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

(03-24-2021 10:31 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Truthfully, I'm not sure which is the "bad" comparison there...not being facetious, just looking for clarification.

In national university rankings, UC-Irvine is 35th and Georgetown is 23rd.

That's ahead of Tulane (41st), the best of the comparable chemistry schools.

SUNY-Albany and VCU are tied at 160. And let's just say that New Mexico and UTSA are slightly below that.

(03-24-2021 10:41 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 10:31 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Truthfully, I'm not sure which is the "bad" comparison there...not being facetious, just looking for clarification.

In national university rankings, UC-Irvine is 35th and Georgetown is 23rd.

That's ahead of Tulane (41st), the best of the comparable chemistry schools.

SUNY-Albany and VCU are tied at 160. And let's just say that New Mexico and UTSA are slightly below that.

Ok, the inclusion of Tulane and Miami confused me a bit in that list, as it was kind of evident what you were going for, but those schools stuck out like sore thumbs to me and muddied the interpretive waters a bit.

I guess on that front, are those schools/programs as 'attached' as one would think they are? Sure Bio/Chem move people into medical fields in some instances, but the rankings metrics/outcomes are so incredibly different as well as the fact that medical schools typically do not significantly recruit internally, at least the higher you go on the lists, just makes it seem like that point wasn't as strong as it could've been and that it isn't as mystifying as one might believe.

All in all, we're in agreement, as we've now reached more of a growth curve that is sustainable that we can further invest in some areas that were neglected to get us to this point. I personally believe that will be done through facility improvements to attract better faculty through better/more customizable lab space and office areas thus building our research expenditures and publication outcomes, not simply dumping a load of cash in front of the current administration or focusing on how to improve the environment for students. You've also still got to have a mind towards allocation of funds...we can't get out over our skis and have 15 faculty lines for a department that only needs 10, because that is a surefire way to start taking a jack hammer to that solid enrollment foundation you've built over the last two decades too.

(03-24-2021 10:47 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 10:41 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 10:31 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Truthfully, I'm not sure which is the "bad" comparison there...not being facetious, just looking for clarification.

In national university rankings, UC-Irvine is 35th and Georgetown is 23rd.

That's ahead of Tulane (41st), the best of the comparable chemistry schools.

SUNY-Albany and VCU are tied at 160. And let's just say that New Mexico and UTSA are slightly below that.

Ok, the inclusion of Tulane and Miami confused me a bit in that list, as it was kind of evident what you were going for, but those schools stuck out like sore thumbs to me and muddied the interpretive waters a bit.

I guess on that front, are those schools/programs as 'attached' as one would think they are? Sure Bio/Chem move people into medical fields in some instances, but the rankings metrics/outcomes are so incredibly different as well as the fact that medical schools typically do not significantly recruit internally, at least the higher you go on the lists, just makes it seem like that point wasn't as strong as it could've been and that it isn't as mystifying as one might believe.

All in all, we're in agreement, as we've now reached more of a growth curve that is sustainable that we can further invest in some areas that were neglected to get us to this point. I personally believe that will be done through facility improvements to attract better faculty through better/more customizable lab space and office areas thus building our research expenditures and publication outcomes, not simply dumping a load of cash in front of the current administration or focusing on how to improve the environment for students. You've also still got to have a mind towards allocation of funds...we can't get out over our skis and have 15 faculty lines for a department that only needs 10, because that is a surefire way to start taking a jack hammer to that solid enrollment foundation you've built over the last two decades too.

That's a good question.

I know in Pharmacy, it does interact a lot. A lot of schools (including UC, I think) have a 6-year Bachelors/Doctorate program in pharmacy. The first 2 years are mostly undergrad chemistry & biology courses.

Plus, it just seems like there's a lot of research overlap. Microbiology and Immunology are a lot closer than, say, Electrical Engineering and Chemical Engineering.

