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

(05-30-2018 06:59 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Those who continue to bring up dropping football can’t see the forest thru the trees. Other than WIchita State (who is bank rolled by the billionaire Koch Brothers) name me another public school that plays basketball at a high level without an FBS football program.

Do you people actually think we’d be in the Big East or the ACC if we’d drop football? We’d likely be right where we are, getting even a smaller percentage of the conference revenue because we are not in for football. Moreover we would lose a lot of revenue that comes in on the football side from donations, ticket and merchandise, college playoff revenue shares, bowl revenue shares, etc.

Dropping football would actually harm the basketball program, as well as the other Olympic sports.

Why do you limit your scope to public institutions when there are plenty of private institutions that play MBB at a high level without FB? You are leaving out a significant chunk of DI institutions when you look only at a subset of the DI landscape.

BTW...we aren't in the ACC...we are in the AAC...big difference.

You drop FB and you don't have to fund an equivalent number of title IX scholarships--that's a huge savings as well.

FB is a money loser anyway:

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/My...-Cow2.aspx

Yes, you might lose some Olympic sports....those only drain the AD bottom line and have little to no impact on enrollment or donations.

A win-win.

(05-30-2018 05:03 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 01:13 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 09:35 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 01:36 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 01:09 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  Crash out in the Round of 32 with a high seed?

I thought that was EXACTLY what you are unhappy about already...

Oops...you went there....the painful truth over the last 12 years (the Cronin era):

XU post-season winning percentage: .586
UC post-season winning percentage: .411

Let that burn in your mind for a while...a smaller school, with a smaller budget....WITHOUT FB.... kicks our a$$ in the postseason...

Now...for the capper...head-to-head:

XU vs. UC over the past 12 years:

XU: .666
UC: .333

Who owns who here? Who has the better program? The data suggest that the Muskies do.

Plain and simple...

But remember...it's OK....WE HAVE FB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stings doesn't it?

We get it. You dislike fball. Guess what, fball has nothing to do with UC’s lack of post season success or success against Eggs. Also, fball is not going away. So you might want to go root for a school without a comprehensive athletic dept.

Allocation of resources, plain and simple. You can't fight a war on 2 fronts...the P5 is eating everyone's lunch in terms of allocation of talent and $$$...and it's only going to get worse.

Meanwhile, MBB is a shell of what it was under our former coach due to the lions share of the AD $$$ going to FB.

It's quite significant to note that the number of programs nationwide that are strong in both revenue sports is quite sparse considering the number of programs with both revenue sports--almost to and institution, you see either strong FB or strong MBB, but not both. The fact is, most schools with both revenue sports are weak in both areas.

There is a reason for this.

Men’s basketball is in the same place it was during the second half of Huggins tenure. College basketball isn’t as popular as college football. UC football even with the recent downturn is so far ahead of where it was twenty years ago. You can win at both. UC has proven that already.

UC hasn't won at both simultaneously...list for me the bowl games won by UC FB while MBB was in it's prime....

List for me the number of deep runs in the post-season when you argue that the FB program was peaking.

It's not a coincidence that they don't coincide.

The data don't support your assertion.

Back to the original post. I'm hearing from some people that Cronin to Toronto might be a done deal this week. NotDuane, you hearing the same?

(05-30-2018 11:42 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 06:59 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Those who continue to bring up dropping football can’t see the forest thru the trees. Other than WIchita State (who is bank rolled by the billionaire Koch Brothers) name me another public school that plays basketball at a high level without an FBS football program.

Do you people actually think we’d be in the Big East or the ACC if we’d drop football? We’d likely be right where we are, getting even a smaller percentage of the conference revenue because we are not in for football. Moreover we would lose a lot of revenue that comes in on the football side from donations, ticket and merchandise, college playoff revenue shares, bowl revenue shares, etc.

Dropping football would actually harm the basketball program, as well as the other Olympic sports.

Why do you limit your scope to public institutions when there are plenty of private institutions that play MBB at a high level without FB? You are leaving out a significant chunk of DI institutions when you look only at a subset of the DI landscape.

BTW...we aren't in the ACC...we are in the AAC...big difference.

You drop FB and you don't have to fund an equivalent number of title IX scholarships--that's a huge savings as well.

FB is a money loser anyway:

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/My...-Cow2.aspx

Yes, you might lose some Olympic sports....those only drain the AD bottom line and have little to no impact on enrollment or donations.

A win-win.

Because UC IS a public institution.

