The value discussion got me to the thinking -again - about what is better in terms of enhancing a schools profile, exposure and ultimately it's brand recognition?
On one hand, you have Boise who has pimped out its brand with its football success. On the other, you have schools like Butler, Gonzaga, and Wichita that's done it basketball.
I actually started thinking about this back in March. At one time, I always believed football was the way to go, but the NCAA Tournament is unique in that it captivates the American culture moreso though than bowl games do and it also seems to me that there is more of an opportunity to have the type of success needed to reach a "national brand" milestone in basketball than it is football.
So, in looking at this apples to apples comparison, I don't think it's fair to compare - let's say what wkcc has done in football the last two years to Bulter or VCU making it to the Final Four, for example. IMO, a Final Four appearance in basketball is perhaps equivalent to one of us making the Access Bowl. In other words, playing a 6-6 P5 or another top G5 in Bowl Game isn't the same thing as making a deep run in the NCAA Tournament. I would equate that perhaps to a Sweet 16. That said, is wkcc's last two years in football comparable to, let's say, Florida Gulf Coast's Sweet 16? If so, which provides more brand building?
Likewise, compare what Western Michigan did last year in football. Is it comparable to VCU or Butler's first Final Four appearance?
Perhaps this goes without saying as being obvious but following up success with success is the key to building of course, but you have to start somewhere; therefore....
Which of these examples delivers most? I am increasingly convincing myself that both the opportunity and path to building a national brand exists moreso through basketball than football but interested in hearing what you all think. Cheers.
IMO, it's easier to stay relevant in basketball so that may be the answer. What I mean is IF you can make a run at the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 out of CUSA you are likely to pick up better recruits and continue to make tournament every year. Football is more difficult because you need more athletes and a great QB in order to be competitive. As a Tech fan I have often thought we should just throw every resource we have at basketball and see where that takes us. All that said, I would rather an access bowl than a sweet 16 or elite 8. I would take a final 4 over an access bowl.
WKU fans have been saying this for years, allthewhile many football-centric schools' fans derided us...even MT fans.
With the nature of FBS football today (P5 vs G5) there's little to know chance for most of us to ever gain "national" recognition in football. The occasional upset isn't enough.
In basketball, because we're still allowed into the playoff, we are part of the national championship. We're at least given the chance to play the "power" teams in a run to the national championship.
At this point, basketball is the only option left now that the G5/P5 separation has occurred. There is no opportunity to get to a final four type stage in football like there is in basketball. Boise got in before the door shut. Of course, with all the transfers, a huge discrepancy in media compensation, and TV exposure being cut tremendously for those not in P5 conferences, the door is closing in basketball too. It will take a while, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the P5 squeeze everyone else out in that sport as well.
Sometimes I think the G5 would be better off cutting ties with the P5 all together while it would still hurt them. Its going to happen eventually anyway. They're slowing pushing us out, and the general population isn't realizing what is going on. Without the G5 there would be half the P5 teams with losing records and no fun in March Madness. The shock to the system that would still occur with that may be our last and only shot.
(06-22-2017 03:55 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2017 03:38 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: [ -> ]The value discussion got me to the thinking -again - about what is better in terms of enhancing a schools profile, exposure and ultimately it's brand recognition?
On one hand, you have Boise who has pimped out its brand with its football success. On the other, you have schools like Butler, Gonzaga, and Wichita that's done it basketball.
I actually started thinking about this back in March. At one time, I always believed football was the way to go, but the NCAA Tournament is unique in that it captivates the American culture moreso though than bowl games do and it also seems to me that there is more of an opportunity to have the type of success needed to reach a "national brand" milestone in basketball than it is football.
So, in looking at this apples to apples comparison, I don't think it's fair to compare - let's say what wkcc has done in football the last two years to Bulter or VCU making it to the Final Four, for example. IMO, a Final Four appearance in basketball is perhaps equivalent to one of us making the Access Bowl. In other words, playing a 6-6 P5 or another top G5 in Bowl Game isn't the same thing as making a deep run in the NCAA Tournament. I would equate that perhaps to a Sweet 16. That said, is wkcc's last two years in football comparable to, let's say, Florida Gulf Coast's Sweet 16? If so, which provides more brand building?