(03-24-2021 10:40 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 08:33 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  The late President Steger, when speaking to alumni or donor groups, talked about his ambitious campus rebuild saying the new buildings were all great but once erected, they made the adjoining ones look bad. He was only half joking--when UC became a full state institution it was quickly evident that the Clifton campus was decades behind the rest of the state universities in terms of needing both new and remodeled buildings.

The billion dollars plus represented in that rebuild created what Forbes and other national publications described as one of the world's most beautiful campuses.
https://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/re...orbes.html

While UC won't ever have a marina or golf course as some others do, it is interesting to think about what is still needed; a wish list so to speak. So I'll share three and will be curious if others might add to the list:
1. A large, modern Alumni Center to host visitors, conduct large events, and be a center for alumni life when returning to campus. If you've seen Ohio State's it's very impressive. I don't think it needs to rise to that level but UCAA has no visible presence on campus today. And if some parking, either adjacent or in very close proximity, could be part of the plan I could see alumni wanting to rent space there for their own reunion events, weddings, graduations celebrations, etc..
2. More outdoor student recreation spaces. I understand (but disagree with) the Park Board not wanting varsity sports in Burnet Woods. But UC and the city could collaborate to create shared use facilities for tennis, volleyball or soccer that would make the park better for all.
3. Beyond the campus footprint, bring the streetcar up the hill to UC, Short Vine, the Medical Center, and Children's Hospitals. One reason the streetcar has failed as a transportation link is its limited utility running only from the Banks to OTR. It needed to connect Uptown, OTR, and downtown to be fully functional. Linked to campus, it would be unique in all of Ohio, if not the entire Midwest. And students could easily access jobs, entertainment, and the best of our city without needing a car on the hilltop.

Maybe include an incline? Cincinnati whiffed when it got rid of its inclines decades ago. They're not only practical in a hilly town, but also a tourist attraction, as Pittsburgh has known all along. I remember riding the Mt. Adams incline as a youngster in the late 40s. Great fun.

I agree. We were having dinner at the Incline Public House in Price Hill a couple of weeks ago on a clear sunny evening and imaging what saving just one of those inclines would have meant to our city and the neighborhoods those served. The one on Mt. Washington in Pittsburgh is very cool.

Since this thread has gone in new directions, here's an interesting news release from UC Health about their most ambitious rebuild of facilities on their end of the UC campus footprint. Exciting to watch Uptown come alive as never before:

https://www.uchealth.com/en/media-room/p...ton-campus

(03-24-2021 12:37 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 10:40 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 08:33 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  The late President Steger, when speaking to alumni or donor groups, talked about his ambitious campus rebuild saying the new buildings were all great but once erected, they made the adjoining ones look bad. He was only half joking--when UC became a full state institution it was quickly evident that the Clifton campus was decades behind the rest of the state universities in terms of needing both new and remodeled buildings.

The billion dollars plus represented in that rebuild created what Forbes and other national publications described as one of the world's most beautiful campuses.
https://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/re...orbes.html

While UC won't ever have a marina or golf course as some others do, it is interesting to think about what is still needed; a wish list so to speak. So I'll share three and will be curious if others might add to the list:
1. A large, modern Alumni Center to host visitors, conduct large events, and be a center for alumni life when returning to campus. If you've seen Ohio State's it's very impressive. I don't think it needs to rise to that level but UCAA has no visible presence on campus today. And if some parking, either adjacent or in very close proximity, could be part of the plan I could see alumni wanting to rent space there for their own reunion events, weddings, graduations celebrations, etc..
2. More outdoor student recreation spaces. I understand (but disagree with) the Park Board not wanting varsity sports in Burnet Woods. But UC and the city could collaborate to create shared use facilities for tennis, volleyball or soccer that would make the park better for all.
3. Beyond the campus footprint, bring the streetcar up the hill to UC, Short Vine, the Medical Center, and Children's Hospitals. One reason the streetcar has failed as a transportation link is its limited utility running only from the Banks to OTR. It needed to connect Uptown, OTR, and downtown to be fully functional. Linked to campus, it would be unique in all of Ohio, if not the entire Midwest. And students could easily access jobs, entertainment, and the best of our city without needing a car on the hilltop.

