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

(10-30-2019 02:41 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 01:08 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 12:23 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 10:31 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 12:53 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  I like Tulane in the conference. They are the Northwestern, Vandy, Stanford of our conference and the deep south (Yes, I know they are not elite/elite, but still a great school). Add in the fact they are in a great city and fertile recruiting ground and we good.

Now Tulsa I have never really understood the reasoning for their addition? Unfortunately, I have gotten used to them as well, but still:
- A couple spots above Dayton and Lexington for Media Market
- Enrollment=4,682...smaller than Xavier and hard to carry a market or have much of a fan base
- Athletics: Ok
- Academics: Solid, but nothing spectacular #121
- Location: Not in Texas I guess is a plus since we have Dallas and Houston, but do they really carry even a 1/5 of Oklahoma?

I concur about Tulsa. It was a desperation add after Rutgers and Louisville left to get the conference back up to 12.

As for Tulane, UC and the conference in general does not get any benefit for their conference ranking. Its not like the B10 or the PAC12 were the schools collaborate research with one another. I supposed we could choose to do that, but I am not aware of any schools in the conference which collaborate academically with UC. Tulane is a far cry from Vandy, Wake, Stanford or Northwestern athletically. Those schools are solid to good in football 2-3 of those have great Olympic sports and basketball.

Purely anecdotal evidence, but from a number of business trips to New Orleans along with a visit years ago when UC was in the New Orleans Bowl one December, Tulane has no visibility in town and I'm guessing very little share of mind after pro sports and the 10,000 pound gorilla LSU down the road.

I could almost say the same of UC in Greater Cincinnati thirty years ago. But UC was always much larger, with many more local/regional alumni, a major Medical Center, and a heritage of national championship basketball and much later, New Year's bowl games.

You can't walk through Kenwood Town Center today without seeing people in UC attire; not so 30 years earlier. It takes time, energy and financial resources to build that kind of brand. Tulane could win a whole lot the next few years in NOLA and still not approach the presence UC has here.

So while we can wish and hope that Tulane and Tulsa will build high profile programs and grow their brands, we have to realize that it was a marriage of convenience between those two schools and the AAC when the old Big East corporation (The American) needed teams. They are what they are institutionally and athletically.

So swap them out? For who--UAB and Buffalo? I'd sit tight and see if the American can sustain this year's success with our better brands. And wait for the next realignment to play out.

Swap out-- no. Contraction? Maybe.

Yep; a better alternative for sure. Divisions could then go away and with UCONN already out of the picture next year, the remaining schools all have the expectation to compete at a reasonably high level.

If I was Aresco, I'd see if the president's would vote Tulsa out today for 10 teams football and we would be at 10 teams in b-ball as well with Navy/Wichita situation.

Since that won't happen no reason to discuss though. Plus, as commissioner it is only his job to keep this conference as strong as possible. With the forever long possibility of the big boys expanding at some point, he probably knows some school (ECU, Tulane, Tulsa, SMU, etc.) presidents would vote no in kicking them out in case something does happen.

(10-30-2019 02:53 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 02:41 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 01:08 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 12:23 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 10:31 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I concur about Tulsa. It was a desperation add after Rutgers and Louisville left to get the conference back up to 12.

As for Tulane, UC and the conference in general does not get any benefit for their conference ranking. Its not like the B10 or the PAC12 were the schools collaborate research with one another. I supposed we could choose to do that, but I am not aware of any schools in the conference which collaborate academically with UC. Tulane is a far cry from Vandy, Wake, Stanford or Northwestern athletically. Those schools are solid to good in football 2-3 of those have great Olympic sports and basketball.

Purely anecdotal evidence, but from a number of business trips to New Orleans along with a visit years ago when UC was in the New Orleans Bowl one December, Tulane has no visibility in town and I'm guessing very little share of mind after pro sports and the 10,000 pound gorilla LSU down the road.

I could almost say the same of UC in Greater Cincinnati thirty years ago. But UC was always much larger, with many more local/regional alumni, a major Medical Center, and a heritage of national championship basketball and much later, New Year's bowl games.

You can't walk through Kenwood Town Center today without seeing people in UC attire; not so 30 years earlier. It takes time, energy and financial resources to build that kind of brand. Tulane could win a whole lot the next few years in NOLA and still not approach the presence UC has here.

So while we can wish and hope that Tulane and Tulsa will build high profile programs and grow their brands, we have to realize that it was a marriage of convenience between those two schools and the AAC when the old Big East corporation (The American) needed teams. They are what they are institutionally and athletically.

