Can anyone win at DePaul anymore?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/col...8314.story

A door swung open Monday and Jerry Wainwright emerged, hobbling into a claustrophobic media room on crutches, a giant brace protecting a fractured tibia and a torn MCL. As classy and well-liked as the deposed DePaul coach was and still is, he was also the picture of the basketball program in that moment.

A bit broken, definitely limping along, in need of immediate and invasive repair.

"Men's basketball has the tools it needs to be successful," DePaul athletic director Jean Lenti Ponsetto said Monday, upon announcing the dismissal of that program's coach. "I don't think this is a hard job. I think this is a great job, as a matter of fact."

Ponsetto has no choice but to take that emphatic stance publicly, for obvious reasons. But the Demons' epic struggles in a staggeringly challenging Big East, and now the Wainwright firing, give rise to an unavoidable, critically important question: Can anyone win at DePaul anymore?

The natural recruiting base is fertile but constantly poached by powerhouses.

Finances and resources "are not a deterrent to DePaul's success" according to Ponsetto -- and yet swaths of seats go unfilled at Allstate Arena while data shows that men's basketball expenditures lag behind even fellow urban Catholic schools.

Then there's the matter of competing in a Big East that's deeper than an ocean trench and bewilderingly competitive, with six teams ranked in the top 16 in the latest Associated Press poll. Resuscitating the program is not necessarily mission impossible, but that also depends on the definition of the mission.

"It's a tough job in an unbelievable league," said Steve Lappas, the ex-Villanova coach and current CBS College Sports Network analyst.

"You come in from Conference USA, which was a good league, without a doubt, but it's not the Big East. If the thing isn't set up exactly the right way when you jump into the league, you find yourself behind the 8-ball a bit."

In his statement at a Monday news conference, Wainwright pointed out that DePaul administrators "worked every day to increase resources."

The last man to direct DePaul to the NCAA tournament said he never felt handcuffed by DePaul's particular idiosyncrasies, but then Dave Leitao's teams never actually played in the revamped and super-sized Big East.

"I never thought that I was being hindered from doing the best job I possibly could by the resources or lack thereof," Leitao said in a phone interview last week. "Again, I don't know, comparatively speaking, what DePaul is up against versus everyone else in the Big East right now. It could have changed, dramatically, and that might have created an issue."

What is known is this: In a hypercompetitive basketball league, DePaul spends less on its men's basketball program than all but one school.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Education -- which has access to all the information from any school, public or private, that receives Title IX-related funding -- DePaul's basketball expenses from July 2008 through June 2009 were $3,257,409. Only South Florida's $2,927,362 was less among Big East teams.

As for those peer urban Catholic schools, Marquette spent $10,306,548, Georgetown spent $7,405,214, Villanova spent $5,959,931 and Providence spent $4,637,423.

"You're in a league where you have a budget of whatever it is and you're playing Syracuse and Pittsburgh and some of the places that have unbelievable athletic budgets and facilities that are incredible," Lappas said.

Ponsetto insisted DePaul's infrastructure is no albatross, citing a "state-of-the-art" practice facility and maintaining that Allstate Arena is viable while noting that current plans do not include somehow erecting an on-campus arena in one of Chicago's most expensive neighborhoods.

And though Marquette, Georgetown and Villanova also play in larger, professional arenas, those places are closer to the respective campuses or simply nicer than Allstate Arena. DePaul's 20,000-seat arena has been filled by an average crowd of 7,444 per game this season.

No one without a vested interest in the program views it as an ideal arrangement.

"I was a big believer in if you build it, they will come," Leitao said.

That would be the challenge: building it. Chicago and its surrounding areas produce countless prospects. The problem? Everyone knows it. Scout.com national recruiting analyst Dave Telep notes that it is "impossible to guard an area as big as theirs from invaders."

Ponsetto insisted that DePaul's "legacy and history is built on Chicago players." That may well be a starting point but it's probably too provincial a plan for the next coach, so DePaul may have to commit more resources to going nationwide to find the correct fit.

"The next head coach at DePaul would be wise to say, these are the parameters for the program, this is type of kid we want," Telep said. "If the guy happens to be in the area, great. But you can't just get boxed in with Chicago.

"Every program that is successful has a brand to it, and they recruit to that brand, sell to that brand. DePaul would be wise to start thinking that way. Sure they can get players there. But the worst thing you can do is say, 'We need to get good players.' It needs to be more specific than that."

It is at best a rough, complex go for a program that last won 20 games in 2006-07.It is at worst an obscenely difficult challenge for a program that has now lost 22 regular-season conference games in a row.