Likewise, compare what Western Michigan did last year in football. Is it comparable to VCU or Butler's first Final Four appearance?
Perhaps this goes without saying as being obvious but following up success with success is the key to building of course, but you have to start somewhere; therefore....
Which of these examples delivers most? I am increasingly convincing myself that both the opportunity and path to building a national brand exists moreso through basketball than football but interested in hearing what you all think. Cheers.
WKU fans have been saying this for years, allthewhile many football-centric schools' fans derided us...even MT fans.
With the nature of FBS football today (P5 vs G5) there's little to know chance for most of us to ever gain "national" recognition in football. The occasional upset isn't enough.
In basketball, because we're still allowed into the playoff, we are part of the national championship. We're at least given the chance to play the "power" teams in a run to the national championship.
This is an important point I believe.
And I was probably one of those. I didn't really understand the full power of the dark side until we did what we've done the last five or six years. After the sanctions gutted the program in the 90's, MT likely underfunded basketball in the early 2000's at the expense of moving to I-A in football. I'm hoping we can now do what has been incredibly difficult for almost every other non-power school in the nation to do and that is be both consistently good in football and basketball. As you guys can probably attest there seems to be a tipping of the balance of that power within an athletic dept.
And I believe we are on our way to being just that. Great basketball for the past five years. Only school in the league that hasn't had a losing season in the same period. Just need to finish that off with a conference title in December!
It's football and easy to prove.....
Western has more tradition in basketball than any school in this conference. UTEP has a national championship but over the long haul...
Western is hands down the winner in every basketball stats you name. Other than CURRENT.
Western had more front page news articles/exposure in one summer with the BP hire than in the last 17 years in basketball. That span covers
1. 7 NCAA bid
2. sweet 16
3. round of 32
4. 4 total NCAA wins
5. 12, 20 or more winning seasons, 5 24 or more winning seasons with a AVG of 21w over 17 years
6. 2 top 20
7. 1st team preseason AA
Overall history is up there with the best of the best in wins, winning%, conference titles.
Most people know Western for football over the last few years and never heard of our basketball program.
The overall number of FB fans compared to BB makes it more important.
Middle's run in basketball has been about the same as Western's in FB. Other than the first week of the tourney most people have forgotten it. Has nothing to do with it being Middle...espn has made it easy for fans to do just that.
20-25 years ago I think it's a lot closer
Unless you are consistently good in both it's hard to say.
(06-22-2017 04:02 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: [ -> ]And I believe we are on our way to being just that. Great basketball for the past five years. Only school in the league that hasn't had a losing season in the same period. Just need to finish that off with a conference title in December!
???
Tech hasn't had a losing season (basketball) for about 6 or 7 seasons I believe.
To answer the original question. Either one can build your brand, but it needs to be a high level for a sustained amount of time. Boise didn't do it in one year. I would say winning the access bowl is more akin to a final four appearance. Butler, Boise, VCU have all had sustained success. Don't have to reach the mountain top every year, but you need to be good and in the conversations even when you don't hit the peak.
MT is in a good position in football or basketball to elevate to the next level. They have been good in both most years and a trip to the final four/access bowl would cement them in the elite and elevate their brand.
There is always going to be a recency bias especially today with the 24-second news cycle. I would say consistently good in either sport. Not sure both are necessary but the consistency part is key I would say.
But it seems like folks believe it is easier in basketball than football YG, so taking that into account which one would you put the preponderance of your effort or resources into if you had to pick one?
I disagree WKUYG. The Petrino hire was a lightning in a bottle/Jerry Springer-nation type event. Yes, we got lots of publicity for it. It's not lasting and in many ways, wasn't recognition of success by WKU but rather, a "last chance" for Petrino.
