(02-04-2012 01:35 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  

(02-04-2012 11:05 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Lets face it, if they want to watch the best football, it's the NFL anyway, not Alabama or Oregon.

I would argue the entertainment level of college football is more than the NFL. NFL is a chess match while college is more like checkers. College has a faster pace and more major plays while the NFL is more of a slow drive down the field. I for one would rather watch the more exciting plays of college than the better players of the NFL.

You've been watching too many NIU-Toledo games I think. Well, personally, I'd rather watch chess than checkers so we have a difference of opinion right there....but anyway, I only watch a few of the games with top teams now, and that would stop if NIU was no longer in the same division. And I believe some others would as well.

(02-04-2012 06:13 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(02-04-2012 08:51 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-04-2012 02:21 AM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  

(02-03-2012 10:55 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-02-2012 11:25 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  You'll have every right to. I'd love to see the MAC get better. But I've been a fan for 20+ years and I haven't seen significant progress.

There's definitely a ceiling there for MAC teams, and it's made of brick instead of glass.

Don't you think that they said the same thing on the Boise board 10 years ago...

Excellent question. Boise St is indeed a great case study. What did they do right?

(Having a rapidly growing population and virtually no local competition were good starts.)

Have a good run of coaches (at least while they were there) and being able to keep one. That is huge. It also helps being the biggest thing around for a very long way. In state they only compete with Idaho and then you have a lot of nothing for a long time with plenty of people interested at playing at a high level and not that many choices to go to. Get some good coaches start winning and their ceiling was much more glass than the brick. School in our neck of the woods have a lot more to compete with I think and few of us have much success keeping coaches as they look at us as a good way of elevating themselves.

Answering the question of why Boise State has become so good in football is like answering why Miami has done it in Hockey.

There just aren't that many programs in the West and many of them are really remote so when Boise was on the recruiting trail back in the 90's against Idaho, Nevada, Utah State they were able to always get the best Big West level players.

Then all the winning started to translate into reputation and Boise was able to go into California and out recruit small market WAC-MWC schools. There isn't a lot of competition below the PAC-12 level out West.

Miami in hockey only has to compete with 58 programs and in the NCHC has a recruiting advantage over half of them, not to mention a great arena. If there was 200 D1 schools in Hockey I'm not sure if Miami would be quite so attractive of a program.

Miami became successful before they built Goggin. They built it because they were successful, not the other way around.
Facilities leading to big improvement is a myth.

(02-05-2012 01:39 PM)axeme Wrote:  Miami became successful before they built Goggin. They built it because they were successful, not the other way around.
Facilities leading to big improvement is a myth.

They were not a National Championship contending Hockey program before the Goggin Center.

I agree in general that facilities overrated BUT you have to have the facilities to play the game and one of the things that over the years separated the MAC from the other mid major football conferences back in the 70's and 80's was they had more schools with solid football facilities.

Is East Carolina a great football school? They had the football facility so that is why they went into Division 1-A while Appalachian State was sent packing to I-AA. Appy State in the last 10 years has played better football but the facilities (up until recently) have prevented them from getting into the top level.

(02-05-2012 04:02 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-05-2012 01:39 PM)axeme Wrote:  Miami became successful before they built Goggin. They built it because they were successful, not the other way around.
Facilities leading to big improvement is a myth.

They were not a National Championship contending Hockey program before the Goggin Center.

Wrong. Miami was ranked #1 in the country the season before they ever played a game in the new arena.

(02-05-2012 04:48 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-05-2012 04:02 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-05-2012 01:39 PM)axeme Wrote:  Miami became successful before they built Goggin. They built it because they were successful, not the other way around.
Facilities leading to big improvement is a myth.

They were not a National Championship contending Hockey program before the Goggin Center.

Wrong. Miami was ranked #1 in the country the season before they ever played a game in the new arena.

Can you prove this?

Can you go further and list the post season record of Miami the 5 years preceeding the announcement of construction of the Goggin Center vs. their post season success in the first 5 years afterward?

If you can take a look at its obvious that Goggin had a big impact on the Miami program.

Miami Redhawk NCAA appearances in Hockey:

1993
1997
(2002 Goggin Fundraising Begins)
2004
2006 (Goggin Opens)
2007
2008
2009 (Frozen Four)
2010 (Frozen Four)
2011

There wasn't very much tradition at all with Miami Hockey previous to the Goggin Center.

Miami Consensus #1

Quote:The 2005-06 academic year was a watershed one for Miami's ice-based athletic teams. The hockey team made school history by reaching the top of the national polls on Jan. 30, becoming the first team in school history to be voted the nation's top squad. At the same time, synchronized skating had twice as much to be excited about, as the program brought home national titles at both the collegiate and senior levels.