So swap them out? For who--UAB and Buffalo? I'd sit tight and see if the American can sustain this year's success with our better brands. And wait for the next realignment to play out.

Swap out-- no. Contraction? Maybe.

Yep; a better alternative for sure. Divisions could then go away and with UCONN already out of the picture next year, the remaining schools all have the expectation to compete at a reasonably high level.

If I was Aresco, I'd see if the president's would vote Tulsa out today for 10 teams football and we would be at 10 teams in b-ball as well with Navy/Wichita situation.

Since that won't happen no reason to discuss though. Plus, as commissioner it is only his job to keep this conference as strong as possible. With the forever long possibility of the big boys expanding at some point, he probably knows some school (ECU, Tulane, Tulsa, SMU, etc.) presidents would vote no in kicking them out in case something does happen.

Tulsa might actually be ok with that... they're in a world of hurt financially, and many people there are blaming D-1 sports. Tulsa is the smallest school in FBS.

Last year, Tulsa denied tenure (aka, fired) to almost every professor whose tenure clock was up. No matter how well qualified they were. That's a sign of HUGE institutional budget issues.

(10-30-2019 05:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 02:53 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 02:41 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 01:08 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 12:23 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  Purely anecdotal evidence, but from a number of business trips to New Orleans along with a visit years ago when UC was in the New Orleans Bowl one December, Tulane has no visibility in town and I'm guessing very little share of mind after pro sports and the 10,000 pound gorilla LSU down the road.

I could almost say the same of UC in Greater Cincinnati thirty years ago. But UC was always much larger, with many more local/regional alumni, a major Medical Center, and a heritage of national championship basketball and much later, New Year's bowl games.

You can't walk through Kenwood Town Center today without seeing people in UC attire; not so 30 years earlier. It takes time, energy and financial resources to build that kind of brand. Tulane could win a whole lot the next few years in NOLA and still not approach the presence UC has here.

So while we can wish and hope that Tulane and Tulsa will build high profile programs and grow their brands, we have to realize that it was a marriage of convenience between those two schools and the AAC when the old Big East corporation (The American) needed teams. They are what they are institutionally and athletically.

So swap them out? For who--UAB and Buffalo? I'd sit tight and see if the American can sustain this year's success with our better brands. And wait for the next realignment to play out.

Swap out-- no. Contraction? Maybe.

Yep; a better alternative for sure. Divisions could then go away and with UCONN already out of the picture next year, the remaining schools all have the expectation to compete at a reasonably high level.

If I was Aresco, I'd see if the president's would vote Tulsa out today for 10 teams football and we would be at 10 teams in b-ball as well with Navy/Wichita situation.

Since that won't happen no reason to discuss though. Plus, as commissioner it is only his job to keep this conference as strong as possible. With the forever long possibility of the big boys expanding at some point, he probably knows some school (ECU, Tulane, Tulsa, SMU, etc.) presidents would vote no in kicking them out in case something does happen.

Tulsa might actually be ok with that... they're in a world of hurt financially, and many people there are blaming D-1 sports. Tulsa is the smallest school in FBS.

Last year, Tulsa denied tenure (aka, fired) to almost every professor whose tenure clock was up. No matter how well qualified they were. That's a sign of HUGE institutional budget issues.

Their endowment of $1.1 billion is almost as large as UC at $1.2 billion

That should spin off income of easily $70 million a year to backfill loses.

(10-30-2019 08:46 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 05:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 02:53 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 02:41 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 01:08 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Swap out-- no. Contraction? Maybe.

Yep; a better alternative for sure. Divisions could then go away and with UCONN already out of the picture next year, the remaining schools all have the expectation to compete at a reasonably high level.

If I was Aresco, I'd see if the president's would vote Tulsa out today for 10 teams football and we would be at 10 teams in b-ball as well with Navy/Wichita situation.

Since that won't happen no reason to discuss though. Plus, as commissioner it is only his job to keep this conference as strong as possible. With the forever long possibility of the big boys expanding at some point, he probably knows some school (ECU, Tulane, Tulsa, SMU, etc.) presidents would vote no in kicking them out in case something does happen.

Tulsa might actually be ok with that... they're in a world of hurt financially, and many people there are blaming D-1 sports. Tulsa is the smallest school in FBS.

Last year, Tulsa denied tenure (aka, fired) to almost every professor whose tenure clock was up. No matter how well qualified they were. That's a sign of HUGE institutional budget issues.

Their endowment of $1.1 billion is almost as large as UC at $1.2 billion

That should spin off income of easily $70 million a year to backfill loses.

Do they really want 1/2 of their endowment income to go to athletics? At a time when they're laying off highly qualified professors left and right?