Maybe include an incline? Cincinnati whiffed when it got rid of its inclines decades ago. They're not only practical in a hilly town, but also a tourist attraction, as Pittsburgh has known all along. I remember riding the Mt. Adams incline as a youngster in the late 40s. Great fun.

I agree. We were having dinner at the Incline Public House in Price Hill a couple of weeks ago on a clear sunny evening and imaging what saving just one of those inclines would have meant to our city and the neighborhoods those served. The one on Mt. Washington in Pittsburgh is very cool.

Since this thread has gone in new directions, here's an interesting news release from UC Health about their most ambitious rebuild of facilities on their end of the UC campus footprint. Exciting to watch Uptown come alive as never before:

https://www.uchealth.com/en/media-room/p...ton-campus

Wow someone older than me. The Mt. Adams closed in 1948 . Price Hill in 1943. Bellevue 1926. Fairview 1923 and Mt. Auburn in 1898.

Yes the one in Pitt is cool but Cincinnati has the streetcar from nowhere to nowhere that no one rides.

(03-24-2021 09:06 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 08:56 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(03-23-2021 04:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-23-2021 03:02 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(03-23-2021 11:53 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I think facility upgrades are less important than the people running the facilities, and providing the organizational support for excellence.

Architectural wonders are frequently inhabited by failing organizations (like the Sears Tower, the Longaberger Basket Building, or the U.S. Capitol). On the other hand, Steve Jobs started Apple in his garage.


Rather than replacing perfectly functional facilities, it might be a better investment to pay 30% above industry average for new professors. And to double the budget for travel, research, grad students, and student interactions with industry.

I think it's a symbiotic relationship between the two. Top faculty are not going to be attracted to departments in run down buildings that make it clear they are not a high priority to the university. OTOH, investing in shiny facilities without also investing in the best people to fill them is also half-assed. When one talks about the hard sciences, the former becomes even more important. Top tier physicists are going to want top grade labs for themselves and their research teams. Top tier astronomers are going to want guaranteed time on top tier telescopes in Arizona or Chile, and so on.

As for those who say this is irrelevant with the move to online only, that belies the point that UC needs to be one of the "winners" that still focuses primarily on on-campus education. It's going to be the losers who go largely online in a desperate attempt to stay afloat.

I've taught in state-of-the-art Big Ten buildings, and I've taught in glorified high school classrooms with one whiteboard that is blocked by the overhead projector. The difference is miniscule; a good teacher can teach just as well in both environments. If I had the choice between a great classroom and a 20% raise, I'd take the cash.

And if the choice is between an office in new Lindner and old Lindner, I'd choose old Lindner 7 days a week. Signature pieces of architecture are sometimes awful places to work.

Which brings us back to Crosley: a signature architectural innovation at the time, and a lousy place to work.

I agree that up-to-date lab facilities are crucial for scientists & engineers. But I was under the impression you were mostly talking about liberal arts & humanities.

I think all Arts & Sciences have been shortchanged at UC, including the hard sciences. One can see that in looking at the last NRC rankings of doctoral programs for things like physics, chemistry or astronomy and looking at where UC falls relative to OSU and the rest of the system (hint: we're not always second and when we are we're almost always closer to the MAC school below us than to OSU above us).

At the end of the day, I think UC is on the verge of becoming a great national research university and one on the brink of AAU membership. We, however, are not there yet, and we'll never get there until we bring up the academic core of any great university to the quality of our med school, engineering college or DAAP. It'll take a strategic plan and committed investment to do that both in terms of facilities and faculty. We need to invest in both.

My kid is applying to 10 schools next year, and UC is going to be one of them. He has four reaches (Northwestern, A lower Ivy tbd, Carleton and Kenyon), four matches (OSU, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota) and 2 safeties (UC and IU). I think it's amazing how much UC has grown that it is listed alongside Indiana, but it still has room for more growth, and I want to see the day, it's listed alongside the top half Big Ten schools on some kid's list.