It is unlikely that a better chain of events could have been scripted for the year leading up to the unveiling of the new Ice Center, and with good reason, people in the Miami community are excited about what the future holds.

I suppose you want to credit the arena for the success of their synchronized skating team, too. In both cases, they had nationally prominent teams before the facility opened.

I am sorry that does not agree with your facilities theory. The problem with your theory is that you only want to apply it selectively. Just because a school builds a new facility and has success in it does not mean they had success because they built the new facility. The biggest causal factor is coaching and recruiting. That is what Miami has that actually led to their successes.

For every Goggin that opens, there is an Convo in Yspi and an Infocision Stadium in Akron. It's been shown over and over again that facilities are not directly related to success by the teams that inhabit them. Your wanting to argue that a new arena led to Miami's success makes about as much sense as my arguing that KSU's success in the MAC and Butler's success in the Horizon are due to their not building new arenas. You don't get to cherry-pick results--you have to take all of them. It's like the myth of the IPF's in football. They are nice for the teams who use them, but they don't measurably make teams better than they were.

So, what is the advantage of nice facilities? It has to help recruiting, but that would be one of those factors that is hard to isolate and determine how much it's helping, if at all. Unless the recruit comes right out and says that the facilities were a factor. The impact would be delayed by at least a couple years, I'm sure.

(02-06-2012 09:27 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  So, what is the advantage of nice facilities? It has to help recruiting, but that would be one of those factors that is hard to isolate and determine how much it's helping, if at all. Unless the recruit comes right out and says that the facilities were a factor. The impact would be delayed by at least a couple years, I'm sure.

Even having the recruit say it is a factor is not really proof of much. In an interview with either the local media or the university/athletic department PR people, a newly signed recruit is going to say the same things they always say when they are asked why they chose whatever school they chose: "I really liked the coaches. I met the team and felt comfortable with them. I really liked the campus and facilities."

Does that mean the ones who decided to go somewhere else did so because they didn't like the facilities? No. Recruits are going to say they really like the place they chose. It's almost impossible to know how much a factor facilities are because there are other factors far more important to a recruit's decision.

(02-05-2012 01:35 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-04-2012 06:13 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(02-04-2012 08:51 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-04-2012 02:21 AM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  

(02-03-2012 10:55 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  There's definitely a ceiling there for MAC teams, and it's made of brick instead of glass.

Don't you think that they said the same thing on the Boise board 10 years ago...

Excellent question. Boise St is indeed a great case study. What did they do right?

(Having a rapidly growing population and virtually no local competition were good starts.)

Have a good run of coaches (at least while they were there) and being able to keep one. That is huge. It also helps being the biggest thing around for a very long way. In state they only compete with Idaho and then you have a lot of nothing for a long time with plenty of people interested at playing at a high level and not that many choices to go to. Get some good coaches start winning and their ceiling was much more glass than the brick. School in our neck of the woods have a lot more to compete with I think and few of us have much success keeping coaches as they look at us as a good way of elevating themselves.

Answering the question of why Boise State has become so good in football is like answering why Miami has done it in Hockey.

There just aren't that many programs in the West and many of them are really remote so when Boise was on the recruiting trail back in the 90's against Idaho, Nevada, Utah State they were able to always get the best Big West level players.

Then all the winning started to translate into reputation and Boise was able to go into California and out recruit small market WAC-MWC schools. There isn't a lot of competition below the PAC-12 level out West.

So, one answer for BSU is that they spend far more money than the MAC. Is that it? MAC will win more if they spend more?

As for out-recruiting, BSU was not a powerhouse in the 90s. Nevada had gotten on a tear, and USU was decent. But, what you really overlook is the competition that did exist out west. Three teams dropped Div IA football in the early '90s. LBSU, CSUF, and Pacific.

It was in that time that the Pac 10 began its rise back to prominence.

For Boise St to succeed it's more than just a default school for talent out west. They must be doing something different than those other 3.

(02-06-2012 09:50 AM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 09:27 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  So, what is the advantage of nice facilities? It has to help recruiting, but that would be one of those factors that is hard to isolate and determine how much it's helping, if at all. Unless the recruit comes right out and says that the facilities were a factor. The impact would be delayed by at least a couple years, I'm sure.

Even having the recruit say it is a factor is not really proof of much. In an interview with either the local media or the university/athletic department PR people, a newly signed recruit is going to say the same things they always say when they are asked why they chose whatever school they chose: "I really liked the coaches. I met the team and felt comfortable with them. I really liked the campus and facilities."