One relatively straightforward blueprint offered Monday by an informed observer of the program? Hire a coaching staff that knows Chicago intimately and can dig its fingernails into the recruiting ground and unearth talent that isn't poached by bluebloods such as Duke or Kansas.

Then create an enticing pace of play to both draw fans and placate Chicago recruits more likely to favor an up-tempo game. Then, after all that, hope against all hope that you survive to finish in the top eight of the Big East.

DePaul may have taken the first step with the offseason hires of assistants Tracy Webster, now the interim coach, Billy Garrett and David Booth, all of whom can canvass Chicago with ease. And the goal of merely contending for NCAA tournament berths, let alone Big East titles, may seem modest -- but it may be reality.

"I don't think anything about DePaul or our commitment has changed about whether or not we can compete in the Big East," Ponsetto said.

"We have had a lot of other programs that are successful in the Big East. It's about having a program in place and a process in place that sustains the success quotient."

The process restarted Monday. And it could be more arduous and agonizingly lengthy than DePaul faithful want to believe.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Seth Davis Mailbag comments about this.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/wr...index.html

Ah, if only we were back in the good old days -- like, three years ago -- when it wasn't until March that I started hearing from fans whose coach just got dumped. Alas, I guess that is officially a bygone era.

Jerry Wainwright, who had a career record of 186-145 before taking over at DePaul five years ago, was let go this week with his Blue Demons carrying a 7-8 record (0-3 Big East), making him the fourth coach this season to lose his job (Fordham's Derek Whittenberg, Penn's Glen Miller and Dartmouth's Terry Dunn are the others). Nobody is surprised that Wainwright didn't last, but even so the timing was illogical and unfortunate. DePaul is going to lose a lot this season no matter who is on the sidelines. Might as well let the guy finish his job.

And so, as I dip into this week's mailbag, let me begin with a couple of disgruntled Windy City natives:

In the wake of the Jerry Wainwright firing, the Chicago Tribune ran an article wondering if anyone can win at DePaul anymore. What's your take? Can DePaul ever get back to where it was in the 1980s? Can it win in any capacity in the hypercompetitive Big East? What would it take?
-- Nick, Chicago

You're right that Wainwright is a great person (which he is), but as a DePaul season ticket holder (and an Illini grad who worked in the SID office when Bill Self was there), Wainwright was arguably the worst game coach, recruiter and game planner I have ever seen. After 4 1/2 years, I was still not sure what his philosophy was on offense or defense. The next play that DePaul runs will be their first one in a long time. He subbed like it was a hockey game and his teams lacked fundamentals and got worse as the seasons went on. Obviously you never want to see anyone lose their job, but this was long overdue. Four years is enough time to show improvement.
-- Matt Rapaport, Chicago

First of all, I disagree with Matt's assessment of Wainwright's coaching abilities. This is still the same guy who went to the NCAA tournament three times in a five-year span at UNC-Wilmington and Richmond. That is not easy to do. I will, however, allow that Wainwright had enough time to show he could win at DePaul, but we all know the reason he didn't: His players weren't good enough. Which, of course, is his fault.

Second, I don't care how bad a coach is. Unless he is abusive to his players or causing some sort of ancillary problem (as apparently was the case at Dartmouth), there is no reason -- none -- to fire him on Jan. 11. The fact is, the school wanted to get rid of Wainwright at the end of last season but couldn't come up with the money to buy him out -- which by today's standards was not a lot. At season's end, athletic director Jean Lenti Ponsetto ordered Wainwright to change up his staff and he did, which included firing his own son. The school made the decision to stay with the coach, and it should have lived with that decision for another seven weeks.

As for where DePaul goes from here, that terrific Tribune story by Brian Hamilton tells you all you need to know. The only Big East school that spends less money on its men's basketball program is South Florida. The Blue Demons play their games not in a gleaming on-campus arena, and not even in the United Center, but rather at something called Allstate Arena, which sits out by O'Hare airport. As for returning to the glory years of the '80s, I would never say never, but I would say it's not likely. DePaul spent much of its glory days under Ray Meyer as an independent before moving into Conference USA, which provided weaker competition and was a better geographic fit than the Big East. Those days also came before the massive, expensive arms race in which so many schools have spent tens of millions of dollars to upgrade their facilities, leaving the school hopelessly behind the times. At DePaul a great year means you get to finish seventh in the league. Who in the world will want to put up with that?

