Big 12

[WAITE HOYT 2]

The question I would ask is, "Was it more beneficial to the University overall to have a top end program with character issues like the one Huggins ran, or a relatively clean borderline top 25 program that Cronin is running?"

I like Cronin and think he is doing a great job for UC/athletes with his resources. However, I believe the Huggins years were better for UC overall.

you can have both but it isn't easy. We always talk about raising the bar why not both?

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

While you may have stated it a bit harsh, you are correct.

The coaches are not being paid millions to shape young men. They are being paid millions to elevate the program and essentially advertise the university's brand on a national stage. The brand awareness that sports generate, has a huge impact on the value of the degree and what the university can charge for that degree.

With this being said, I still would want my school graduating the players and shaping them into great men. Winning is just still more important for the university overall.

If winning basketball games has more of a impact on our brand then the education we provide then we are all in trouble. How we have fallen.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Really, shouldn't it be both? These don't have to be mutually exclusive. I want to win AND I want those wearing the uniform of my alma mater (and coaching it) to reflect well on our university. Whether we like it or not, how our coaches, players, and teams are perceived do reflect on the university. Win baby. But not at ALL costs. Don't cheat. Don't break the law. Don't embarrass the university. Ideally, be an upstanding role model for young people. Representing the university with pride and dignity should be table stakes.

But of course, as far as the coach is concerned, you also have to win. That's why you make the big bucks.

doing both is the right answer. Why should we lower the bar. As all have pointed out they get paid millions.

 

[NKY Bearcat]

If winning basketball games has more of a impact on our brand then the education we provide then we are all in trouble. How we have fallen.

Simply put, it is more important. When applying for a job across the country, the prominence of your school's sports team matter more than the quality of the education you received. The person screening resumes in HR or sitting across from you in an interview, would be more encouraged to see a UC engineering degree compared to Rose Holman. They wouldn't likely know who Rose Holman is, and would simply screen them out early in the process. Unfortunately this is case, but it is reality.

doing both is the right answer. Why should we lower the bar. As all have pointed out they get paid millions.

"Doing both" doesn't answer the question and isn't reality in college sports. Which program would you rather have representing your school, Harvard's or Kentucky?

Yes I want UC to win a National Title with 4.0 GPA students. But if I have to choose between a National Title with 2.0 GPA students, or having a team that loses in the first round with 4.0 GPA students; you know which team you want. You also know which team the President of the university would want. Everyone is taking the title, and the benefits that come with it. It is what would be best for the university overall.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Simply put, it is more important. When applying for a job across the country, the prominence of your school's sports team matter more than the quality of the education you received. The person screening resumes in HR or sitting across from you in an interview, would be more encouraged to see a UC engineering degree compared to Rose Holman. They wouldn't likely know who Rose Holman is, and would simply screen them out early in the process. Unfortunately this is case, but it is reality.




"Doing both" doesn't answer the question and isn't reality in college sports. Which program would you rather have representing your school, Harvard's or Kentucky?

Yes I want UC to win a National Title with 4.0 GPA students. But if I have to choose between a National Title with 2.0 GPA students, or having a team that loses in the first round with 4.0 GPA students; you know which team you want. You also know which team the President of the university would want. Everyone is taking the title, and the benefits that come with it. It is what would be best for the university overall.

i do not dispute what your say but I'm glad at 62 i don't have to live long enough to seem the more results of that reality. Athletics trump education. wow!!! To answer your question I take Harvard. Also of that is the path we are on pay the athletes. Just giving them a scholarship is certainly not enough.

 

[CrakkerBarrellsX]

If winning basketball games has more of a impact on our brand then the education we provide then we are all in trouble. How we have fallen.

12 students out of 50k has zero effect on education level at an university. They received BASKETBALL scholarships not ACADEMIC. If your getting guys into nba who cares what they grades look like?

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

12 students out of 50k has zero effect on education level at an university. They received BASKETBALL scholarships not ACADEMIC. If your getting guys into nba who cares what they grades look like?

I agree 12 out of 50,000 have zero impact. What does that tell you when those 12 have a bigger impact on the brand then the 50'000 students for how they play basketball as opposed to the business majors,lawyers,doctors and many other professionals. Also in the last 10 years how many have we put in the NBA?
I don't think basketball is listed as a major. Now if you want to go that route I'd be all for it. As it stands now they are forced to go to class or lose their eligibility. So while they are on athletic scholarship there is crteria they have to meet. If all we want them to do is win basketball games why must they go to class? Isn't practice a form of class. Games as well. Anybody posting here know where we stand from a education standpoint. We used to be one of the top engineering schools in the country. Look I'm all for having pride in all the programs your school represents. But attaching our brand or national perception to our athletics is something that we all should really take a long hard look at.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Anyway enough. This is a big 12 thread. Sorry for the distraction. I appreciate you all sharing your thoughts.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

Anyway enough. This is a big 12 thread. Sorry for the distraction. I appreciate you all sharing your thoughts.

