http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/cincybearcats/

I think this is a great opportunity to voice your opinion about UC football attendance to a member of the local media.

Just win, Baby!

and also the lack of coverage the team gets in the Cincinnati papers.

THE BearcatBrent Wrote:and also the lack of coverage the team gets in the Cincinnati papers.

Correct - and several have pointed that out to Trent in the thread.

THE BearcatBrent Wrote:and also the lack of coverage the team gets in the Cincinnati papers.

Winning will take care of that. ;-)

chatcat Wrote:

THE BearcatBrent Wrote:and also the lack of coverage the team gets in the Cincinnati papers.

Winning will take care of that. ;-)

The Reds and Bengals were consistent losers for a decade or more - did their coverage suffer because of it?

bearcatfan Wrote:

chatcat Wrote:

THE BearcatBrent Wrote:and also the lack of coverage the team gets in the Cincinnati papers.

Winning will take care of that. ;-)

The Reds and Bengals were consistent losers for a decade or more - did their coverage suffer because of it?

That's a great point.

Also, the media covers the Reds despite them drawing crowds that are on average just a few thousand more than UC FB...

It's apparent from reading some of the comments in the Rosecrans blog that UC is not "owed" coverage by the local media. Yet somehow the Reds and Bengals are.

To be fair - The MLB and the NFL are of course a bigger stage than UC football. But UC is in the BCS - which gets an awful lot of attention at the national level.

Good point Bearcat Fan. I just made a comment over there about that point.

bearcatfan Wrote:

chatcat Wrote:

THE BearcatBrent Wrote:and also the lack of coverage the team gets in the Cincinnati papers.

Winning will take care of that. ;-)

The Reds and Bengals were consistent losers for a decade or more - did their coverage suffer because of it?

Even though the Reds and Bengals may have been losers, the media's perception is that there is much more interest in them than there is in UC football.

If UC could string together 3 or 4 good seasons the interest would pick up and so would the media coverage.

chatcat Wrote:Even though the Reds and Bengals may have been losers, the media's perception is that there is much more interest in them than there is in UC football.

If UC could string together 3 or 4 good seasons the interest would pick up and so would the media coverage.

Trent's thread now has 45 reponses! Maybe the perception about UC football will now change ;-)

Up to 54! Of course many or Mr. Rosencrans himself; but impressive nontheless.

Trent is giving us another opportunity. Read his latest blog post and e-mail him directly with your comments. He will be writing an article about this.

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/cincybearcats/

The Reds and Bengals are professional teams, UC Football isn't. Professional teams are going to get coverage regardless of their record.

Want coverage? Do something worth covering, win games.

Kenyon#4 Wrote:The Reds and Bengals are professional teams, UC Football isn't. Professional teams are going to get coverage regardless of their record.

Want coverage? Do something worth covering, win games.

Not saying they have been a great program, but they have been a solid product, since Tim Murphy's last year. Sure, they have had their ups and downs, and minter's teams were definitly too inconsistent, but most years they were in the upper half of C-USA, and shared the league title, once. They have also been to a number of bowl games in the last decade or so, and won their most recent won, under Dantonio, 2 years ago. Obviously interest in UC Football isn't what interest is in the Reds or Bengals, but the media could do a lot better job covering the team, than they do. They're lazy, and their excuses are outdated and pathetic.