So you can scratch all the big names off your list if you're hunting for a successor to Wainwright. It goes without saying that the next coach will have to have strong ties to Chicago, because without that there is not much reason why Chicago kids would want to play for DePaul. That's why I agree with many of the experts who have said that the front-runner for the job will be Southern Illinois coach Chris Lowery. Not only is Lowery a terrific young coach (though the Salukis have not made the NCAA tournament the last two years after getting there three straight times), but one of his assistant coaches is Lance Irvin, whose father, Mac, runs the premier summer program in Chicago. (You know the high school scene is irrelevant, right?) As Jeff Goodman reported at FoxSports.com, Lowery also coached the son of the man who runs the other prominent program in town, the Illinois Wolves, which produced Evan Turner among other notables who didn't play for DePaul.

Other possibilities being thrown out there are Oregon State's Craig Robinson, who of course brings the cachet of being Barack Obama's brother-in-law, and fellow Chicago native Isiah Thomas. But Oregon State is having a terrible year, and while Zeke would certainly create a splash he also brings with him plenty of baggage. So let me bring up a name that I haven't seen mentioned: Dayton's Brian Gregory, who grew up in Mount Prospect, Ill, just outside of Chicago, was a longtime assistant at Michigan State and has proven that he can recruit and coach city kids from the Midwest. I would argue that the Dayton job is far better than DePaul, but if DePaul came at Gregory with enough money and commitment to the program, I believe he would give a long, hard listen.

I'm still not even sure why DePaul was added to the Big East in the first place. Or Marquette for that matter. It's not a good fit for them. The Big East did not/does not need 16 teams for basketball.

I'm not saying they cannot compete in the Big East. But they would probably be better off in a different conference. DePaul would do well in the Horizon League, for example. Or the Atlantic '14' could revamp with DePaul and Marquette.

(01-18-2010 08:18 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I'm still not even sure why DePaul was added to the Big East in the first place. Or Marquette for that matter. It's not a good fit for them. The Big East did not/does not need 16 teams for basketball.

I'm not saying they cannot compete in the Big East. But they would probably be better off in a different conference. DePaul would do well in the Horizon League, for example. Or the Atlantic '14' could revamp with DePaul and Marquette.

They were added to keep the non-BE football schools at the same number as the FB playing schools.

DePaul was part of the original discussions for the Midwestern City Conference, but did not join. The schools that they targeted included Bradley, Dayton, Detroit, Illinois St., Loyola-Chicago, Air Force and Xavier. Butler, Creighton, Marquette and Oral Roberts joined later discussions. Notre Dame brought all programs into the conference except for men's basketball.

(01-18-2010 08:38 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  They were added to keep the non-BE football schools at the same number as the FB playing schools.

Primarily, but the Chicago media market was an issue as well, which is why a Xavier or a Temple was not in the mix, as these markets were already in the Big East footprint.

(01-18-2010 09:51 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 08:38 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  They were added to keep the non-BE football schools at the same number as the FB playing schools.

Primarily, but the Chicago media market was an issue as well, which is why a Xavier or a Temple was not in the mix, as these markets were already in the Big East footprint.

Yes, there's no doubt that DePaul got the benefit of its location (which isn't anything to sneeze at) and at the time of the BE expansion, the program was actually doing pretty well. If you were to list Catholic programs going through rough times in 2003-04, you would've put Villanova and Georgetown ahead of DePaul (and you see where Villanova and Georgetown are now), so it wasn't as if though DePaul was going 0-for-the-conference in C-USA.

The arena issue will always be a problem, IMHO. DePaul has one of the best urban locations of any college in the country. The problem is that it has also made it into one of the most expensive urban locations in the country outside of Manhattan, which means that even if there was space to create an on-campus arena (which there isn't), the cost of that real estate would never be economically feasible even if DePaul had Harvard's endowment. So, DePaul plays its games in an arena that's literally a couple of hundred yards from the runways at O'Hare. I can only imagine what goes through a recruit's mind - you see the campus and love it, you see the Lincoln Park neighborhood and love it, yet you get out the arena and, well, you're just shocked at the disconnect. I wish DePaul would at least consider moving its games to the United Center - it would be easier for the students to get to games, it's still in the city and at least it's an arena that befits a big-time program. Part of the reason why the basketball budget is so low is that DePaul is really doing the bare minimum in terms of arena costs, which is killing the program.

(01-18-2010 10:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 09:51 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 08:38 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  They were added to keep the non-BE football schools at the same number as the FB playing schools.

Primarily, but the Chicago media market was an issue as well, which is why a Xavier or a Temple was not in the mix, as these markets were already in the Big East footprint.

Yes, there's no doubt that DePaul got the benefit of its location (which isn't anything to sneeze at) and at the time of the BE expansion, the program was actually doing pretty well. If you were to list Catholic programs going through rough times in 2003-04, you would've put Villanova and Georgetown ahead of DePaul (and you see where Villanova and Georgetown are now), so it wasn't as if though DePaul was going 0-for-the-conference in C-USA.

