(02-23-2012 01:45 PM)EA3 Wrote:  I totally understand that when a person looks at Gonzaga, Butler, George Mason, VCU, etc...it is easy to come to the conclusion that WMU should be able to duplicate their success. After all, our enrollment and tradition over the last century dwarfs those schools.

However, we fail to remember that in the late 90's, our conference decided to pump our money into our football programs. It was deemed the most likely of the major sports to get us on tv and make us $$$. Our basketball programs have subsequently floundered on a national level because of this decision. It's really really tough to be relevant in basketball when the budget is a fraction of other teams in the Missouri Valley, Gonzaga, Butler, etc... Recruits see this disparity and they gravitate towards the $$$$. It stinks for us.

You're second paragraph is spot on...it's tough to compete with smaller schools with tradition-rich basketball programs when they have no football program (at least no FBS program) to worry about.

But VCU and George Mason both have a higher enrollment than WMU, as well as all the other MAC schools (sans Temple, if we are counting football). And I'm not sure I understand the " our tradition over the last century dwarfs those schools" comment. Are you encompassing all sports, or just hoops? If it's just basketball, then all four of the teams you mentioned have more tourney wins in one different season than WMU has in their history. Again, as you mentioned, its tough to compete with schools that invest most of their athletic dollars in basketball.

(02-23-2012 01:45 PM)EA3 Wrote:  However, we fail to remember that in the late 90's, our conference decided to pump our money into our football programs. It was deemed the most likely of the major sports to get us on tv and make us $$$. Our basketball programs have subsequently floundered on a national level because of this decision. It's really really tough to be relevant in basketball when the budget is a fraction of other teams in the Missouri Valley, Gonzaga, Butler, etc... Recruits see this disparity and they gravitate towards the $$$$. It stinks for us.

I have seen and read this assertion over and over. Just HOW has this caused MAC hoops to suffer? Give me some examples. When that decision was made, did they cut the BB budgets at all MAC schools? Did they decide to go after lesser recruits? Not saying you're wrong, just that I fail to grasp the connection behind the assertion.

I believe that other mid-major leagues and programs have just gotten better and the MAC has not and were left behind.

I suspect that there is more to this than a decision in the 90s to focus more on FB. Besides, is throwing more $$ at hoops necessarily going to lead to better results?

(02-23-2012 02:31 PM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:45 PM)EA3 Wrote:  I totally understand that when a person looks at Gonzaga, Butler, George Mason, VCU, etc...it is easy to come to the conclusion that WMU should be able to duplicate their success. After all, our enrollment and tradition over the last century dwarfs those schools.

However, we fail to remember that in the late 90's, our conference decided to pump our money into our football programs. It was deemed the most likely of the major sports to get us on tv and make us $$$. Our basketball programs have subsequently floundered on a national level because of this decision. It's really really tough to be relevant in basketball when the budget is a fraction of other teams in the Missouri Valley, Gonzaga, Butler, etc... Recruits see this disparity and they gravitate towards the $$$$. It stinks for us.

You're second paragraph is spot on...it's tough to compete with smaller schools with tradition-rich basketball programs when they have no football program (at least no FBS program) to worry about.

But VCU and George Mason both have a higher enrollment than WMU, as well as all the other MAC schools (sans Temple, if we are counting football). And I'm not sure I understand the " our tradition over the last century dwarfs those schools" comment. Are you encompassing all sports, or just hoops? If it's just basketball, then all four of the teams you mentioned have more tourney wins in one different season than WMU has in their history. Again, as you mentioned, its tough to compete with schools that invest most of their athletic dollars in basketball.

I didn't do the research on the enrollment. Totally blew that thought.

Yes, the history would be our entire athletic dept.

In regards to George Mason, it is relatively new on the collegiate landscape. Correct me if I am wrong, but they haven't been competing in D I athletics for an abundance of time. Without looking it up, their athletic programs are fairly "new" in regards to WMU (or the rest of the MAC for that matter).

Gonzaga probably has been around longer, however i do not recall them being nationally recognized in any other sport besides basketball. Their history in D I athletics probably can't match WMU's.

Both have obviously had much more success in basketball recently than the entire 12 teams in the MAC put together. Point being, they picked one sport, hired the right coach and went after it...without the contraints of having a big time football budget draining the athletic funding as you mentioned.

Part of the prevailing idea of "why can't we be like GM or Gonzaga" is the name recognition issue. Our fans see our teams playing Michigan at the Big House. They see us in the NCAA hockey post season tourney. They see Gonzaga and GM during basketball season only. The thought "hey, we are playing with Big 10 teams in football, being seen on a national tv, and competing for a national c-ship in hockey = we should be able to do the same in basketball" creep into every Bronco fan's mind. But it's not reality due to the money contraints.