How we get there? Invest more broadly in academic excellence, specifically the core A&S departments. Work the state in a way that ends redundancies, increases structure putting schools into designated lanes and creates a niche for UC as something different and better than anything not in Columbus.

Wouldn't you agree, though, that a big reason for the more slanted investment towards practical sciences and professional degrees was necessary for the stage that UC was in over the last two decades, ensure they had quality programs in enrollment growth areas first to create momentum to then increase funding to prestige programs that while increase national and global institutional perception?

I agree that med, law, DAAP and engineering should have been the first priorities during the last 20 years. I just wish that A&S had been a bit more looked after. However, now is the time to make up for that and really make the investment to make up for that lost time and bring the academic core up to the level of the aforementioned colleges.

Who knows.

https://twitter.com/flugempire/status/13...8149730307

(05-06-2021 12:29 PM)dsquare Wrote:  Who knows.

https://twitter.com/flugempire/status/13...8149730307

As I recall, this guy's posts had zero credibility (accuracy) the last time the realignment fires were burning brightly. I noticed a poster known as Moose has returned recently to Bearcat Journal's realignment thread with a similar story. He too has a spotty record on such predictions.

There was a published report out there in recent months from Boise that it may be weighing its options; ditto SDSU I suppose given its new football facility. So there is at least some basis for such a prediction.

I do believe change is coming in college football but I'm not convinced these guys have any inside information. Just speculating here myself of course, but if Aresco can harvest the remaining quality programs in the G5 that are seated outside the P5 and combine those with the American, maybe he sees a pathway to grab a guaranteed spot for the AAC in an expanded playoff and further deepen the divide between schools committed to play at a high level and the remainders in G5.

(03-24-2021 05:47 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 12:37 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 10:40 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 08:33 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  The late President Steger, when speaking to alumni or donor groups, talked about his ambitious campus rebuild saying the new buildings were all great but once erected, they made the adjoining ones look bad. He was only half joking--when UC became a full state institution it was quickly evident that the Clifton campus was decades behind the rest of the state universities in terms of needing both new and remodeled buildings.

The billion dollars plus represented in that rebuild created what Forbes and other national publications described as one of the world's most beautiful campuses.
https://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/re...orbes.html

While UC won't ever have a marina or golf course as some others do, it is interesting to think about what is still needed; a wish list so to speak. So I'll share three and will be curious if others might add to the list:
1. A large, modern Alumni Center to host visitors, conduct large events, and be a center for alumni life when returning to campus. If you've seen Ohio State's it's very impressive. I don't think it needs to rise to that level but UCAA has no visible presence on campus today. And if some parking, either adjacent or in very close proximity, could be part of the plan I could see alumni wanting to rent space there for their own reunion events, weddings, graduations celebrations, etc..
2. More outdoor student recreation spaces. I understand (but disagree with) the Park Board not wanting varsity sports in Burnet Woods. But UC and the city could collaborate to create shared use facilities for tennis, volleyball or soccer that would make the park better for all.
3. Beyond the campus footprint, bring the streetcar up the hill to UC, Short Vine, the Medical Center, and Children's Hospitals. One reason the streetcar has failed as a transportation link is its limited utility running only from the Banks to OTR. It needed to connect Uptown, OTR, and downtown to be fully functional. Linked to campus, it would be unique in all of Ohio, if not the entire Midwest. And students could easily access jobs, entertainment, and the best of our city without needing a car on the hilltop.

Maybe include an incline? Cincinnati whiffed when it got rid of its inclines decades ago. They're not only practical in a hilly town, but also a tourist attraction, as Pittsburgh has known all along. I remember riding the Mt. Adams incline as a youngster in the late 40s. Great fun.

I agree. We were having dinner at the Incline Public House in Price Hill a couple of weeks ago on a clear sunny evening and imaging what saving just one of those inclines would have meant to our city and the neighborhoods those served. The one on Mt. Washington in Pittsburgh is very cool.