We're not going to become Villanova by shedding the football program. Look at the budgetary figures and see where the money comes from-- it's not as if the university is going to put the $13M/year spent on football and put it into hoops. That money will not be there.

Also look at the continued investment into the Olympic sports as well when you look at the budgets. The university will not shed Olympic sports because it cut football. If anything it would take any savings gained from axing football to further its investment into Olympic sports and add a program or two like softball and men's lacrosse. Enhancing the Olympic sports is actually something the athletic department is committed. That's why they went out and hired the women's coach from Western KY and continue to pour money into swimming and track & field (where UC has been highly successful).

I also don't understand this bellyaching about resources to basketball. Mick is one of the top 30 paid coaches in the country. We are in the process of completing a $90M overhaul of the arena. UC has recently built very nice housing for its student-athletes. We offer one of the highest coast of attendance amounts in the country. A few more million dollars to men's basketball is not going to help us recruit a player away from a P5 or a Big East school.

(05-30-2018 01:13 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 09:35 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 01:36 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 01:09 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 10:21 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  I'm not unhappy with UC...I'm unhappy with Cronin and his supporters. I'm also unhappy that we can't do what XU does regularly on a smaller AD budget. Totally different than being upset with UC. If I didn't care then I wouldn't post.

Crash out in the Round of 32 with a high seed?

I thought that was EXACTLY what you are unhappy about already...

Oops...you went there....the painful truth over the last 12 years (the Cronin era):

XU post-season winning percentage: .586
UC post-season winning percentage: .411

Let that burn in your mind for a while...a smaller school, with a smaller budget....WITHOUT FB.... kicks our a$$ in the postseason...

Now...for the capper...head-to-head:

XU vs. UC over the past 12 years:

XU: .666
UC: .333

Who owns who here? Who has the better program? The data suggest that the Muskies do.

Plain and simple...

But remember...it's OK....WE HAVE FB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stings doesn't it?

We get it. You dislike fball. Guess what, fball has nothing to do with UC’s lack of post season success or success against Eggs. Also, fball is not going away. So you might want to go root for a school without a comprehensive athletic dept.

Allocation of resources, plain and simple. You can't fight a war on 2 fronts...the P5 is eating everyone's lunch in terms of allocation of talent and $$$...and it's only going to get worse.

Meanwhile, MBB is a shell of what it was under our former coach due to the lions share of the AD $$$ going to FB.

It's quite significant to note that the number of programs nationwide that are strong in both revenue sports is quite sparse considering the number of programs with both revenue sports--almost to and institution, you see either strong FB or strong MBB, but not both. The fact is, most schools with both revenue sports are weak in both areas.

There is a reason for this.

You could not be more wrong. You just want the entire athletic dept gutted to fund one sport. The norm in college athletics is having more than one highly successful program, whether this is fball/bball or some other sport. The issue historically with UC was they committed a majority of their funds/support towards one sport and it hindered the athletic dept - this being bball.

Mick is one of the top 2 or 3 highest non P5 coaches and just received new facilities. They are receiving their fair share of funding and support. Just because they are not receiving all the AD's funding is not an issue.

Keep beating that drum though.

(05-30-2018 12:42 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 11:42 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 06:59 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Those who continue to bring up dropping football can’t see the forest thru the trees. Other than WIchita State (who is bank rolled by the billionaire Koch Brothers) name me another public school that plays basketball at a high level without an FBS football program.

Do you people actually think we’d be in the Big East or the ACC if we’d drop football? We’d likely be right where we are, getting even a smaller percentage of the conference revenue because we are not in for football. Moreover we would lose a lot of revenue that comes in on the football side from donations, ticket and merchandise, college playoff revenue shares, bowl revenue shares, etc.

Dropping football would actually harm the basketball program, as well as the other Olympic sports.

Why do you limit your scope to public institutions when there are plenty of private institutions that play MBB at a high level without FB? You are leaving out a significant chunk of DI institutions when you look only at a subset of the DI landscape.

BTW...we aren't in the ACC...we are in the AAC...big difference.

You drop FB and you don't have to fund an equivalent number of title IX scholarships--that's a huge savings as well.

FB is a money loser anyway:

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/My...-Cow2.aspx

Yes, you might lose some Olympic sports....those only drain the AD bottom line and have little to no impact on enrollment or donations.

A win-win.

Because UC IS a public institution.

We're not going to become Villanova by shedding the football program. Look at the budgetary figures and see where the money comes from-- it's not as if the university is going to put the $13M/year spent on football and put it into hoops. That money will not be there.