No problem Waite. I don't think anyone is worried about it if we can see how the thread made a natural progression and no one was deliberately stirring the pot.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Thanks Jake! Just absolutely stunned that guys who received degrees from UC are alright with the value of their hard earned education being tied to the performance of their basketball program. Am I missing something? I mean am I the only one who finds it odd that someone would decide to attend the University based on the performance of their athletic teams? I got 3 Of my 4 kids with degrees and if one of them told me they made the decision to attend that school because they had a good basketball team I would seriously have to question my parenting skills.

 

[Bcatfollower]

Thanks Jake! Just absolutely stunned that guys who received degrees from UC are alright with the value of their hard earned education being tied to the performance of their basketball program. Am I missing something? I mean am I the only one who finds it odd that someone would decide to attend the University based on the performance of their athletic teams? I got 3 Of my 4 kids with degrees and if one of them told me they made the decision to attend that school because they had a good basketball team I would seriously have to question my parenting skills.

Right or wrong athletic success affects perception and notoriety of a university. I'm sure kids set on going to ivy league schools aren't swayed, but I believe your average student is affected by they name recognition on field/court success brings. So the cycle can be on field/court success, atrract more applicants to school, enables the university to be more selective on which students are accepted, better academics performance due to higher quality students, repeat.

 

[waterhead]

Thanks Jake! Just absolutely stunned that guys who received degrees from UC are alright with the value of their hard earned education being tied to the performance of their basketball program. Am I missing something? I mean am I the only one who finds it odd that someone would decide to attend the University based on the performance of their athletic teams? I got 3 Of my 4 kids with degrees and if one of them told me they made the decision to attend that school because they had a good basketball team I would seriously have to question my parenting skills.

I agree the coach needs to stay on top of players on scholarship but the other 50,000 students don't need a coach to be their personal tutor. It's the students job to study and the university provides the platform. If our coaches were hired to be professors...on court success would be irrelevant and the hiring process would be drastically different.

 

[2bearcatdad]

Simply put, it is more important. When applying for a job across the country, the prominence of your school's sports team matter more than the quality of the education you received. The person screening resumes in HR or sitting across from you in an interview, would be more encouraged to see a UC engineering degree compared to Rose Holman. They wouldn't likely know who Rose Holman is, and would simply screen them out early in the process. Unfortunately this is case, but it is reality.




"Doing both" doesn't answer the question and isn't reality in college sports. Which program would you rather have representing your school, Harvard's or Kentucky?

Yes I want UC to win a National Title with 4.0 GPA students. But if I have to choose between a National Title with 2.0 GPA students, or having a team that loses in the first round with 4.0 GPA students; you know which team you want. You also know which team the President of the university would want. Everyone is taking the title, and the benefits that come with it. It is what would be best for the university overall.

Gotta say, you're off base here. I'm VP of Engineering for a large Cincy based company. We employ about 200 engineers. When we're making hiring decisions, we could care less what the win-loss record of your school was, but we do know who turns out the best engineers. Purdue may suck in football, but their engineers are generally first rate. And we know all about smaller, high quality schools like Rose Holman as well.

That said, I'm happy to report UC operates at a retry high level both with our engineering students and our sports programs.

Athletics programs get schools a lot of attention, but at least in technical fields, they don't get their graduates jobs.

 

[JasonS]

Simply put, it is more important. When applying for a job across the country, the prominence of your school's sports team matter more than the quality of the education you received. The person screening resumes in HR or sitting across from you in an interview, would be more encouraged to see a UC engineering degree compared to Rose Holman. They wouldn't likely know who Rose Holman is, and would simply screen them out early in the process. Unfortunately this is case, but it is reality.




"Doing both" doesn't answer the question and isn't reality in college sports. Which program would you rather have representing your school, Harvard's or Kentucky?

Yes I want UC to win a National Title with 4.0 GPA students. But if I have to choose between a National Title with 2.0 GPA students, or having a team that loses in the first round with 4.0 GPA students; you know which team you want. You also know which team the President of the university would want. Everyone is taking the title, and the benefits that come with it. It is what would be best for the university overall.

As someone who is in a management position and responsible for hiring my team, I couldn't disagree more. I am a sports nut and the sports team at a specific University plays zero role in whether I speak to someone about an open position or not. It's more important that they went to a good school academically for the job they are applying for. You may be correct in some cases but I would venture a guess that the situation you described is the minority. The better UC gets academically, the better it is for me as an alum. Period.

 

[NKY Bearcat]

Gotta say, you're off base here. I'm VP of Engineering for a large Cincy based company. We employ about 200 engineers. When we're making hiring decisions, we could care less what the win-loss record of your school was, but we do know who turns out the best engineers. Purdue may suck in football, but their engineers are generally first rate. And we know all about smaller, high quality schools like Rose Holman as well.

