Are we a Big Time program or think we are?

[Red_N_Black_Attack]

I answered this in the Football thread and thought it deserved it's own topic in Basketball.

Thank God we're not Georgia. A mediocre program in the toughest league in the country. No thanks.

In Basketball, we are Georgia. I like Coach Richt, but it will eventually get to point where the fanbase will not tolerate being a bridesmaid even in the "toghest football conference".

This got me to thinking, are we a Big Time Program? I mean, our fanbase does not have the power to save a coach (Huggs or Kennedy) or to replace a coach (Mick). I personally am in the minority saying to keep Mick, but nonetheless, the AD does what he wants to do or what the administration tells them to do. Either there are some big time donors telling the administration to take this course (an unfathomable thought) or the administration doesn't get enough money to worry about pissing off the fanbase.

Big Time Programs have multiple boosters, and the feelings of the fanbase are carefully managed by the administration. Richt can bring in good players, win 9 games a year, high graduations, put players in the NFL, etc.... and still lose his job because the fans want to win their conference and a National Championship. Same thing happened in Kentucky, got rid of Tubby. Same thing in other Major Programs, the administration follows the donor money.

My argument is that UC monies are generated by conference affiliation, tv contracts, advertisers, and corporate sponsorship after moving to the Big East. These monies outweigh any losses in donor money (due to economy or program direction displeasure, or lack of attendance). WE AS FANS WILL DETERMINE IF UC BECOMES A BIG TIME PROGRAM IN BASKETBALL AND FOOTBALL. When our donations reach a point to where the administrators cannot live without that income, then they will also set the winning as the #1 priority in measuring a coach.

 

[TheLongHaul]

I'd rather the AD do what's best for the program, not what the person with the most money thinks is best.

 

[adrock]

I'd rather the AD do what's best for the program, not what the person with the most money thinks is best.

+1. Said another way, I'd rather have a qualified person make decisions about the direction of the program than a rabid fan that happens to have a lot of money.

 

[Red_N_Black_Attack]

I'd rather the AD do what's best for the program, not what the person with the most money thinks is best.

I agree, and you make my point. UC has few donors giving a ton of money (Shakely -?sp?). The best thing for the program is to grow revenue, which is usually some combination of winning games, reaching out to donors, and other sources of income (tv and conference contracts). My argument (not clearly stated earlier) is that the tv and conference revenue since joining the BigEast have offset donor and attendance income and overall income is greater than it was in 2002. Every coach and AD wants to win and believes their course is "right for the program". When the primary source of income comes from a large group of donors (tens of thousands not just one big one or 3500 UCats members), then the patience and expectations to win will become a bigger priority. At this point, Mike Thomas can say we have increased revenue without winning, and with a smaller fanbase (actually that should be donating fanbase as there are a lot of Bearcat fans out there as evidenced by attendance to the Sugar Bowl).

At this point, there is no pressure to win now in the equation to keep or fire Mick. That is because there is not a large organized membership in UCats.

 

[TheLongHaul]

Well UCATS membership does suck but IIRC it has grown significantly over the last year or so. Regardless, to be successful, UC needs it's alumni to step up to the plate. But UC has to do a better job building loyalty and bringing the alumnus in.

I want the AD to make the decisions, but it'd be nice if he could make decisions without too much regard to the monetary consequences. But I don't think it would have mattered with the Cronin decision. I think he was getting 5 years regardless, unless they just imploded, which they certainly did not.

 

[JasonS]

The big difference between Georgia football and UC basketball is that the Georgia program wasn't given a version of the death penalty by it's administration and is still middle of the pack in the SEC and has been nearly every year since 1982 (2002 and 2005 the exceptions).

 

[Kingsley Court]

JasonS and others, are you guys saying that UC basketball is more "big time" then Georia football? I don't know if I can buy that argument if that's what your saying. I think in the mid 90's UC bball was bigger then Georgia Football, but for the past decade or so I would say Georgia football is more big time then UC basketball. Not trying to degrade the program, it's just my personal opinion.

 

[TheLongHaul]

UC basketball doesn't compare to Georgia football. Plus, its kind of apples to oranges. Top football schools draw in so much more revenue and fan support for souther football schools is crazy. Georgia could be bottom of the SEC and they would still be a huge draw.

 

[swg]

Are we a Big Time program or think we are?

We are who we thought we were.

 

[ready2go]

Actually very few schools make money in the athletic department as a whole. And based on football alone only a handful of schools gain. LSU, OHIO STATE, MICHIGAN, PENN STATE, TEXAS, TENNESSEE are some. A couple of these schools even changed coaches. Even though these coaches were staples in the program.

Even with UC making BCS Bowls the past few years they have come out in the negative. Currently UC's Athletic Department is millionS in the whole. I'm not sure you can measure a "Big Time Program" based on revenue or who controls the programs. The expenses of each sports team out weighs the revenue in most cases.

Tradition is more of a measuring tool. In which case UC is a Big Time Program.

 

[JasonS]

JasonS and others, are you guys saying that UC basketball is more "big time" then Georia football? I don't know if I can buy that argument if that's what your saying. I think in the mid 90's UC bball was bigger then Georgia Football, but for the past decade or so I would say Georgia football is more big time then UC basketball. Not trying to degrade the program, it's just my personal opinion.