Also look at the continued investment into the Olympic sports as well when you look at the budgets. The university will not shed Olympic sports because it cut football. If anything it would take any savings gained from axing football to further its investment into Olympic sports and add a program or two like softball and men's lacrosse. Enhancing the Olympic sports is actually something the athletic department is committed. That's why they went out and hired the women's coach from Western KY and continue to pour money into swimming and track & field (where UC has been highly successful).

I also don't understand this bellyaching about resources to basketball. Mick is one of the top 30 paid coaches in the country. We are in the process of completing a $90M overhaul of the arena. UC has recently built very nice housing for its student-athletes. We offer one of the highest coast of attendance amounts in the country. A few more million dollars to men's basketball is not going to help us recruit a player away from a P5 or a Big East school.

Way to obfuscate the issue. I don't give a rat's rear end about the renovations for MBB...they mean squat...the extra $$$$ should go into hiring a COACH WITH BONAFIDES. This will boost recruiting and increase our winning percentage.

Cronin blows...I don't care how much $$$ he makes.....all the blue-chippers know it. That's why he can't sign lottery picks.

If we backed up the brinks truck and went after Few or Dixon or Donovan, the program would change overnight. We would win in the post-season or contend annually, and the extra $$$ could THEN go into facilities.

Everyone equates facilities with wins....it aint the case...it's in what you pay QUALITY PERSONNEL....

Imagine say....if instead of upgrading Nippert beyond all sanity, we took that money and went after....oh...I don't know...Cristobal, or Swinney and their chosen assistants. Think of the difference that would make in the program.

Building a palace is the LAST thing you should do.

(05-30-2018 12:03 PM)geef Wrote:  Back to the original post. I'm hearing from some people that Cronin to Toronto might be a done deal this week. NotDuane, you hearing the same?

Cite your sources!

(05-30-2018 05:33 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 12:03 PM)geef Wrote:  Back to the original post. I'm hearing from some people that Cronin to Toronto might be a done deal this week. NotDuane, you hearing the same?

Cite your sources!

The internet of course...

...DUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHH...

why do's duane think we can do better than mick? the whole point of the matter is that duane isn't going to budge mick. might as well get used to the brother, brother. it appears you've got the reds to vocabally complain about it. you might consider, a recreation. a vice perhaps. nothin' such as a sinister heathen like myself when get their hands on.... something like cigar smoking.. in the house. or, hide a fifth of whisky in a shampoo bottle to keep the drinkin away from the missus. she'll catch on of course. one afternoon she'll find your ass passed out in a cold ass shower hugging a bottle of suave. you didn't bother to take off your drawers. you see where i'm going with this

i wouldn't be upset if mick left, but he's a stubborn westsider. he's gonna make jam outta a watermelon. he done near done it with that team last year. but even if we made it to the final four you'd be all, yeah but it was like, loyola and not even the hank gathers loyola. yawn

(05-30-2018 08:02 PM)Lush Wrote:  why do's duane think we can do better than mick?

Because we HAVE done better than Cronin within recent memory.

Simple answer.

(05-30-2018 11:28 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 08:02 PM)Lush Wrote:  why do's duane think we can do better than mick?

Because we HAVE done better than Cronin within recent memory.

Simple answer.

Huh? We have Huggins and Andy Kennedy to choose from. One didn't make a deep run after the first half of his tenure at UC and benefited from having a new arena, and the other is no longer coaching college basketball. Everyone else in recent memory is not really worth remembering.

So if this entire 71 comment thread was really based upon a posting in a parody account, I suspect we should conclude there is still a fair amount of angst surrounding the March Meltdown?

I'm still not past the Reds winning two @ San Francisco and coming home to drop three in a row in the playoffs. And that's been a few years. The way in which UC lost was eerily similar and we'll be talking about it for a long, long time.

Cincinnatians need some postseason success again, on the field or the court to cheer about. It's been a complete role reversal with Cleveland. Growing up with the Big Red Machine, the Indians were a punchline and the Cavs were perennial losers--out of sight, out of mind. The world certainly has changed.

(05-31-2018 07:53 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 11:28 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 08:02 PM)Lush Wrote:  why do's duane think we can do better than mick?

Because we HAVE done better than Cronin within recent memory.

Simple answer.

Huh? We have Huggins and Andy Kennedy to choose from. One didn't make a deep run after the first half of his tenure at UC and benefited from having a new arena, and the other is no longer coaching college basketball. Everyone else in recent memory is not really worth remembering.