That said, I'm happy to report UC operates at a retry high level both with our engineering students and our sports programs.

Athletics programs get schools a lot of attention, but at least in technical fields, they don't get their graduates jobs.

As a large local company you should know who Rose Holman is. I would ask when you are hiring, how do you decide which of 3 applicants to interview out of 20.

What I am talking about is preference that happens outside our small region of the world. Small companies on both coasts would have no idea who regional colleges like Rose Holman, Hanover, or Wittenberg are. It would be naive to think your schools brand name recognition through sports doesn'the have an effect on who these types of companies interview.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

I agree the coach needs to stay on top of players on scholarship but the other 50,000 students don't need a coach to be their personal tutor. It's the students job to study and the university provides the platform. If our coaches were hired to be professors...on court success would be irrelevant and the hiring process would be drastically different.

I'm not saying winning isn't a factor when grading the coach. He should also represent the values he actually professes when closing a deal in a athletes living room. If anyone posting here thinks they go in telling parents my number 1 priority is winning games because that's what I get paid to do and everything else comes second. Well I got a bridge to sell you. When my son was being recruited I wanted to be certain that the man who was going to represent guidance and be a potential sounding board for my son in my absence was trust worthy and put his well being at the level he professed when sitting in my living room. I guess the point I'm trying to make and doing a very bad job at is if applicants are more interested in the outcome of a basketball season as opposed to the quality of the curriculum we as a society may have our priorities a bit out of place. The absolute best coaches in my opinion are those who excel in both areas. If we want the best for our university that should be our expectation.

 

[NKY Bearcat]

As someone who is in a management position and responsible for hiring my team, I couldn't disagree more. I am a sports nut and the sports team at a specific University plays zero role in whether I speak to someone about an open position or not. It's more important that they went to a good school academically for the job they are applying for. You may be correct in some cases but I would venture a guess that the situation you described is the minority. The better UC gets academically, the better it is for me as an alum. Period.

The better they get academically, the better for all students. I am not suggesting that academics are not important, but the 12 students on the court don't decide the academics for 50,000.

Between those 12 students and the coaching staff, the best thing they can do for the University is increase the brand recognition of your degree. That's why the number 1 priority of the coach is to win.

 

[NKY Bearcat]

I'm not saying winning isn't a factor when grading the coach. He should also represent the values he actually professes when closing a deal in a athletes living room. If anyone posting here thinks they go in telling parents my number 1 priority is winning games because that's what I get paid to do and everything else comes second. Well I got a bridge to sell you. When my son was being recruited I wanted to be certain that the man who was going to represent guidance and be a potential sounding board for my son in my absence was trust worthy and put his well being at the level he professed when sitting in my living room. I guess the point I'm trying to make and doing a very bad job at is if applicants are more interested in the outcome of a basketball season as opposed to the quality of the curriculum we as a society may have our priorities a bit out of place. The absolute best coaches in my opinion are those who excel in both areas. If we want the best for our university that should be our expectation.

It is pretty simple, you get more applicants the more your school is in the national spotlight for good things. With more applicants, the school can be more selective. The more selective the better the academics.

You might not like that correlation that people apply to school because of sports. But students often apply to schools that they perceive to be interesting and exciting. Where do you think they get those perceptions? Campus tours? Why do they decide to tour the campus? It all comes back to brand recognition.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

As a large local company you should know who Rose Holman is. I would ask when you are hiring, how do you decide which of 3 applicants to interview out of 20.

What I am talking about is preference that happens outside our small region of the world. Small companies on both coasts would have no idea who regional colleges like Rose Holman, Hanover, or Wittenberg are. It would be naive to think your schools brand name recognition through sports doesn'the have an effect on who these types of companies interview.

I don't disagree with your premise. What I'm saying is isn't it a bit sad that a hiring edge is given based on how a applicants alma mater did on the grid iron versus his actual qualifications. As a former manager in industry and a retired military member I can tell you I could careless about an applicant's school's athletics performance.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

It is pretty simple, you get more applicants the more your school is in the national spotlight for good things. With more applicants, the school can be more selective. The more selective the better the academics.

You might not like that correlation that people apply to school because of sports. But students often apply to schools that they perceive to be interesting and exciting. Where do you think they get those perceptions? Campus tours? Why do they decide to tour the campus? It all comes back to brand recognition.

I see that and I do understand but my contention is we are heading down a wrong road if we allow entertainment to make the difference in our hiring and educational opportunities. Look all one has to do is turn on the TV to see where we are headed. Our perceptions are formed by the media which forms are opinions based on advertising dollars. The media is owned and controlled by big business. Big 12 expansion is a perfect example. The networks are driving this train. If we don't get into a p5 conference how will our brand be viewed then?