How many schools have an FCS football program, or none at all, and wish they could watch their team in a bowl game? It goes both ways, our conference chased football because it made the most sense and it provided the path of least resistence to gain national recognition.

(02-23-2012 02:43 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:45 PM)EA3 Wrote:  However, we fail to remember that in the late 90's, our conference decided to pump our money into our football programs. It was deemed the most likely of the major sports to get us on tv and make us $$$. Our basketball programs have subsequently floundered on a national level because of this decision. It's really really tough to be relevant in basketball when the budget is a fraction of other teams in the Missouri Valley, Gonzaga, Butler, etc... Recruits see this disparity and they gravitate towards the $$$$. It stinks for us.

I have seen and read this assertion over and over. Just HOW has this caused MAC hoops to suffer? Give me some examples. When that decision was made, did they cut the BB budgets at all MAC schools? Did they decide to go after lesser recruits? Not saying you're wrong, just that I fail to grasp the connection behind the assertion.

I believe that other mid-major leagues and programs have just gotten better and the MAC has not and were left behind.

I suspect that there is more to this than a decision in the 90s to focus more on FB. Besides, is throwing more $$ at hoops necessarily going to lead to better results?

A good start is the salary of our head coaches in the MAC. They are half of what they could/should be IF we didn't have major bills to be paid by the football team.

Everyone knows that athletic departments don't make money at our level. Only the major 10-20 national programs make the dough. Knowing that we lose money, and the biggest money drain is football, how much more could we pay our head coaches if there wasn't an FBS football team? How many more people would attend basketball games if football wasn't around? People like to identify with the university, football is the #1 choice for most in the community. If that sport wasn't around, would more choose basketball? Would advertising dollars go up in basketball? Ticket sales?

The next reason would be our facilities. A significant amount of money has been spent around the MAC on football stadiums and indoor practice grounds. What if the donors for that money spent it on a basketball arena (or hockey for that matter). Would we see a 12000 seat University Arena called the Seelye Center? Would we see crowds of 8000-10000 if there wasn't football in the fall?

None of that can be "proven". However, I do know that money talks. The MAC is way behind in coaching salaries in men's bball. The quality coaches that we have hired, would be more likely to stay if we were on par with other leagues (MVC?). The recruits would want to play for a good coach in a state of the art arena as well.

It all boils down to the amount of money our athletic programs want to spend on a sport.

This thread reminds me of why I think we should start a lacrosse program.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/lacrosse-men/d1

Here are the rankings of the D I lacrosse teams. Notice anything in particular? They are dominated by the East coast.

Lacrosse is the number 1 growing sport in our country right now.

Would it be wise for WMU to start a lacrosse program? Absolutely. The sport is gaining popularity and geographically we have very little competition. It's no different than hockey, which represents our best chance to win a national c-ship in a DI major sport.

Quick check...there are a total of 60 schools competing in D I lacrosse. Detroit, Ohio St, and Notre Dame are the only noteworthy in name recognition near us.
How long will it take for lacrosse to really take off in the midwest? In the last 10 years we've already seen an explosion of high school teams. How many players and athletes won't be interested in heading to the East coast?

Quote:I have seen and read this assertion over and over. Just HOW has this caused MAC hoops to suffer?

Coaches salaries, recruiting budgets, program budgets (perks for players, academic support, etc), and facilities (arenas, practice facilities, etc)

It's an arms race these days.

And talent is going elsewhere.

When is the last time an NBA level player played in the MAC conference?

It used to be commonplace.

(02-23-2012 03:06 PM)EA3 Wrote:  A good start is the salary of our head coaches in the MAC. They are half of what they could/should be IF we didn't have major bills to be paid by the football team.

We could pay 3X the amount in salary and it still would not keep a coach from leaving as soon as the first big time program offered him twice that. At our level, throwing more $$ at coaching salaries won't matter. I'm not saying I'm against better salaries but if this alone is the strategy, it is a loser.

(02-23-2012 03:06 PM)EA3 Wrote:  Knowing that we lose money, and the biggest money drain is football, how much more could we pay our head coaches if there wasn't an FBS football team? How many more people would attend basketball games if football wasn't around? People like to identify with the university, football is the #1 choice for most in the community. If that sport wasn't around, would more choose basketball? Would advertising dollars go up in basketball? Ticket sales?