This is not to belittle Mick... my hope is UC has more seasons like this with top 4 protected seeds, conference title and conference tournament title, but Huggins accomplishments get minimized by too many. To describe his tenure as "didn't make a deep run after the first half of his tenure" misses so much.

The Bearcats won regular season conference championships in 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 01, 02 and 04. The Bearcats won conference tournament championships in 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 02, 04. The Bearcats were top 4 protected seeds in 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 2002, 2004. They made the sweet 16 in 92, 93, 96, 2001. They made the elite eight in 92, 93, and 96. They made the final four in 92.

I'd argue the 98 through 2002 stretch was actually Huggins' best at UC despite the seasons ending earlier than we would have liked. That stretched only produced 1 sweet 16 (in honestly UC's weakest season), but UC had clearly the best team in the country in 2000 before losing its best player on the first day of conference tournament play and had a 1 seed in 2002. Frankly, we'd view that stretch a lot different were it not for a flukie West bank three, Kenyon breaking his leg and that crazy UCLA game against an uber talented UCLA team. Those teams were largely excellent and competing at the highest level. We had real title contenders.

I am encouraged by last season and the general direction UC has gone in recent years, but to belittle the accomplishments of those previous teams is silly. UC was an elite program from 1992-2005 competing at the highest levels despite some disappointing tournament runs late in that stretch. By every other measure the program was competing at the highest level and the accomplishments are nothing to sneeze at.

(05-31-2018 08:47 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 07:53 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 11:28 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 08:02 PM)Lush Wrote:  why do's duane think we can do better than mick?

Because we HAVE done better than Cronin within recent memory.

Simple answer.

Huh? We have Huggins and Andy Kennedy to choose from. One didn't make a deep run after the first half of his tenure at UC and benefited from having a new arena, and the other is no longer coaching college basketball. Everyone else in recent memory is not really worth remembering.

This is not to belittle Mick... my hope is UC has more seasons like this with top 4 protected seeds, conference title and conference tournament title, but Huggins accomplishments get minimized by too many. To describe his tenure as "didn't make a deep run after the first half of his tenure" misses so much.

The Bearcats won regular season conference championships in 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 01, 02 and 04. The Bearcats won conference tournament championships in 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 02, 04. The Bearcats were top 4 protected seeds in 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 2002, 2004. They made the sweet 16 in 92, 93, 96, 2001. They made the elite eight in 92, 93, and 96. They made the final four in 92.

I'd argue the 98 through 2002 stretch was actually Huggins' best at UC despite the seasons ending earlier than we would have liked. That stretched only produced 1 sweet 16 (in honestly UC's weakest season), but UC had clearly the best team in the country in 2000 before losing its best player on the first day of conference tournament play and had a 1 seed in 2002. Frankly, we'd view that stretch a lot different were it not for a flukie West bank three, Kenyon breaking his leg and that crazy UCLA game against an uber talented UCLA team. Those teams were largely excellent and competing at the highest level. We had real title contenders.

I am encouraged by last season and the general direction UC has gone in recent years, but to belittle the accomplishments of those previous teams is silly. UC was an elite program from 1992-2005 competing at the highest levels despite some disappointing tournament runs late in that stretch. By every other measure the program was competing at the highest level and the accomplishments are nothing to sneeze at.

Damn straight..

Also, don't forget the number of lottery picks that made their way through the program during his tenure...another measure of success.

Incidentally, the lie can be put to "Huggins was a bad coach" by looking at his entire body of work--it DWARFS Cronin by any measure.

(05-31-2018 08:10 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  So if this entire 71 comment thread was really based upon a posting in a parody account, I suspect we should conclude there is still a fair amount of angst surrounding the March Meltdown?

I'm still not past the Reds winning two @ San Francisco and coming home to drop three in a row in the playoffs. And that's been a few years. The way in which UC lost was eerily similar and we'll be talking about it for a long, long time.

Cincinnatians need some postseason success again, on the field or the court to cheer about. It's been a complete role reversal with Cleveland. Growing up with the Big Red Machine, the Indians were a punchline and the Cavs were perennial losers--out of sight, out of mind. The world certainly has changed.

Yup...this needs to change.

For the Reds...Castellini needs to get out of the way of personnel decisions

For the Bengals....Mike Brown needs to die

For the Bearcats....Cronin needs to find greener pastures

Git 'er done!

Sigh. I miss when our arguments spawned from not being satisfied with a 22-2 record...