Since this thread has gone in new directions, here's an interesting news release from UC Health about their most ambitious rebuild of facilities on their end of the UC campus footprint. Exciting to watch Uptown come alive as never before:

https://www.uchealth.com/en/media-room/p...ton-campus

Wow someone older than me. The Mt. Adams closed in 1948 . Price Hill in 1943. Bellevue 1926. Fairview 1923 and Mt. Auburn in 1898.

Yes the one in Pitt is cool but Cincinnati has the streetcar from nowhere to nowhere that no one rides.

i rode it oncet

Hello fellow Bearcat fans.

I teach at the Air Force Academy and I just so happened to have a guest speak to my negotiations class. He assisted USAFA during the big 12 negotiations a few years ago and used that negotiation as a case study. Fwiw, believe it or not, the belief was USAFA was the number one front runner for two primary reasons: demographics (huge national fan base with high education/income and the desire of the big 12 to add an institution known for focusing on character. Recall that BYU had that assault scandal around that time. He shared some of the materials presented and it was just fascinating to see what that brief looked like. Details like how our o line measured up weight wise compared to other teams. Another interesting point the guest made is the mistake usafa (likely all other schools too) is they focussed on negotiating with the BIG 12 and should have also focused on the networks. You may recall the conference did not expand (each school receives equal income from the networks) and accepted a larger payout per school NOT to expand. Fascinating. The guest has no insight ln UC’s chances at the time.

Hoping for a realignment that favors UC one day.

Ps. Army Navy games pays those schools more for that game than usafa earns for their entire season.

Chad

(05-06-2021 05:44 PM)BearcatChad Wrote:  Hello fellow Bearcat fans.

I teach at the Air Force Academy and I just so happened to have a guest speak to my negotiations class. He assisted USAFA during the big 12 negotiations a few years ago and used that negotiation as a case study. Fwiw, believe it or not, the belief was USAFA was the number one front runner for two primary reasons: demographics (huge national fan base with high education/income and the desire of the big 12 to add an institution known for focusing on character. Recall that BYU had that assault scandal around that time. He shared some of the materials presented and it was just fascinating to see what that brief looked like. Details like how our o line measured up weight wise compared to other teams. Another interesting point the guest made is the mistake usafa (likely all other schools too) is they focussed on negotiating with the BIG 12 and should have also focused on the networks. You may recall the conference did not expand (each school receives equal income from the networks) and accepted a larger payout per school NOT to expand. Fascinating. The guest has no insight ln UC’s chances at the time.

Hoping for a realignment that favors UC one day.

Ps. Army Navy games pays those schools more for that game than usafa earns for their entire season.

Chad

Well what good are you?! Great story, and insight. It's interesting to learn that so many were negotiating with the wrong players. Unrelated - many moons ago (Doss was probably only in his 70s then), I was living near Leadville building trails for the Forest Service. A bunch of us scruffy types descended upon the Academy to see, of all things, a Widespread Panic show. We spent pre-show hanging out drinking with cadets. They couldn't have been a nicer bunch. We were shocked that they served alcohol on campus, and to this day I have no idea how Panic came to play a show there.

Thank you for the great story and I’m always pleased to hear when the cadets behave themselves. There is one bar now (Haps) on base that cadets can walk to. Better to have them drinking and walking rather than driving.

Go Bearcats!

Bearcat Chad

(05-06-2021 12:29 PM)dsquare Wrote:  Who knows.

https://twitter.com/flugempire/status/13...8149730307

I've said it before. Boise is a cancer. The AAC (and UC!) is firing on all cylinders right now. Why would you upset that apple cart by bringing in the G5 version of Texas into the fold. Not to mention that they don't bring anything in terms of basketball, Olympic sports or academics (not that the latter really matters for any conference other than the BIG and PAC).

Another dashed hope, coming in here and seeing this thread at the top of the list.

Then to think we may be stuck with Boyzee and SDSU... that's all we need is another Wichita and ECU.

Hartford booted to DIII.


