(10:22 a.m.): After the Brian Kelly contract news conference Monday, in which we discussed the removal of the practice bubble/practice facility clause from his contract, I also wanted to talk about the future of Nippert Stadium.
I asked Mike Thomas if there was anything specific in BK’s new contract regarding upgrades to Nippert (there aren’t) and I asked BK if he had shifted his thinking about playing more games at Paul Brown Stadium (at this point, he’d rather play home games at Nippert). To me, it’s an issue that will play a role in determining how seriously a player the administration thinks football can be in the next decade or so (whether BK is here or not).
A few months ago, during a football spring practice, Thomas and I talked for a while about the state of the stadium and what could be done to upgrade it into a facility that could generate more revenue streams. What I took from the conversation: it’s going to be tough to expand the stadium past, say, 45,000 seats, and it’s going to cost a boatload of money to put in club seats and private boxes. Tens of millions of dollars that would take many years to pay itself off.
Read the rest here.
(1:48 p.m.): Brian Kelly officially has signed his new five-year contract, and you know what that means? It means he thinks the Bearcats are on their way to competing for a BCS title.
Big East titles? Feh. Try national titles. That’s what he wants now. Big change of perspective than when he was hired in 2006.
“Then, we were talking about winning and being competitive in the Big East,” BK said. “Now we can talk about building a national championship program. No, we’re not there yet. This contract really signifies the university’s desires and wants to be a national player. That’s all I wanted. Are you happy just being in the Big East? Or do you want to do this as a BCS program and compete every year at this level? Those decisions had to be made, or I wasn’t signing it. They were able to put those pieces together that makes the university committed to being a BCS program.”
Read the rest right here.
(2:43 p.m.): Well, we haven’t done one of these in a while. Little mailbag time, based on this blog post I wrote earlier this week.
And if you don’t want to reread the blog entry, the main point I made was Mick Cronin’s contract extension was probably a good move made by UC AD Mike Thomas. Here’s the nut graf (thought it came at the end of the post, making it more of the kicker):
Check here for the rest of the blog post.
EXCEPT for the promised BONUS question that I’m inserting here:
That was a nice article about Mick and the contract extension. However, I don’t agree that the basketball program is getting better under Mick…What happened at the end of last year is inexcusable…Going into the season last year with one point guard is inexcusable…Playing players such as: Rashad Bishop and Alvin Mitchell was inexcusable…. UC basketball is dead at this point in time…It will remain so until Mr. Thomas pulls the trigger on getting UC another head basketball coach…Mick is NOT the answer! Thomas hired Brian Kelly…and gets an A + for that… However, Mick is dragging down his grade point average.
I don’t disagree with some of the points here. Yes, the end of last season was horrible. Yes, Rashad Bishop hasn’t been great so far in his UC career (5.4 points per game) and Alvin Mitchell was pretty much a disaster. Yes, UC basketball isn’t as nationally-relevant as it was under Huggins. But if you’re saying UC basketball has not improved, I think there’s some sort of ax to grind. The win total has increased (although yes, the non-conference schedule isn’t quite as juicy), the players have improved (remember, Marcus Sikes was the starting center in Mick’s first year) and UC was competitive in the Big East last year. UC had a chance at an NCAA tournament berth. You can’t say the same about Mick’s first two teams.