(05-31-2018 10:40 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Sigh. I miss when our arguments spawned from not being satisfied with a 22-2 record...

I wish this wasn't an argument. It just rubs me the wrong way when people minimize the success of the Huggins era Bearcat program. That's where we should want to get back to. Last year was a good sign. We need more of those. Supporting the current Bearcats and staff doesn't have to mean being disrespectful to the accomplishments of the past.

(05-31-2018 08:47 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 07:53 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 11:28 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 08:02 PM)Lush Wrote:  why do's duane think we can do better than mick?

Because we HAVE done better than Cronin within recent memory.

Simple answer.

Huh? We have Huggins and Andy Kennedy to choose from. One didn't make a deep run after the first half of his tenure at UC and benefited from having a new arena, and the other is no longer coaching college basketball. Everyone else in recent memory is not really worth remembering.

This is not to belittle Mick... my hope is UC has more seasons like this with top 4 protected seeds, conference title and conference tournament title, but Huggins accomplishments get minimized by too many. To describe his tenure as "didn't make a deep run after the first half of his tenure" misses so much.

The Bearcats won regular season conference championships in 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 01, 02 and 04. The Bearcats won conference tournament championships in 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 02, 04. The Bearcats were top 4 protected seeds in 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 2002, 2004. They made the sweet 16 in 92, 93, 96, 2001. They made the elite eight in 92, 93, and 96. They made the final four in 92.

I'd argue the 98 through 2002 stretch was actually Huggins' best at UC despite the seasons ending earlier than we would have liked. That stretched only produced 1 sweet 16 (in honestly UC's weakest season), but UC had clearly the best team in the country in 2000 before losing its best player on the first day of conference tournament play and had a 1 seed in 2002. Frankly, we'd view that stretch a lot different were it not for a flukie West bank three, Kenyon breaking his leg and that crazy UCLA game against an uber talented UCLA team. Those teams were largely excellent and competing at the highest level. We had real title contenders.

I am encouraged by last season and the general direction UC has gone in recent years, but to belittle the accomplishments of those previous teams is silly. UC was an elite program from 1992-2005 competing at the highest levels despite some disappointing tournament runs late in that stretch. By every other measure the program was competing at the highest level and the accomplishments are nothing to sneeze at.

(05-30-2018 05:29 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 12:42 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 11:42 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 06:59 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Those who continue to bring up dropping football can’t see the forest thru the trees. Other than WIchita State (who is bank rolled by the billionaire Koch Brothers) name me another public school that plays basketball at a high level without an FBS football program.

Do you people actually think we’d be in the Big East or the ACC if we’d drop football? We’d likely be right where we are, getting even a smaller percentage of the conference revenue because we are not in for football. Moreover we would lose a lot of revenue that comes in on the football side from donations, ticket and merchandise, college playoff revenue shares, bowl revenue shares, etc.

Dropping football would actually harm the basketball program, as well as the other Olympic sports.

Why do you limit your scope to public institutions when there are plenty of private institutions that play MBB at a high level without FB? You are leaving out a significant chunk of DI institutions when you look only at a subset of the DI landscape.

BTW...we aren't in the ACC...we are in the AAC...big difference.

You drop FB and you don't have to fund an equivalent number of title IX scholarships--that's a huge savings as well.

FB is a money loser anyway:

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/My...-Cow2.aspx

Yes, you might lose some Olympic sports....those only drain the AD bottom line and have little to no impact on enrollment or donations.

A win-win.

Because UC IS a public institution.

We're not going to become Villanova by shedding the football program. Look at the budgetary figures and see where the money comes from-- it's not as if the university is going to put the $13M/year spent on football and put it into hoops. That money will not be there.

Also look at the continued investment into the Olympic sports as well when you look at the budgets. The university will not shed Olympic sports because it cut football. If anything it would take any savings gained from axing football to further its investment into Olympic sports and add a program or two like softball and men's lacrosse. Enhancing the Olympic sports is actually something the athletic department is committed. That's why they went out and hired the women's coach from Western KY and continue to pour money into swimming and track & field (where UC has been highly successful).

I also don't understand this bellyaching about resources to basketball. Mick is one of the top 30 paid coaches in the country. We are in the process of completing a $90M overhaul of the arena. UC has recently built very nice housing for its student-athletes. We offer one of the highest coast of attendance amounts in the country. A few more million dollars to men's basketball is not going to help us recruit a player away from a P5 or a Big East school.