The arena issue will always be a problem, IMHO. DePaul has one of the best urban locations of any college in the country. The problem is that it has also made it into one of the most expensive urban locations in the country outside of Manhattan, which means that even if there was space to create an on-campus arena (which there isn't), the cost of that real estate would never be economically feasible even if DePaul had Harvard's endowment. So, DePaul plays its games in an arena that's literally a couple of hundred yards from the runways at O'Hare. I can only imagine what goes through a recruit's mind - you see the campus and love it, you see the Lincoln Park neighborhood and love it, yet you get out the arena and, well, you're just shocked at the disconnect. I wish DePaul would at least consider moving its games to the United Center - it would be easier for the students to get to games, it's still in the city and at least it's an arena that befits a big-time program. Part of the reason why the basketball budget is so low is that DePaul is really doing the bare minimum in terms of arena costs, which is killing the program.

Where did DePaul used to play before AllState and why did they move?

(01-18-2010 10:27 AM)Hoquista Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 10:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 09:51 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 08:38 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  They were added to keep the non-BE football schools at the same number as the FB playing schools.

Primarily, but the Chicago media market was an issue as well, which is why a Xavier or a Temple was not in the mix, as these markets were already in the Big East footprint.

Yes, there's no doubt that DePaul got the benefit of its location (which isn't anything to sneeze at) and at the time of the BE expansion, the program was actually doing pretty well. If you were to list Catholic programs going through rough times in 2003-04, you would've put Villanova and Georgetown ahead of DePaul (and you see where Villanova and Georgetown are now), so it wasn't as if though DePaul was going 0-for-the-conference in C-USA.

The arena issue will always be a problem, IMHO. DePaul has one of the best urban locations of any college in the country. The problem is that it has also made it into one of the most expensive urban locations in the country outside of Manhattan, which means that even if there was space to create an on-campus arena (which there isn't), the cost of that real estate would never be economically feasible even if DePaul had Harvard's endowment. So, DePaul plays its games in an arena that's literally a couple of hundred yards from the runways at O'Hare. I can only imagine what goes through a recruit's mind - you see the campus and love it, you see the Lincoln Park neighborhood and love it, yet you get out the arena and, well, you're just shocked at the disconnect. I wish DePaul would at least consider moving its games to the United Center - it would be easier for the students to get to games, it's still in the city and at least it's an arena that befits a big-time program. Part of the reason why the basketball budget is so low is that DePaul is really doing the bare minimum in terms of arena costs, which is killing the program.

Where did DePaul used to play before AllState and why did they move?

It has played at Allstate since 1980. Others may remember it under the name Rosemont Horizon. They played at Alumni Hall before that, which is no longer standing.

(01-18-2010 10:27 AM)Hoquista Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 10:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 09:51 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 08:38 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  They were added to keep the non-BE football schools at the same number as the FB playing schools.

Primarily, but the Chicago media market was an issue as well, which is why a Xavier or a Temple was not in the mix, as these markets were already in the Big East footprint.

Yes, there's no doubt that DePaul got the benefit of its location (which isn't anything to sneeze at) and at the time of the BE expansion, the program was actually doing pretty well. If you were to list Catholic programs going through rough times in 2003-04, you would've put Villanova and Georgetown ahead of DePaul (and you see where Villanova and Georgetown are now), so it wasn't as if though DePaul was going 0-for-the-conference in C-USA.

The arena issue will always be a problem, IMHO. DePaul has one of the best urban locations of any college in the country. The problem is that it has also made it into one of the most expensive urban locations in the country outside of Manhattan, which means that even if there was space to create an on-campus arena (which there isn't), the cost of that real estate would never be economically feasible even if DePaul had Harvard's endowment. So, DePaul plays its games in an arena that's literally a couple of hundred yards from the runways at O'Hare. I can only imagine what goes through a recruit's mind - you see the campus and love it, you see the Lincoln Park neighborhood and love it, yet you get out the arena and, well, you're just shocked at the disconnect. I wish DePaul would at least consider moving its games to the United Center - it would be easier for the students to get to games, it's still in the city and at least it's an arena that befits a big-time program. Part of the reason why the basketball budget is so low is that DePaul is really doing the bare minimum in terms of arena costs, which is killing the program.

Where did DePaul used to play before AllState and why did they move?

DePaul used to play on an on-campus gym called Alumni Hall up until the late-1970s. As the program rose to national prominence, Alumni Hall simply wouldn't fit the crowds anymore - it might have held a couple of thousand people at the most. At the same time, Lincoln Park was considered to be an inner city neighborhood at that time and not a nice area to live at all. Concurrently, the Rosemont Horizon (now called the Allstate Arena) was developed right by O'Hare, which offered a then-state of the art arena in the Chicago area (the Chicago Stadium as the other option, which was built in the 1930s). Note that this was back when people were fleeing urban neighborhoods and suburban development was the focus for everyone, so the thought of having an arena outside of the center of the city and in the suburbs was considered to be a very good thing. Both DePaul and Loyola played their home games at the Horizon.

