Babcock to Va Tech?

[UCalum08]

Originally Posted by Robert

http://romanreedfoundation.com/wp-co...d-francois.jpg

Niiice.

[mdchick]

Originally Posted by david aka the TYZ

There's no reason to speculate that a four-game play-off will make lesser bowls any less relevant than the four BCS bowls and a national tilte game did.
Going forward the AAC has secured some bowl games for the foreseeable future. These bowls won't be paying less in the future than they were in the past.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports...-bowl-tie-ins/

UC doesn't have to throw money into the basketball program for it to be able to compete for a title. They will spend money on the basketball when the fans give them the money to do so. The fans have given them the money to spend on football and they are doing so. Elevating the football program is priority number one at every major university as the money football generates has gone up astronomically in recent years and being viable in football is the priority in getting into a power five conference as well as the market that football team brings. Basketball money is still roughly the same. I think eventually TV money will increase for basketball but it will never reach football dollars. And again, the fans in this town don't support the basketball program they have the football program. You don't reward fair-weather fans for doing nothing. There are long-term plans to get a new arena for basketball. If we want to jump-start that we need to find dollars to do so, that starts with fans going to games and becoming donors and buying season tickets and finding corporate donors.

eventually college football will have a playoff with 8 or even 16 teams. They are set to have a 4 team playoff for the next 15 years or something, but after that I can see it expanding even more and when they do the bowl games are going to be just as meaningless as they already are, but people are going to realize it. It's essentially just an exhibition game I don't know why someone would want to watch any bowl game unless its the national championship game. That is the only bowl game I've watched probably for the last 5 years, all the other games don't mean anything for the average viewer. It obviously means something for the school because it brings in a huge pay day. But it's mind boggling why people watch them.

[JumpinJack5]

What does winning a national championship have to do with being a viable program? You can be viable w/o winning a national championship game. If UC wins 8-9 games consistently and makes a solid bowl game every year, we would be a very viable program. Football hurts basketball sometimes, I agree, but it can also really help us. Mdchick, let me ask you this-Do you think we would have a shot at a better conference with only a basketball team? Who has a better shot at the Big 12 or ACC, UC or XU?

[mdchick]

Originally Posted by JumpinJack5

What does winning a national championship have to do with being a viable program? You can be viable w/o winning a national championship game. If UC wins 8-9 games consistently and makes a solid bowl game every year, we would be a very viable program. Football hurts basketball sometimes, I agree, but it can also really help us. Mdchick, let me ask you this-Do you think we would have a shot at a better conference with only a basketball team? Who has a better shot at the Big 12 or ACC, UC or XU?

Um I would think winning a national championship would be a pretty big deal for a program and it's fan base. How many great programs do you know that talk about winning 9 games is a successful year and they are happy with it. Football at UC will never be in contention to win a national championship no matter how much money people poor into it, it's a lost cause in my eyes, I think it is what it is and it's pretty much plateau'd to as good as they are going be. so why keep putting money into the program, they aren't going to be any better than almost being able to compete with the big boys.

Everyone that's not a UC football fan knows this that's why we can't get into the big 12 or the ACC and pouring money into it isn't going to make us any better. Other schools are always just going to pay more money than we can in terms of football, so why not just concentrate on basketball which we have a chance to be great instead of being happy with mediocracy in football.

we have a football stadium that's pretty good already, our basketball facilities need a lot of work.

[david aka the TYZ]

Originally Posted by mdchick

Um I would think winning a national championship would be a pretty big deal for a program and it's fan base. How many great programs do you know that talk about winning 9 games is a successful year and they are happy with it. Football at UC will never be in contention to win a national championship no matter how much money people poor into it, it's a lost cause in my eyes, I think it is what it is and it's pretty much plateau'd to as good as they are going be. so why keep putting money into the program, they aren't going to be any better than almost being able to compete with the big boys.

Everyone that's not a UC football fan knows this that's why we can't get into the big 12 or the ACC and pouring money into it isn't going to make us any better. Other schools are always just going to pay more money than we can in terms of football, so why not just concentrate on basketball which we have a chance to be great instead of being happy with mediocracy in football.

we have a football stadium that's pretty good already, our basketball facilities need a lot of work.

Most people would disagree. Nippert was built in 1902 or something. They have hard, cold metal benches for most of the seating, horribly tight concourses and traffic flow, nowhere near enough bathrooms, bad concessions and zero private and luxury seating. Fans have complained for years about Nippert same as they do the Shoe. Difference is they come to games and give money to the program.

You still didn't answer my question, in your opinion do you think UC should fold its football program as your comments seem to suggest they have no purpose in playing or fans being intersted in the program because they can't compete for a national championship?

[mdchick]

Originally Posted by david aka the TYZ

Most people would disagree. Nippert was built in 1902 or something. They have hard, cold metal benches for most of the seating, horribly tight concourses and traffic flow, nowhere near enough bathrooms, bad concessions and zero private and luxury seating. Fans have complained for years about Nippert same as they do the Shoe. Difference is they come to games and give money to the program.

You still didn't answer my question, in your opinion do you think UC should fold its football program as your comments seem to suggest they have no purpose in playing or fans being intersted in the program because they can't compete for a national championship?

obviously they can't give up their football program just saying basketball is going to make more of a name than football ever will for UC.

[david aka the TYZ]

Originally Posted by mdchick

obviously they can't give up their football program just saying basketball is going to make more of a name than football ever will for UC.

How much better a name can the basketball name be if it has a viable football program pumping in money to the university?

[mdchick]

Originally Posted by david aka the TYZ

How much better a name can the basketball name be if it has a viable football program pumping in money to the university?

you win this time david

[david aka the TYZ]

Originally Posted by mdchick

you win this time david

Not about winning, just trying to show the big picture.