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

(10-15-2021 01:59 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  They could also blow it by lunchtime.

That's also a distinct possibility

(10-15-2021 02:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 01:59 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  They could also blow it by lunchtime.

That's also a distinct possibility

Captain, both you and Rath make good points.

If I may engage in a false dichotomy, if I had to choose between UC having great sports and great academics, I’m afraid I would be guilty of choosing academics. With that said, UC has shown that they are not #1 in the nation when it comes to selling itself to potential students using “just the facts ma’am.”

Some years ago, CCM signed Eugene Wright as a professor in the Jazz Department. Eugene Wright is famous for having spent many years as the bass player for Dave Brubeck. He played on the #2 and #3 best selling jazz albums of all time that were “true jazz” and not “pop jazz”. Mr. Wright was so respected in the jazz community that his hiring was almost analogous to the hiring of Neil Armstrong in the engineering school. Perhaps a better comparison would be the hiring of The Beatles to teach Introductory Composition. CCM almost went out of its way to be quiet about hiring Eugene Wright because he lacked big-time academic credentials. Academic snobbery won out over sanity.

tl;dr: Dollars are not always well spent.

At the risk of both getting too philosophical and overgeneralizing, I believe more money on the academic side is a plus for any university with one caveat. To improve the institution it needs to go directly to recruiting/retaining better faculty, funding research, and continuing to provide financial incentives to the best and brightest students to choose UC over other well regarded public research universities.

Sadly, it often seems new dollars go into an ever expanding administrative bureaucracy where new positions are created and become permanent fixed costs with questionable ROI. In this way, public universities can mirror the worst aspects of the federal bureaucracy. And none of this is to single out UC but is more a comment on state funded higher education writ large. Please don't misunderstand--I'm a big supporter of public higher education and a donor too. But I especially want my giving to reach students in need and to attract the very best faculty for both teaching and research. Seems to me our tax dollars should follow that pathway too.

Miami's subsidy is 70% of their budget. That's insane. I know it's not a terribly popular opinion, but I'd love to see state legislatures start to put a cap on what percent of an athletic budget can come from student fees or direct institutional support. I think a third is fair.

(10-16-2021 07:13 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  At the risk of both getting too philosophical and overgeneralizing, I believe more money on the academic side is a plus for any university with one caveat. To improve the institution it needs to go directly to recruiting/retaining better faculty, funding research, and continuing to provide financial incentives to the best and brightest students to choose UC over other well regarded public research universities.

Sadly, it often seems new dollars go into an ever expanding administrative bureaucracy where new positions are created and become permanent fixed costs with questionable ROI. In this way, public universities can mirror the worst aspects of the federal bureaucracy. And none of this is to single out UC but is more a comment on state funded higher education writ large. Please don't misunderstand--I'm a big supporter of public higher education and a donor too. But I especially want my giving to reach students in need and to attract the very best faculty for both teaching and research. Seems to me our tax dollars should follow that pathway too.

(10-16-2021 08:01 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  Miami's subsidy is 70% of their budget. That's insane. I know it's not a terribly popular opinion, but I'd love to see state legislatures start to put a cap on what percent of an athletic budget can come from student fees or direct institutional support. I think a third is fair.

I think the day of reckoning is coming for most members of the MAC very soon. Seems to me they've propped up their football programs mostly with pre-conference buy games in the absence of fans in their stands and a TV deal that pays them a pittance.

I fear the G5 will soon be shrinking, and mostly not from migration to the P5. The haves and have nots in FBS football are continuing to be separated and college football for many schools is no longer sustainable.

I'm thankful UC is on the right side of that cut line after Big XII inclusion but it will require continued investment by our alumni and fans to sustain this high level program. It can now be said, we're in "the club" but I think we all want more than to be Washington State or Vandy from a competitive standpoint.