As the city of Chicago recovered and, specifically, the Lincoln Park neighborhood became one of the nicest urban locations in the country, DePaul's decision which made a ton of sense back in the 1970s now looks like a horrible decision today. If DePaul knew how Lincoln Park was going to develop during the 1980s and 1990s, then I have no doubt that they would've secured an on-campus arena at that time. Alas, they did what most reasonable people would've done back in the 1970s and try to disassociate itself from the decaying urban neighborhoods and hook itself to the growing suburbs.

(01-18-2010 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 10:27 AM)Hoquista Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 10:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 09:51 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 08:38 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  They were added to keep the non-BE football schools at the same number as the FB playing schools.

Primarily, but the Chicago media market was an issue as well, which is why a Xavier or a Temple was not in the mix, as these markets were already in the Big East footprint.

Yes, there's no doubt that DePaul got the benefit of its location (which isn't anything to sneeze at) and at the time of the BE expansion, the program was actually doing pretty well. If you were to list Catholic programs going through rough times in 2003-04, you would've put Villanova and Georgetown ahead of DePaul (and you see where Villanova and Georgetown are now), so it wasn't as if though DePaul was going 0-for-the-conference in C-USA.

The arena issue will always be a problem, IMHO. DePaul has one of the best urban locations of any college in the country. The problem is that it has also made it into one of the most expensive urban locations in the country outside of Manhattan, which means that even if there was space to create an on-campus arena (which there isn't), the cost of that real estate would never be economically feasible even if DePaul had Harvard's endowment. So, DePaul plays its games in an arena that's literally a couple of hundred yards from the runways at O'Hare. I can only imagine what goes through a recruit's mind - you see the campus and love it, you see the Lincoln Park neighborhood and love it, yet you get out the arena and, well, you're just shocked at the disconnect. I wish DePaul would at least consider moving its games to the United Center - it would be easier for the students to get to games, it's still in the city and at least it's an arena that befits a big-time program. Part of the reason why the basketball budget is so low is that DePaul is really doing the bare minimum in terms of arena costs, which is killing the program.

Where did DePaul used to play before AllState and why did they move?

DePaul used to play on an on-campus gym called Alumni Hall up until the late-1970s. As the program rose to national prominence, Alumni Hall simply wouldn't fit the crowds anymore - it might have held a couple of thousand people at the most. At the same time, Lincoln Park was considered to be an inner city neighborhood at that time and not a nice area to live at all. Concurrently, the Rosemont Horizon (now called the Allstate Arena) was developed right by O'Hare, which offered a then-state of the art arena in the Chicago area (the Chicago Stadium as the other option, which was built in the 1930s). Note that this was back when people were fleeing urban neighborhoods and suburban development was the focus for everyone, so the thought of having an arena outside of the center of the city and in the suburbs was considered to be a very good thing. Both DePaul and Loyola played their home games at the Horizon.

As the city of Chicago recovered and, specifically, the Lincoln Park neighborhood became one of the nicest urban locations in the country, DePaul's decision which made a ton of sense back in the 1970s now looks like a horrible decision today. If DePaul knew how Lincoln Park was going to develop during the 1980s and 1990s, then I have no doubt that they would've secured an on-campus arena at that time. Alas, they did what most reasonable people would've done back in the 1970s and try to disassociate itself from the decaying urban neighborhoods and hook itself to the growing suburbs.

Is their non-student fanbase from the city or the suburbs near Rosemont? This seems analogous to when Georgetown played way out in Landover, MD

(01-18-2010 10:56 AM)uvaeer Wrote:  Is their non-student fanbase from the city or the suburbs near Rosemont? This seems analogous to when Georgetown played way out in Landover, MD

These days, I would say it's fairly split, so it's not as if though there are tons more alums in the suburbs versus the city or vice versa. Chicago is interesting in that it's a fairly cohesive geographic region for being such a large market. There are still some North Side/South Side splits, yet it's not as pronounced as, say, NYC residents thinking that New Jersey and Connecticut are completely different regions altogether. Even a lot of smaller metro areas, such as DC (where the city, Maryland and Virginia areas are very defined) or the Bay Area (SF vs. East Bay vs. Silicon Valley) are somewhat disjointed whereas the Chicago area is thought of as a single entity.

