Some folks at UC are pleased with the fact that they were snubbed by the Big XII...

[pimpinthebox]

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/10/24/loss-big-12-good-news-uc/92656014/

Really really good stuff here.

[Juice]

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/10/24/loss-big-12-good-news-uc/92656014/

Really really good stuff here.

The guy makes tons of good points.

[muskiefan82]

UC went all in and it didn't work. They (and the students) will pay for that for a long time.

[pimpinthebox]

The guy makes tons of good points.

Along with some really shitty ones.

[xeus]

I wonder how much it costs the University to maintain all of their libraries full of old dusty books that no one reads.

[pimpinthebox]

While the snub by Big 12 has certainly had some impact on the sad reality that is UC's academic spending declining and faculty members losing their jobs, I'm sure there is still quite a bit of blame to go around. This librarian comes off like the kid that wasn't picked for kickball and had to sit out and keep score. "I'll show those jocks!"

[MuskieXU]

This was really good, which I didn't expect, but I'm not sure I agree with many of his points. Colleges have absolutely seen higher enrollment and higher donations from better athletics. Look at the enrollment numbers from Miami after they won national championships in football, or the donations to Texas AM after they moved to the SEC. Now whether or not that would happen if UC switches conferences (and whther or not it would even be worth it regardless) is up for debate but to call them total myths is a little misleading. That said, still a ton of fantastic points to think about both for UC, and quite frankly, for every college across the nation.

[Juice]

This was really good, which I didn't expect, but I'm not sure I agree with many of his points. Colleges have absolutely seen higher enrollment and higher donations from better athletics. Look at the enrollment numbers from Miami after they won national championships in football, or the donations to Texas AM after they moved to the SEC. Now whether or not that would happen if UC switches conferences (and whther or not it would even be worth it regardless) is up for debate but to call them total myths is a little misleading. That said, still a ton of fantastic points to think about both for UC, and quite frankly, for every college across the nation.

I understand those point, and I don't have the numbers, but were normal students being asked via tuition to help finance the athletic department?
I have no issues with spending on athletics, but at least operate in the black. And if you can't, then make up the difference with fundraising. Don't make normal students pay for the athletic department.

[MuskieXU]

I understand those point, and I don't have the numbers, but were normal students being asked via tuition to help finance the athletic department?
I have no issues with spending on athletics, but at least operate in the black. And if you can't, then make up the difference with fundraising. Don't make normal students pay for the athletic department.

I totally agree with your and the writers sentiment here, I just disagree that increased enrollment/donations, and perhaps other benefits, are a myth.

[xubrew]

I understand those point, and I don't have the numbers, but were normal students being asked via tuition to help finance the athletic department?
I have no issues with spending on athletics, but at least operate in the black. And if you can't, then make up the difference with fundraising. Don't make normal students pay for the athletic department.

In most cases either student government must agree with it, or there is some sort of campus wide vote, or something. I know UC isn't in CUSA, but I know that at most of those schools the students vote on the fees whenever there is an increase. Same with many in the American. I don't know about UC specifically, but I would imagine that student government has to approve it.

And, at some schools, it has worked against what the athletic department wanted to do. I think it was three years ago when UC San Diego was all but set to move up from div2 and join the Big West, but there was a student vote on the increased student fees that would be required with the move, and it didn't pass. So, they stayed div2. Now they want to move up and have indicated that they would approve the fees, but that's another story.

But, to answer your question, the students typically do have a say, and when they say no it doesn't happen.

[paulxu]

But, to answer your question, the students typically do have a say, and when they say no it doesn't happen.

I don't think that is the case at UC.


Tuition and fees at the University of Cincinnati are reviewed and set by the Board of Trustees each spring for the upcoming year

https://www.uc.edu/bursar/fees.html

[muskiefan82]

I totally agree with your and the writers sentiment here, I just disagree that increased enrollment/donations, and perhaps other benefits, are a myth.

It's a stupid metric to try to measure. The school can only absorb so many new students each year. Just because you win a championship doesn't mean you can suddenly bring in 8000 freshmen when you only have capacity for 1000 so the data would show there was no increase year to year. I do think; however, that if you have a successful athletic program and it generates enthusiasm, interest, and endowment money, that if you see applications rise each year, it's easier to support expanding the campus and the programs to allow for more students which means more money and more expansion. (See X over the last 30 years). If anyone believes X would look the way it does now WITHOUT the success of the men's basketball team, you are ignoring reality.

[Juice]

It's a stupid metric to try to measure. The school can only absorb so many new students each year. Just because you win a championship doesn't mean you can suddenly bring in 8000 freshmen when you only have capacity for 1000 so the data would show there was no increase year to year. I do think; however, that if you have a successful athletic program and it generates enthusiasm, interest, and endowment money, that if you see applications rise each year, it's easier to support expanding the campus and the programs to allow for more students which means more money and more expansion. (See X over the last 30 years). If anyone believes X would look the way it does now WITHOUT the success of the men's basketball team, you are ignoring reality.

Besides the number of applications, it might and should also raise the quality of those applicants.

[MuskieXU]

It's a stupid metric to try to measure. The school can only absorb so many new students each year. Just because you win a championship doesn't mean you can suddenly bring in 8000 freshmen when you only have capacity for 1000 so the data would show there was no increase year to year. I do think; however, that if you have a successful athletic program and it generates enthusiasm, interest, and endowment money, that if you see applications rise each year, it's easier to support expanding the campus and the programs to allow for more students which means more money and more expansion. (See X over the last 30 years). If anyone believes X would look the way it does now WITHOUT the success of the men's basketball team, you are ignoring reality.

Correct, I meant applications not enrollment. More applications means you can accept a higher quality of applicant which means better academics. As you mentioned, it can also support an expanding campus in the long run, which can be positive. I have no problem with the argument the writers are making and think its a very good one, but its worth taking a fair look at the risk/cost vs reward, and instead I think they dismissed some of the benefits of athletics far too quickly.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Besides the number of applications, it might and should also raise the quality of those applicants.

Exactly