate soccer? At least on the men's side. As soccer continues to grow in the US (30,000 fans at FCC this past weekend, 70,000 in Atlanta), the more the emphasis on Academies will rise. People comment now how behind American players get when they attend college, so as more pro teams establish academies and provide lower level pro opportunities the smaller and lesser the talent pool gets for the college ranks. As college soccer gets worse and worse, the interest level drops further. Again, I'm speaking long term.

Would it not be more beneficial long term for UC to maybe invest men's soccer resources into let's say baseball? The added resources may help push baseball over the top. Or maybe startup a lacrosse team as college lax is still growing (I'm aware lacrosse would also be a bit more expensive) and may have more appeal at the college ranks than collegiate soccer down the road.

I want to reiterate I'm just speaking hypothetically, I'm not calling for the immediate dropping of men's soccer, or looking to stir the pot. Just something I've thought about.

No, I completely agree. I think the competition level of collegiate soccer is dropping more and more each year, and that is due to the push for more academy/professional training on the sport side (which is a good thing for our international competitiveness). I have said to numerous people, including teammates at UC, that the long-term prospects for Men's soccer is probably as a club-level sport as soon as USSF/MLS get their **** together when it comes to youth training and support. That's the same model that most universities in other countries see, but then again, we are pretty much the only country on the globe that monetizes collegiate athletics to begin with, so I don't think that's an apt comparison.

However, until that point I think the funding should still be allocated towards soccer...and I don't think Baseball, given that they're the only sport with heavy competition over all of their incoming athletes with professional ranks, would be where that money should go. Personally, I think they'd be better suited moving money off of baseball to sports with growing national popularity (lacrosse, volleyball, etc), because I think that sport is about to have the bottom drop out in the upcoming generation.

That last bit I can agree with. I think if UC were to jump in on the D1 lacrosse game they'd be setting themselves up nicely for the future. Also agree with your thoughts on baseball, I used baseball though because it is, for the moment, still viable for TV content (CWS). But even still, it's mostly just popular in the south, and like you said is far from interesting to the next few generations.

Maybe drop soccer AND baseball and double down on the Makers Game, this continents truest past time, the fastest sport on two feet: Lacrosse?!?! I kid, I kid not really, would totally love this to happen, but know it's unrealistic

In all seriousness, I don't think it would be terrible if UC was a bit proactive on this. Why hold out on a "dying" product? I struggled with how to phrase this, because I'm not trying to troll, but this is as best I could do.

I don't think that college soccer (and the USSF) in its current form is dying...that's the one issue with the logic. It would take a complete paradigm shift away from college/college athletics into professional development and eschewing the amateurism in sport mentality, something that is completely against the current sporting culture in America....and something I don't see happening any time soon. The sheer lack of opportunities (I stated this in the soccer thread on the main conference board, but most countries have roughly 7 times the amount of professional team per soccer player ratio that we do) and the precedent set by the other leagues to not enact policies that will negative affect college athletics would make it damn near impossible, even if it is the best course of action for the sport's competitiveness on an international stage.

On a different note, if not for the dated balancing requirements in Title IX, I would be all for UC having a lacrosse team simply because the amount of high quality recruits that come from Ohio (10-20 nation-level players per year) would make us immediately have the potential to be relevant...plus I love UA's lacrosse uniforms.

I would love if UC had a men's lacrosse team. I played back in high school, and with the amount of talent in Columbus, and Cincinnati you could likely field a competitive team.

Drifting further off the original thread topic. Are all scholarship sports at UC fully funded? Mens soccer can award up to 9.9 scholarships - does UC use them all currently?

(09-18-2017 12:17 PM)Bearcat1010 Wrote:  Drifting further off the original thread topic. Are all scholarship sports at UC fully funded? Mens soccer can award up to 9.9 scholarships - does UC use them all currently?

When I was here, 2005-2009, they were and I haven't heard otherwise on the soccer front. I know Men's Track and Field, Baseball, and Swimming and Diving were not for a spell, but I believe they are now as well.