(05-10-2017 10:52 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:54 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 12:05 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:46 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 10:18 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This. Plus the whole deal was a sham constructed by the Big12 to get more money out of the networks in exchange to eliminating the pro-rats clause in their media contract.

Which leads to the question - if the pro-rata clause is gone now and with ESPN even further from a position where they would be willing to offer more money, why are we still talking about expansion? It's over with respect to the B12. If the ACC doesn't come calling, we will be stuffed into a "best of the rest" conference.

Possibly. But the Big 12 proved once again to be the most dysfunctional branch of the P5 family tree. There were other valid reasons for expansion that they chose to ignore. I can't wait to watch their first CCG when team #2 upsets team #1 and both stay home to watch the college football playoff again.

Many of us knew UC could compete in the old Big East and the Bearcats made good on that bet. Let's hope Cincinnati gets that chance again as I see them competing effectively early on in either the B12 or ACC.

I agree.

In 1991 we were in a similar position. It looked like UC would be small-time forever, making it pointless to invest more money in Nippert.

But luckily they did expand Nippert in 1991. Without that decision, we never would have been invited to the Big East 13 years later. No Orange Bowl, no Sugar Bowl, and none of the huge increase in student quality/quantity that resulted from it.

Ugggh! The increases in student quality didn't have a damned thing to do with the BCS bowls. They had everything to do with moving away from open admissions and rejecting a quarter of the kids that would previously have been accepted. That it also happened during a favorable demographic bump in the number of high school graduates in Ohio only added to the effect. Those moves were put into place before the bowl games.

The Flutie Effect has been studied up and down, and the general consensus is that, at best, it provides a temporary bump in the number of applications that a school gets but no increase in the quality of the applicant pool.

So why do UC's recent class sizes and total enrollment continue to grow every year despite rejecting a quarter of the kids that apply? I'm not saying athletics has everything to do with it - UC is definitely growing in stature from a campus quality and academic standpoint - but you can't discount it.