Same comment regarding salaries applies here. The only exception might be if you found a great, great coach who loves WMU so much he wouldn't bolt for greener pa$tures. I highly doubt that having football deters any basketball fans from attending basketball games.

(02-23-2012 03:06 PM)EA3 Wrote:  The next reason would be our facilities. A significant amount of money has been spent around the MAC on football stadiums and indoor practice grounds. What if the donors for that money spent it on a basketball arena (or hockey for that matter). Would we see a 12000 seat University Arena called the Seelye Center? Would we see crowds of 8000-10000 if there wasn't football in the fall?

Those football facilities needed the upgrades. As for basketball, WMU had a great thing going for about a year in the mid-late 70s and drew huge crowds - but only because they were a nationally ranked team from the MAC. Sure, they were fun to watch, but the draw was the unbeaten streak and the ranking. After that year, the crowds disappeared and rarely, if ever came back in anything even close to those kind of huge numbers.

IMO, the only way to start bringing back crowds for basketball would be to field a team that wins. Period. I don't mean "wins the MAC West" because that is like being the tallest midget in the circus. Of course, you want to win the West because to get a high seed with the new rules requires a great conference record. But, I'm tired of hearing how we have won the West 5 times in 6 years or whatever it is. Winning the West is a stepping stone to a conference title, not an endgame so we should quit boasting about it. The programs in the West are among the worst in the league. The West title and a couple bucks will just about get you a cup of coffee these days but not much else.

Win consistently and win conference championships. I don't mean win at any cost because we don't want that. Other schools in similar situations to WMU manage to win. It seems clear that WMU students will only turn out in big numbers when the team is really good. Sad, but true.

(02-23-2012 03:06 PM)EA3 Wrote:  None of that can be "proven". However, I do know that money talks. The MAC is way behind in coaching salaries in men's bball. The quality coaches that we have hired, would be more likely to stay if we were on par with other leagues (MVC?). The recruits would want to play for a good coach in a state of the art arena as well.

It all boils down to the amount of money our athletic programs want to spend on a sport.

Just like in education, after a certain point, the amount of $$ a school spends doesn't really matter in terms of success. Money alone isn't the answer.

It comes down to a commitment to excellence that is more than a slogan. It comes down to abandoning small time thinking by leadership, cultivating donors, educating and especially, indoctrinating new students into being Broncos first, most and always, and then supporting with their bodies and their voices and eventually, as alums their wallets, the vision of a great athletics program for a great University.

None of this is necessarily easy, which is but one reason that not all programs or conferences are great. The vision has to come first. I'm hoping that the resurgence of our hockey team is starting to change some thinking.

(02-23-2012 03:12 PM)EA3 Wrote:  This thread reminds me of why I think we should start a lacrosse program.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/lacrosse-men/d1

Here are the rankings of the D I lacrosse teams. Notice anything in particular? They are dominated by the East coast.

Lacrosse is the number 1 growing sport in our country right now.

Would it be wise for WMU to start a lacrosse program? Absolutely. The sport is gaining popularity and geographically we have very little competition. It's no different than hockey, which represents our best chance to win a national c-ship in a DI major sport.

Quick check...there are a total of 60 schools competing in D I lacrosse. Detroit, Ohio St, and Notre Dame are the only noteworthy in name recognition near us.
How long will it take for lacrosse to really take off in the midwest? In the last 10 years we've already seen an explosion of high school teams. How many players and athletes won't be interested in heading to the East coast?

Michigan's added a lacrosse team this year. Lacrosse conferences make hockey look normal, even the new hockey leagues. Detroit's in a league with Jacksonville, VMI and Canisius.

Denver got into lacrosse a few years back. Only problem for DU is that most of the better teams in the nation are way east of them. Not too many lacrosse teams in the region.

I disagree MHB, the MAC is passed over by a lot of coaches because they have better opportunities that pay better elsewhere.

If our starting salary for the men's head basketball coach was say 500-600k, we'd attract better coaches and they would stay longer. You can't deny that this would help our programs.

Of course, winning cures all attendance woes. I don't think WMU has a serious issue in this dept. compared to other conference members. There are a lot of WMU fans in the community that are fair weather though. The students as well. If we win, people will come. Under our current conditions, you are correct, winning consistently brings the crowds back.

Money alone isn't the determining factor, but in college athletics, it's the most important.

(02-23-2012 04:21 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Denver got into lacrosse a few years back. Only problem for DU is that most of the better teams in the nation are way east of them. Not too many lacrosse teams in the region.