If a CUSA team makes consecutive runs to the Final 8 and Final Four and/or title game, the level of publicity/conversation/etc. would be similar to what VCU/Butler received. They received positive "national" recognition and were considered power-level competition. The repercussions lasted. Their ability to schedule power teams, their ability to get the benefit of the doubt on seeding, and their ability to be mention regularly in the media as more than "mid-major" took them to the national conversation. That can't happen in football.
.
(06-22-2017 04:26 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree WKUYG. The Petrino hire was a lightning in a bottle/Jerry Springer-nation type event. Yes, we got lots of publicity for it. It's not lasting and in many ways, wasn't recognition of success by WKU but rather, a "last chance" for Petrino.
If a CUSA team makes consecutive runs to the Final 8 and Final Four and/or title game, the level of publicity/conversation/etc. would be similar to what VCU/Butler received. They received positive "national" recognition and were considered power-level competition. The repercussions lasted. Their ability to schedule power teams, their ability to get the benefit of the doubt on seeding, and their ability to be mention regularly in the media as more than "mid-major" took them to the national conversation. That can't happen in football.
.
Obviously, I elected to avoid posting what I was thinking to keep this on the tracks.
Football with Basketball being a close second.
Clearly football. Butler, Gonzaga, and Wichita St. in basketball were mentioned, and we might as well throw in Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and UTEP since they certainly haven't built their name recognition in football. But in all fairness to those basketball fans out there, football drives American culture and American money.
If you look at attendance alone, the national average attendance for NCAA Basketball in 2016 (Divisions 1, 2, and 3) was 2,168. Meanwhile the national average attendance for NCAA Football (Divisions 1, 2, and 3) was 13,268. If you say that football stadiums are just built with more seats, well why do you think that is? And why do six times as many people watch football as basketball even though you're dealing with the elements at football games and not sitting under an air-conditioned roof? It's just more popular, and for the most part, the schools known more for their football prowess (Notre Dame, LSU, Ohio State, Michigan) have more fans and are better known than your schools like Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, or UTEP who have always been recognized for their hoops.
Football is, and probably always will be, the bread winner. Aside from the uniqueness of the NCAA Tournament, football viewership is generally greater on TV, as well as butts in seats at the games. The only caveat to all this is that a school will play over 30 basketball games in the course of a season, and only 12 or 13 football games, meaning a good basketball program might get more airtime than a good football program would. But even given that, there's no comparison between the sheer amount of money that a good basketball program can generate for a school compared to what a good football program would generate. The most valuable college basketball program is the University of North Carolina, worth $26 Million according to Forbes. The most valuable college football program is the University of Texas, worth $152 Million. In the end, money talks, and football is clearly the winner. Mind you, the money from football is what keeps other college sports alive also, and builds even more exposure for your school.
(06-22-2017 04:25 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: [ -> ]There is always going to be a recency bias especially today with the 24-second news cycle. I would say consistently good in either sport. Not sure both are necessary but the consistency part is key I would say.
But it seems like folks believe it is easier in basketball than football YG, so taking that into account which one would you put the preponderance of your effort or resources into if you had to pick one?
That is a very hard question for me. Up till 7 years ago I would have said basketball. Been a Western basketball fan since 1966 (6 years old). Walked into the house found my mother crying while reading the paper on the death of a Western player (great) and his sister, returning to Western after a visit home on mothers day. From that day on I was a Western basketball fan.
Up till 7 years ago..probably more like 5, I never would have chose a Western FB game over seeing a Western basketball game. Now there isn't a Western basketball game I would choose going to if it meant I couldn't go to the football game.
Takes less money to be good in basketball than football. But in the end...#coachingmatters. Both take a coach with vision and a system and being able to recruit to that system.
That is one area not one of our schools have enough money to keep that coach if the big boys really want them. That's why I was against Western paying Brohm more than Western could afford to buyout. What ever the number was..it wasn't going to be enough to keep him.
I don't disagree at all with you Volkmar. Football is a much more popular sport and followed by more folks. Even I, who grew up a basketball fan in a basketball state and loved the sport above all others for decades have become a bigger football fan than a basketball fan in the last few years, especially since WKU moved to FBS.