Does that mean the ones who decided to go somewhere else did so because they didn't like the facilities? No. Recruits are going to say they really like the place they chose. It's almost impossible to know how much a factor facilities are because there are other factors far more important to a recruit's decision.

True. I do think it's a factor, but maybe one that gets too much credit sometimes. Most MAC facilities are at a similar level, but if your facilities are on a par with schools from a big 6 conference, maybe you get a few recruits you wouldn't otherwise.

(02-06-2012 10:21 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 09:50 AM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 09:27 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  So, what is the advantage of nice facilities? It has to help recruiting, but that would be one of those factors that is hard to isolate and determine how much it's helping, if at all. Unless the recruit comes right out and says that the facilities were a factor. The impact would be delayed by at least a couple years, I'm sure.

Even having the recruit say it is a factor is not really proof of much. In an interview with either the local media or the university/athletic department PR people, a newly signed recruit is going to say the same things they always say when they are asked why they chose whatever school they chose: "I really liked the coaches. I met the team and felt comfortable with them. I really liked the campus and facilities."

Does that mean the ones who decided to go somewhere else did so because they didn't like the facilities? No. Recruits are going to say they really like the place they chose. It's almost impossible to know how much a factor facilities are because there are other factors far more important to a recruit's decision.

True. I do think it's a factor, but maybe one that gets too much credit sometimes. Most MAC facilities are at a similar level, but if your facilities are on a par with schools from a big 6 conference, maybe you get a few recruits you wouldn't otherwise.

Think about it this way, if Akron never had the Rubber Bowl they never would have been able to get into the MAC.

In their case Infocision didn't boost them in a saturated Ohio football recruiting market. The point of Infocision was to build increase fan and alumni engagement more so than recruiting in of itself.

(02-06-2012 10:11 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-05-2012 01:35 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-04-2012 06:13 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(02-04-2012 08:51 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-04-2012 02:21 AM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  Don't you think that they said the same thing on the Boise board 10 years ago...

Excellent question. Boise St is indeed a great case study. What did they do right?

(Having a rapidly growing population and virtually no local competition were good starts.)

Have a good run of coaches (at least while they were there) and being able to keep one. That is huge. It also helps being the biggest thing around for a very long way. In state they only compete with Idaho and then you have a lot of nothing for a long time with plenty of people interested at playing at a high level and not that many choices to go to. Get some good coaches start winning and their ceiling was much more glass than the brick. School in our neck of the woods have a lot more to compete with I think and few of us have much success keeping coaches as they look at us as a good way of elevating themselves.

Answering the question of why Boise State has become so good in football is like answering why Miami has done it in Hockey.

There just aren't that many programs in the West and many of them are really remote so when Boise was on the recruiting trail back in the 90's against Idaho, Nevada, Utah State they were able to always get the best Big West level players.

Then all the winning started to translate into reputation and Boise was able to go into California and out recruit small market WAC-MWC schools. There isn't a lot of competition below the PAC-12 level out West.

So, one answer for BSU is that they spend far more money than the MAC. Is that it? MAC will win more if they spend more?

As for out-recruiting, BSU was not a powerhouse in the 90s. Nevada had gotten on a tear, and USU was decent. But, what you really overlook is the competition that did exist out west. Three teams dropped Div IA football in the early '90s. LBSU, CSUF, and Pacific.

It was in that time that the Pac 10 began its rise back to prominence.

For Boise St to succeed it's more than just a default school for talent out west. They must be doing something different than those other 3.

I think these are points well taken Torch but have you looked at Boise's lifetime record as football program?

FCS (1978-95)
1978 (7-4)
1979 (10-1)
1980 (10-3)
1981 (10-3)
1982 (8-3)
1983 (6-5)
1984 (6-5)
1985 (7-4)
1986 (5-6)
1987 (6-5)
1988 (8-4)
1989 (6-5)
1990 (10-4)
1991 (7-4)
1992 (5-6)
1993 (3-8)
1994 (13-2)
1995 (7-4)

They only had 3 losing seasons in 18 years of FCS ball. Boise now has a streak of 14 straight seasons in FBS after a rough patch as a transitioning school in the late 90's. They have almost always been good.

The big difference I see in Boise is the large market for a western school that has made it a more popular place to play over many schools out west through the years. Today they have a lot of tradition to additionally sell a recruit on that is not found commonly in those school.

Nevada relative to Idaho, Utah State, New Mexico State is the same way sitting in Reno though they've lacked a recruiting bump for national prominence like Boise State.