Regardless, I think even the suburban DePaul fans would acknowledge that the school would be so much better off with an on-campus arena today. It would've effectively been a college basketball version of Wrigleyville. Economics and real estate have now made that dream impossible, so I think the next best thing is to simply move the games to the United Center even though it's a massive place (22,000 seats). That building does mean something to kids that grow up in Chicago with the Bulls dynasty and Michael Jordan, so that would make the best of a bad stadium situation.

DePaul will never be able to compete in the BE, IMO. They could win in a lesser conference, but they just don't have the level of commitment required to pull off the miracle of getting back to being competetive while competing against the programs in this conference.

I agree, rath. I don't think DePaul will ever be able to compete with the rest of The BEast...

IMO, this is the first case within our conference of BCS money forcing expenditures that schools without the infusion of the vast sums of money generated by football at the highest level are unable to keep pace with. DePaul is merely the first casualty. There will be other casualities in the future. You can bank on it...

(01-18-2010 11:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I agree, rath. I don't think DePaul will ever be able to compete with the rest of The BEast...

DePaul can compete about as well as Providence, St John's and Seton Hall. Four spots which could be filled by all-sports schools.

(01-18-2010 11:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I agree, rath. I don't think DePaul will ever be able to compete with the rest of The BEast...

IMO, this is the first case within our conference of BCS money forcing expenditures that schools without the infusion of the vast sums of money generated by football at the highest level are unable to keep pace with. DePaul is merely the first casualty. There will be other casualities in the future. You can bank on it...

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=413446

I posted the amount of $$$ spent per school on the men's basketball program and 3 of the bottom 4 schools were football schools. Are we to consider them to be casualties as well, especially Rutgers and South Florida who have never been good?

Basketball is a completely different animal than Football, Non-BCS programs can compete and win, just look at what Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier have done in recent years not to mention what BE schools Villanova and Georgetown have done. In basketball a school is always a good coach and few top notch recruits away from turning things around. DePaul needs a coach that knows and can recruit the Chicago area. Period. If DePaul makes a good hire they will get back to being competitive again.

(01-18-2010 10:56 AM)uvaeer Wrote:  Is their non-student fanbase from the city or the suburbs near Rosemont? This seems analogous to when Georgetown played way out in Landover, MD

Sort of... The Capital Center was a ways away from Georgetown. In my opinion, it was too far.

I lived in DC at the time and saw Georgetown play a few times at the Cap Center.

I now live in Chicago and not too far away from the Allstate Arena. I go to a number of DePaul games.

In my opinion, I think the Allstate Arena is outdated. It should be destroyed and replaced in the same spot. I like the location. I think it is a great location for games.

DePaul has a small campus (building) just a few minutes away. I took a number of classes there.

It is not really near the DePaul (proper) campus. I wish more students would show up to the games.

(01-18-2010 01:26 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 11:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I agree, rath. I don't think DePaul will ever be able to compete with the rest of The BEast...

IMO, this is the first case within our conference of BCS money forcing expenditures that schools without the infusion of the vast sums of money generated by football at the highest level are unable to keep pace with. DePaul is merely the first casualty. There will be other casualities in the future. You can bank on it...

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=413446

I posted the amount of $$$ spent per school on the men's basketball program and 3 of the bottom 4 schools were football schools. Are we to consider them to be casualties as well, especially Rutgers and South Florida who have never been good?

Basketball is a completely different animal than Football, Non-BCS programs can compete and win, just look at what Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier have done in recent years not to mention what BE schools Villanova and Georgetown have done. In basketball a school is always a good coach and few top notch recruits away from turning things around. DePaul needs a coach that knows and can recruit the Chicago area. Period. If DePaul makes a good hire they will get back to being competitive again.

The disparity between non-BCS schools and BCS schools will become more and more apparent as time goes on. The cost of new facilities, and all other associated spending in major college basketball programs, keeps increasing. Over time, the schools with the most money will simply be able to outspend everyone else, with very few exceptions. That's where we're heading...

(01-18-2010 02:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 01:26 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 11:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I agree, rath. I don't think DePaul will ever be able to compete with the rest of The BEast...

IMO, this is the first case within our conference of BCS money forcing expenditures that schools without the infusion of the vast sums of money generated by football at the highest level are unable to keep pace with. DePaul is merely the first casualty. There will be other casualities in the future. You can bank on it...

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=413446

I posted the amount of $$$ spent per school on the men's basketball program and 3 of the bottom 4 schools were football schools. Are we to consider them to be casualties as well, especially Rutgers and South Florida who have never been good?