However, I took the OP's question to be about how to build a national brand for CUSA teams. That's a totally different issue. At the G5 level, we'll never be considered at the level of the FBS powers you mentioned in football but we can be part of the discussion in basketball with the powers you mentioned. That's how I took the question.
(06-22-2017 04:26 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree WKUYG. The Petrino hire was a lightning in a bottle/Jerry Springer-nation type event. Yes, we got lots of publicity for it. It's not lasting and in many ways, wasn't recognition of success by WKU but rather, a "last chance" for Petrino.
If a CUSA team makes consecutive runs to the Final 8 and Final Four and/or title game, the level of publicity/conversation/etc. would be similar to what VCU/Butler received. They received positive "national" recognition and were considered power-level competition. The repercussions lasted. Their ability to schedule power teams, their ability to get the benefit of the doubt on seeding, and their ability to be mention regularly in the media as more than "mid-major" took them to the national conversation. That can't happen in football.
.
That's the way you took it....
it still doesn't change the fact it put Western football on the map. I don't know anyone that actually likes the man. But his hiring put Western on the cover of more internet sights and seen by more people than anything Western did in basketball.
With that you have the last 3 years.
I know you choose to look at the glass half empty and I'm always..closer to being full when it comes to Western. But In my experience, real world, I know I've had more people coming up to me after that hire talking about Western than at any point in my life. I'm talking SEC fans, Big 10 fans, Big 12 fans, ACC fans on our travels.
I usually have a Western ball cap on no matter where I go or a Western flag flying at our condo on PC Beach. I also have WKU tags on both cars.
Every once in a while someone would see one of those and say...hey Topper fan or something like that. It changed after the BP hire. I don't recall going many places that someone did not notice the Western gear or tag and saying something to us about Western. The number of SEC fans that go to PC Beach would be...most of them. Again when they see the Western flag flying they come up and start talking 100x more often.
Your experience might be different but we travel at least 1 week out of every month and as I said above. It changed after the BP hire
Growing up and living in Kentucky all my life you are conditioned to think every sports fan loves college basketball like most Kentuckians do. I found out that this is not true. Outside of Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana and somewhat Tennessee college football is king. Moving to FBS football was the best thing that has happened to WKU sports ever. As much as I love college hoops I would have to say FBS football is the exposure leader. Now if the hoops team makes a deep run in the NCAA tourney that would sure help for any CUSA program.
I love football but basketball will get you far more exposure. A team from CUSA if they had the right pieces could make a title run in basketball every year. Football not so much now. No matter how good you are the the Roy Kramer's of the world will never let a G5 program in the so called IA playoffs. As it stands right now there is always going to be 1 P5 conference left out each year, both the ACC and SEC look to split putting 2 teams in each year.
If you have a rock solid starting 5 and 3-4 players coming off the bench that could start then you will have a lot better chance of being talked about as a complete team. G5 programs can also make more money though basketball also.
(06-22-2017 03:46 PM)Collin_Ellis Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, it's easier to stay relevant in basketball so that may be the answer. What I mean is IF you can make a run at the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 out of CUSA you are likely to pick up better recruits and continue to make tournament every year. Football is more difficult because you need more athletes and a great QB in order to be competitive. As a Tech fan I have often thought we should just throw every resource we have at basketball and see where that takes us. All that said, I would rather an access bowl than a sweet 16 or elite 8. I would take a final 4 over an access bowl.
One of our more respected members of BBB has always claimed that basketball offers the greater return on investment and that prominence is easier to achieve than in football. I tend to agree with him. That said, I wouldn't like to see Tech FB take a back seat to MBB.
The Lady Techsters gave Tech a lot of notoriety from the 1970s thru the 1990s. FJ Taylor saw an opportunity and took advantage of it. While it certainly does not compare to FB or MBB it did give us national recognition to an extent.
Tech has won over 200 games (> 70%) over the last 6 seasons in MBB, so maybe we are getting there.