Way to obfuscate the issue. I don't give a rat's rear end about the renovations for MBB...they mean squat...the extra $$$$ should go into hiring a COACH WITH BONAFIDES. This will boost recruiting and increase our winning percentage.

Cronin blows...I don't care how much $$$ he makes.....all the blue-chippers know it. That's why he can't sign lottery picks.

If we backed up the brinks truck and went after Few or Dixon or Donovan, the program would change overnight. We would win in the post-season or contend annually, and the extra $$$ could THEN go into facilities.

Everyone equates facilities with wins....it aint the case...it's in what you pay QUALITY PERSONNEL....

Imagine say....if instead of upgrading Nippert beyond all sanity, we took that money and went after....oh...I don't know...Cristobal, or Swinney and their chosen assistants. Think of the difference that would make in the program.

Building a palace is the LAST thing you should do.

Wrong again. Nippert upgrades were not for wins. They were created for revenue. The Shoe rebuild was due to an out of date facility. Fans, admin and coaching staff demanded an upgraded facility. You seem to know very little about the situation in Clifton.

(05-31-2018 11:29 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 05:29 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 12:42 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 11:42 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 06:59 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Those who continue to bring up dropping football can’t see the forest thru the trees. Other than WIchita State (who is bank rolled by the billionaire Koch Brothers) name me another public school that plays basketball at a high level without an FBS football program.

Do you people actually think we’d be in the Big East or the ACC if we’d drop football? We’d likely be right where we are, getting even a smaller percentage of the conference revenue because we are not in for football. Moreover we would lose a lot of revenue that comes in on the football side from donations, ticket and merchandise, college playoff revenue shares, bowl revenue shares, etc.

Dropping football would actually harm the basketball program, as well as the other Olympic sports.

Why do you limit your scope to public institutions when there are plenty of private institutions that play MBB at a high level without FB? You are leaving out a significant chunk of DI institutions when you look only at a subset of the DI landscape.

BTW...we aren't in the ACC...we are in the AAC...big difference.

You drop FB and you don't have to fund an equivalent number of title IX scholarships--that's a huge savings as well.

FB is a money loser anyway:

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/My...-Cow2.aspx

Yes, you might lose some Olympic sports....those only drain the AD bottom line and have little to no impact on enrollment or donations.

A win-win.

Because UC IS a public institution.

We're not going to become Villanova by shedding the football program. Look at the budgetary figures and see where the money comes from-- it's not as if the university is going to put the $13M/year spent on football and put it into hoops. That money will not be there.

Also look at the continued investment into the Olympic sports as well when you look at the budgets. The university will not shed Olympic sports because it cut football. If anything it would take any savings gained from axing football to further its investment into Olympic sports and add a program or two like softball and men's lacrosse. Enhancing the Olympic sports is actually something the athletic department is committed. That's why they went out and hired the women's coach from Western KY and continue to pour money into swimming and track & field (where UC has been highly successful).

I also don't understand this bellyaching about resources to basketball. Mick is one of the top 30 paid coaches in the country. We are in the process of completing a $90M overhaul of the arena. UC has recently built very nice housing for its student-athletes. We offer one of the highest coast of attendance amounts in the country. A few more million dollars to men's basketball is not going to help us recruit a player away from a P5 or a Big East school.

Way to obfuscate the issue. I don't give a rat's rear end about the renovations for MBB...they mean squat...the extra $$$$ should go into hiring a COACH WITH BONAFIDES. This will boost recruiting and increase our winning percentage.

Cronin blows...I don't care how much $$$ he makes.....all the blue-chippers know it. That's why he can't sign lottery picks.

If we backed up the brinks truck and went after Few or Dixon or Donovan, the program would change overnight. We would win in the post-season or contend annually, and the extra $$$ could THEN go into facilities.

Everyone equates facilities with wins....it aint the case...it's in what you pay QUALITY PERSONNEL....

Imagine say....if instead of upgrading Nippert beyond all sanity, we took that money and went after....oh...I don't know...Cristobal, or Swinney and their chosen assistants. Think of the difference that would make in the program.

Building a palace is the LAST thing you should do.

Wrong again. Nippert upgrades were not for wins. They were created for revenue. The Shoe rebuild was due to an out of date facility. Fans, admin and coaching staff demanded an upgraded facility. You seem to know very little about the situation in Clifton.

Great...put a crap team inside a palace and...like magic....the $$ will flow in. Long term losing situation--the product on the field is what counts. Same in MBB...you put a crap team on the floor and you'll hemorrhage $$$ faster than a stuck pig.

Nonsense.