Basketball is a completely different animal than Football, Non-BCS programs can compete and win, just look at what Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier have done in recent years not to mention what BE schools Villanova and Georgetown have done. In basketball a school is always a good coach and few top notch recruits away from turning things around. DePaul needs a coach that knows and can recruit the Chicago area. Period. If DePaul makes a good hire they will get back to being competitive again.

The disparity between non-BCS schools and BCS schools will become more and more apparent as time goes on. The cost of new facilities, and all other associated spending in major college basketball programs, keeps increasing. Over time, the schools with the most money will simply be able to outspend everyone else, with very few exceptions. That's where we're heading...

Well we will just have to disagree on this one. I agree with your assessment as far as football is concerned where money will eventually drive non-BCS into obscurity. But basketball is completely different and you are overlooking a few key differences.

1.) Yes the top football schools will continue to have a $$ advantage, which will lead to a facility advantage, and also to a recruiting advantage. But getting the top flight recruits is also a double edge sword as Ohio State and USC have seen because they are truly here today and gone tomorrow. This causes schools like this to constantly be starting teams led by freshman and sophomores while 2nd tier schools are starting entire line-ups of juniors and seniors. I don't care how great of a prospect you are, there is a big difference between being an 18 year old straight out of an AAU league and being a 22 year who has spent 4 years playing against top college competition. This serves to level playing field between the have's and the have not's in a way that is not there in football where leaving early is uncommon.

2.) Recruiting is not an exact science. Even in football there is great talent that gets churned by non-BCS schools. Just watch the NFL draft and see how many picks there are not only from C-USA, the WAC, the MAC, and the Sun Belt, but even from the FCS division and Div. 2. Talent will always fall through the cracks and end up at the non-BCS schools. So why do I think you are right in your assessment about football and not basketball? In football you have to field a starting line-up of 22 players excluding special teams, in basketball the starting line-up is 5. Even when BCS plays non-BCS in football there are positions on the field where the non-BCS match up well with or even have an advantage against the BCS school. But the sheer volume of players that are taken on scholarship and see the field makes it unlikely that they will have an advantage beyond a couple of these positions. In basketball, one or even 2 players can be a total game changer, especially with the 3 point line serving as the great equalizer. A hot shooting hand can be the difference between a win and a loss every night.

3.) The format for deciding a champions. The BCS excludes all non-BCS schools from playing for a national championship. There is no arguing that it doesn't. In basketball the tournament format gives every conference champion a shot no matter what the name of the league is and the one and done style lends itself to upsets and success against top flight schools is also something you sell to recruits. Success begets success.

The past decade of college basketball has seen more parity than we have seen in decades and I don't see that changing anytime soon. If anything I think sport will be more competitive as the talent pool coming from the high school levels get better and deeper.

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  1.) Yes the top football schools will continue to have a $$ advantage, which will lead to a facility advantage, and also to a recruiting advantage. But getting the top flight recruits is also a double edge sword as Ohio State and USC have seen because they are truly here today and gone tomorrow. This causes schools like this to constantly be starting teams led by freshman and sophomores while 2nd tier schools are starting entire line-ups of juniors and seniors. I don't care how great of a prospect you are, there is a big difference between being an 18 year old straight out of an AAU league and being a 22 year who has spent 4 years playing against top college competition. This serves to level playing field between the have's and the have not's in a way that is not there in football where leaving early is uncommon.

2.) Recruiting is not an exact science. Even in football there is great talent that gets churned by non-BCS schools. Just watch the NFL draft and see how many picks there are not only from C-USA, the WAC, the MAC, and the Sun Belt, but even from the FCS division and Div. 2. Talent will always fall through the cracks and end up at the non-BCS schools. So why do I think you are right in your assessment about football and not basketball? In football you have to field a starting line-up of 22 players excluding special teams, in basketball the starting line-up is 5. Even when BCS plays non-BCS in football there are positions on the field where the non-BCS match up well with or even have an advantage against the BCS school. But the sheer volume of players that are taken on scholarship and see the field makes it unlikely that they will have an advantage beyond a couple of these positions. In basketball, one or even 2 players can be a total game changer, especially with the 3 point line serving as the great equalizer. A hot shooting hand can be the difference between a win and a loss every night.

3.) The format for deciding a champions. The BCS excludes all non-BCS schools from playing for a national championship. There is no arguing that it doesn't. In basketball the tournament format gives every conference champion a shot no matter what the name of the league is and the one and done style lends itself to upsets and success against top flight schools is also something you sell to recruits. Success begets success.

The past decade of college basketball has seen more parity than we have seen in decades and I don't see that changing anytime soon. If anything I think sport will be more competitive as the talent pool coming from the high school levels get better and deeper.

I generally agree with this. The arms race in facilities is much more important in college football as opposed to basketball.