I would expect that to gradually start changing. It's only a matter of time before the West coast schools get on board. It's an exciting sport IMO. In a solid 10 years, I would expect the D I schools to grow significantly. I'd rather WMU get on board sooner rather than later.

Actually I think WMU's enrollment is very close to George Mason's and I think it may be slightly more than VCU's. Enrollment numbers are tricky because some schools have far more part-time students than others. If you count only full time students, we are similar to those two.

It's very Pollyanna of you to think if we cut football the money would be left laying around to support basketball. Not in this climate, no way.

(02-23-2012 06:51 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  It's very Pollyanna of you to think if we cut football the money would be left laying around to support basketball. Not in this climate, no way.

It'd likely take what alumni support we *do* have and cut it drastically for a couple generations until the WMU alumni that care that much about athletics don't remember having a football team.

(02-23-2012 07:00 PM)bronconick Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 06:51 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  It's very Pollyanna of you to think if we cut football the money would be left laying around to support basketball. Not in this climate, no way.

It'd likely take what alumni support we *do* have and cut it drastically for a couple generations until the WMU alumni that care that much about athletics don't remember having a football team.

UofD is still waiting for that to happen.

Enrollment has very little to do with it.

Duke's undergrad enrollment for example is around 14,000.

Ours is near 24,000.

Their men's basketball program is better than ours, based on one head-to-head sample.

Now their Football is not good (maybe we should schedule them) and I don't believe they have Hockey - but I don't think they're missing it, either.

(02-23-2012 06:51 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  It's very Pollyanna of you to think if we cut football the money would be left laying around to support basketball. Not in this climate, no way.

It's a hypothetical situation. And yes, MAC bball programs would most definitely have more money to spend if our football programs were nonexistent. I'm not advocating that, I prefer having football at the D I level.

Really, most definitely? How so? You think that in a budget tough world that they're going to say "we have more since fb is gone, so let's spend it on hoops"?

I want some of what you're on. Doesn't work that way.

Not necessarily. I look at it as local revenue coming in.

The football program takes in revenue from local retailers in the form of advertising, donors in the form of monetary gifts, donors in the form of facility improvements, and ticket sales.

It's very well probable that IF football were eliminated, local retailers would shift a portion of their advertising money to basketball, donors would still give a portion of their monetary gifts and facility improvement money, and ticket sales could very well increase for basketball.

And yes, I think if the MAC decided to nix all of our football programs, our basketball programs would become better overnight. Athletic departments are always looking for ways to generate revenue, with the big boy removed from the equation, athletic directors would immediately focus on how they can generate more money for their bball programs.

The never ending debate continues. Was it the chicken or the egg that comes first.

I love listening to all of the sage advice here however, since we all have "the answers". What I do find interesting in fans discussions however is, "what is it that draws the best athletes, and thus gives us the best opportunity to win championships". You don't win without the players. What dynamics creates the perfect situation to draw the athletes?

Take Duke for an example a "world renouwned" school that is small (relatively) that decided quite a few years ago about branding its basketball program. What dynamics do they have to create this environment? Money, more than they can spend for basketball. Name recognition, who hasn't heard of "Duke". A renowned academic institution, you got that right.

The question for us Broncos is, what should we be working on to create a better picture so that recruits would like to break the doors down to get an education at WMU and to play for a "rabid" fan base. There are an awful lot of barriers for us to break and don't think for a minute that our president doesn't think about that. Many here call for KB's head all most as often as they do for the coaches head. Sometimes I think we have nothing but head hunters.

KB, as AD has done a wonderful job with "limited resources". I believe that she has given us some outstanding coaches that have the right values for our university. Both Cubit and Hawkins have used "playing time" as a punishment to minor miscreants. Both coaches have the players receiving an education on the front burner, not on the back burner. They recuit "good" students and better people. On occassions they do make mistakes...........but who doesn't.

There is no one solution that we could implement overnight that would grant us championships. This will come off as an "excuse" to many of you, but what could the Broncos have done this year with only one or two injuries? David Brown went done very early in the season, but he David Brown I saw in a couple of games reminded me of why he was deemed the "heir apparent" to David Kool.

I only ask that our fans keep a perspective on issues when discussing Bronco athletics. I will never grow tired about hearing "WMU has won 5 MAC West Division" championships in the last 9 years. That is a "good" story, no it isn't the same as saying, "WMU has won 5 MAC championships" but if you are selling your product, you point out the positives and that is a positive story.

I love the fact that our basketball team is fighting to the very end of the season. I do not see disappointment in their faces and or actions. In my mind they are all winners, and they work daily to bring pride to our program. I'm in their corner.

Always proud to be a Bronco.