No. I wasn't the one to initially make that comparison. Someone else did and I was just responding to it. If you look at UC basketball going all the way back to the 50s and 60s and do the same with Georgia Football, they are actually quite similar. Georgia had 20 years without winning a conference title (if I remember the numbers right). They were very good for a while in the 70s and 80s and have had a couple good years recently. That is not all that different than UC basketball (minus the recent success).

My initial point is that I am glad UC football is not Georgia football TODAY. I would much rather be the big dog in the Big East and have a chance at BCS bowls and even a national title compared to Georgia who is behind Florida, LSU, and Alabama (at least) in their own conference.

 

[Bearcat_NTS]

Unfortunately UC is not a big time program, not solely based on the results but based on the revenue gained. Big Time Programs rack in Big Time $$$$$

 

[swg]

Unfortunately UC is not a big time program, not solely based on the results but based on the revenue gained. Big Time Programs rack in Big Time $$$$$

I agree. But we're inching closer. Xavier fought the midmajor tag for years, and I do think they finally got over the hump. It takes consistent winning, something that UC can do if all things stay equal.

 

[Kingsley Court]

My initial point is that I am glad UC football is not Georgia football TODAY. I would much rather be the big dog in the Big East and have a chance at BCS bowls and even a national title compared to Georgia who is behind Florida, LSU, and Alabama (at least) in their own conference.

I thought they were comparing it to UC bball today. I am still not sure which position I would rather be in. Georgia has been competitive lately in the SEC, and they can certainly recruit on a different level. I think in regards to football I would rather be a Georgia than UC. Not a knock on UC though, because I think it's great what they have done, but I would rather be in the top conference for football, and be competitive in it, then be in one of the lower football BCS conferences and dominate.

 

[bearcat jeff]

I had this debate on another site about UC basketball. Many in this fan base have elevated this program far above where it has been (even in the 90'-2005) and therefore put unrealistic expectations on the program now.

The question I asked is was UC elite or very good during that time frame. My opinion is that UC went to one final four in 16 years and never approached the success of schools like Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, and Mich State and a couple others during that time. Yet many Cincinnati fans still place the program (in their minds) as having fallen from that top shelf level. UC was a very good program, but not elite.

Before anybody says I'm disrespecting the success of that era, let me say I absolutely respect and cherish those times. The consecutive tournament runs and league titles were great. However, the team never beat a higher seed in the tournament, and often flamed out against lower seeded teams. There wasn't enough high level consistent success to call them elite. They were just below in the very good range.

The program is currently at a crossroads and this coming season is crucial. I believe UC has an opportunity to move up a notch on the ladder toward achieving the type of success they enjoyed in the 90's and early 2000's. They have achieved at a mediocre rate the past couple of seasons and next seasons success or lack thereof will play a huge role in bringing in the talent to move up a step or back down.

The pieces are in place to be a big time program. Football is on the rise and is garnering respect. The basketball program has to take a step back toward the very good level as well. Once you reach there the next step becomes easier than it was in the past because of the current league affiliation and subsequent visibility it provides. Mick Cronin has to again make it attractive to play for the Bearcats. The only way to do that is by winning and playing in the NCAA tournament. Success begets success. Players want to be a part of a winner. They want to be seen and play in the NBA.

No, Cincinnati is not currently a Big Time program. But it certainly has things in place to become one.

 

[swg]

UC has turned into a football school. There, I said it.

Problem: Most fans aren't buying into that, and may never.

Problem #2: We're not a bigtime program in football, so that our coaches gain success then leave for big dollars. It's all good as long as the next coach isn't a Ty Willingham, Isiah Thomas, or the current General Electric CEO. The problem is that it slows down recruiting. Xavier is able to continue it's run because couple kids commit to the consistent program. We may leave behind a coach or two when a coach is turned over, but the big name is gone, and uncertainty erupts.

Problem#3: The fans need to build it, then it will come. Cincy fans have been beaten down more often than a Michael Vick dog. Between the Reds, Bengals (in the past hopefully), and UC...the 'losing is a disease' syndrome has set in and optimism is at a premium. Getting ONE of the two programs back on top (yep, football starts from ground zero yet again) will help the other. Kids like a winner, so lets give them one. Support is crucial, in the stands as well as at places like BCT. Attend the games, support the team unconditionally, and the players/recruits will feed off the energy.
Lately...the recruits have been feeding off the negative energy. Time to try something different.

 

[Kingsley Court]

Great posts 'Jeff and SWG. I can't really disagree with much that was said. Reps to the both of you, maybe get some in return?

EDIT: Couldn't rep you SWG, the man wouldn't let me.

 

[JasonS]

Great posts 'Jeff and SWG. I can't really disagree with much that was said. Reps to the both of you, maybe get some in return?

EDIT: Couldn't rep you SWG, the man wouldn't let me.

The man is always keeping you down!

 

[swg]

I can't rep myself, so I'm keeping myself down.

 

[Who Dey Time]

I think one major hurdle that has reared its ugly head is the sense of entitlement that some fans have due to our success in the 90's.

A lot of late 20 early 30-something fans grew up with UC being the only consistent winner during their young years. The Reds were not good with a couple exceptions, the Bengals were not good, so UC hoops was the one thing that was almost a guaranteed winner. They feel that the former coach brought them there only winner and with him gone the lack of success of the program now is squarely because of the new guy.

Unfortunately, the only thing that is going to reverse this fickleness is returning to NCAA as that seems to be the determining factor in whether the program is successful or not. The positive is that the fickleness that has led them to bash will bring them back once we achieve the success that is coming.