GENERALLY SPEAKING (and I emphasize this since there will be plenty of anecdotes to refute this), football recruits go to a school for the program while basketball recruits go to a school for the coach. Football recruits may love a coach, but if they aren't confident in the program overall (i.e. facilities), then it can't compensate for how persuasive the coach might be. On the other hand, basketball recruits may love a school and its facilities, but if they can't get along with the coach on a personal level, then it's almost a certainty that the basketball recruits will go elsewhere. Once again, this doesn't happen in all circumstances and each recruit has his own personal needs in the process, but it's a general trend that I see.

That's why it's much harder to become a consistent football power if you aren't there already (since it requires many years of changing the perception of the program plus a lot of investment in physical facilities) compared to moving up in the basketball world (where literally one key recruit can completely change the complexity of the team regardless of how much money you might spend). Of course, the flip side with basketball recruiting is that it's a zero-sum game: while one great player can change the entire program around, ability to get that one great player gets more difficult the longer that a program is irrelevant on the national scene.

(01-18-2010 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 10:27 AM)Hoquista Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 10:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 09:51 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 08:38 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  They were added to keep the non-BE football schools at the same number as the FB playing schools.

Primarily, but the Chicago media market was an issue as well, which is why a Xavier or a Temple was not in the mix, as these markets were already in the Big East footprint.

Yes, there's no doubt that DePaul got the benefit of its location (which isn't anything to sneeze at) and at the time of the BE expansion, the program was actually doing pretty well. If you were to list Catholic programs going through rough times in 2003-04, you would've put Villanova and Georgetown ahead of DePaul (and you see where Villanova and Georgetown are now), so it wasn't as if though DePaul was going 0-for-the-conference in C-USA.

The arena issue will always be a problem, IMHO. DePaul has one of the best urban locations of any college in the country. The problem is that it has also made it into one of the most expensive urban locations in the country outside of Manhattan, which means that even if there was space to create an on-campus arena (which there isn't), the cost of that real estate would never be economically feasible even if DePaul had Harvard's endowment. So, DePaul plays its games in an arena that's literally a couple of hundred yards from the runways at O'Hare. I can only imagine what goes through a recruit's mind - you see the campus and love it, you see the Lincoln Park neighborhood and love it, yet you get out the arena and, well, you're just shocked at the disconnect. I wish DePaul would at least consider moving its games to the United Center - it would be easier for the students to get to games, it's still in the city and at least it's an arena that befits a big-time program. Part of the reason why the basketball budget is so low is that DePaul is really doing the bare minimum in terms of arena costs, which is killing the program.

Where did DePaul used to play before AllState and why did they move?

DePaul used to play on an on-campus gym called Alumni Hall up until the late-1970s. As the program rose to national prominence, Alumni Hall simply wouldn't fit the crowds anymore - it might have held a couple of thousand people at the most. At the same time, Lincoln Park was considered to be an inner city neighborhood at that time and not a nice area to live at all. Concurrently, the Rosemont Horizon (now called the Allstate Arena) was developed right by O'Hare, which offered a then-state of the art arena in the Chicago area (the Chicago Stadium as the other option, which was built in the 1930s). Note that this was back when people were fleeing urban neighborhoods and suburban development was the focus for everyone, so the thought of having an arena outside of the center of the city and in the suburbs was considered to be a very good thing. Both DePaul and Loyola played their home games at the Horizon.

As the city of Chicago recovered and, specifically, the Lincoln Park neighborhood became one of the nicest urban locations in the country, DePaul's decision which made a ton of sense back in the 1970s now looks like a horrible decision today. If DePaul knew how Lincoln Park was going to develop during the 1980s and 1990s, then I have no doubt that they would've secured an on-campus arena at that time. Alas, they did what most reasonable people would've done back in the 1970s and try to disassociate itself from the decaying urban neighborhoods and hook itself to the growing suburbs.

I honestly think your reasoning is spot on with DePaul throughout the thread. Knowing what I do about DePaul and Chicago especially the Near North Side neighborhoods its astounding what an on-campus arena would be like for the Blue Demons. I do agree the United Center while not ideal is in a better location that's considerably easier to get to for students and the public at large in Chicago.

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  In basketball the tournament format gives every conference champion a shot no matter what the name of the league is and the one and done style lends itself to upsets and success against top flight schools is also something you sell to recruits. Success begets success.

There is no truer success story than Gonzaga. They've taken one Elite Eight run in 1999 and haven't missed a tournament since. More often than not winning at least one game in the tournament too.

Xavier would be another example (sorry UC fans). Since 1986, they've made 18 NCAA tournaments, only missed tournaments in consecutive years once (1999 & 2000) and more often than not had a seed higher than 8.