Jeff Jacobs
@jeffjacobs123
HARTFORD,—The University of Hartford Board of Regents voted today to transition the University’s athletics programs from NCAA Division I to Division III.

(05-06-2021 07:07 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 12:29 PM)dsquare Wrote:  Who knows.

https://twitter.com/flugempire/status/13...8149730307

I've said it before. Boise is a cancer. The AAC (and UC!) is firing on all cylinders right now. Why would you upset that apple cart by bringing in the G5 version of Texas into the fold. Not to mention that they don't bring anything in terms of basketball, Olympic sports or academics (not that the latter really matters for any conference other than the BIG and PAC).

If Aresco is thinking straight, SDSU is the real prize. You get Boise to bring in SDSU.

Institutionally, SDSU is the best fit in the country for the AAC. Large urban public school, huge local alumni base, a natural rival for Navy. And they'll have the best combo of football & basketball facilities in the state when their football stadium is completed.

SDSU is where UC would be if the Bengals had just left town, the Buckeyes (USC & UCLA) were at a low point, and the city had just given us 80 acres to expand.

Yeah, I think the only way you add in Boise is if you do this:

SDSU all sports, BYU all sports, Boise football-only.

Since I don't think that'll happen, I don't really care about these twitter troll videos.

(05-06-2021 05:44 PM)BearcatChad Wrote:  Hello fellow Bearcat fans.

I teach at the Air Force Academy and I just so happened to have a guest speak to my negotiations class. He assisted USAFA during the big 12 negotiations a few years ago and used that negotiation as a case study. Fwiw, believe it or not, the belief was USAFA was the number one front runner for two primary reasons: demographics (huge national fan base with high education/income and the desire of the big 12 to add an institution known for focusing on character. Recall that BYU had that assault scandal around that time. He shared some of the materials presented and it was just fascinating to see what that brief looked like. Details like how our o line measured up weight wise compared to other teams. Another interesting point the guest made is the mistake usafa (likely all other schools too) is they focussed on negotiating with the BIG 12 and should have also focused on the networks. You may recall the conference did not expand (each school receives equal income from the networks) and accepted a larger payout per school NOT to expand. Fascinating. The guest has no insight ln UC’s chances at the time.

Hoping for a realignment that favors UC one day.

Ps. Army Navy games pays those schools more for that game than usafa earns for their entire season.

Chad

Interesting story. You teach at a fine academic institution in a beautiful setting. I have great respect for the academies and the football teams all compete hard with some of the nation's best when given the opportunity.

While his analysis is pretty insightful, I'm never been sure the academies wanted to compete at the P5 level. None have been invited to date. Army dropped out of C-USA to schedule as an independent; Navy has been competitive in the AAC which is good football, but not at the Big 12 level most weekends.

A story many of us heard was that UC and UCF were the leaders in the clubhouse after the B12 expansion analysis was completed. Texas never wanted expansion from the G5 and got its way once again by letting the beauty pageant play out while the B12 commissioner engineered (blackmailed) TV into more money to stand down.

I would welcome Air Force into the American. Ditto BYU. Both bring more fans and national interest to Nippert Stadium than the bottom feeders in the AAC. After those two (or maybe Boise), it's hard to suggest many add value to the AAC brand. And Aresco should always be having those exploratory conversations. If not for expansion, simply as a contingency for replacement if schools like UCF and Cincy suddenly get the call from a P5.

(05-07-2021 03:52 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Hartford booted to DIII.


Jeff Jacobs
@jeffjacobs123
HARTFORD,—The University of Hartford Board of Regents voted today to transition the University’s athletics programs from NCAA Division I to Division III.

Uconn is on the phone trying to schedule them in football.

Flag football that is. LOL

(05-07-2021 11:46 AM)dsquare Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 03:52 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Hartford booted to DIII.


Jeff Jacobs
@jeffjacobs123
HARTFORD,—The University of Hartford Board of Regents voted today to transition the University’s athletics programs from NCAA Division I to Division III.

Uconn is on the phone trying to schedule them in football.

Flag football that is. LOL

Who would be favored?