There is a simple recipe for becoming a media darling - play clean, play in a small conference, and start winning a lot of games. Major bonus points if you beat teams with big fanbases.

But is it possible to stay a media darling for long? Sooner or later, most media darlings either stop winning (Hawai'i, George Mason, FGCU) or become part of the establishment by getting invited to a bigger conference (TCU, Utah, Butler).

Two facts:
1) The media loves an underdog that wins.
2) Colleges sponsor D-1 athletics primarily to market the school to the general public.

My point is this - is it possible that schools gain more from being a media darling than they can possibly gain from joining a better conference? Even assuming you can keep winning, can the increased attention from the "underdog" label outweigh the monetary gains of a new conference?

In short, which school is receiving more positive attention for its continued success - Utah or Boise? VCU or Butler?

Hmmmm i wonder if NIU qualifies as a media darling...

It's an interesting thought. I think totally different depending on the sport... In football- I think the better one to use for the comparison with Boise is TCU. I think TCU still had the underdog label last year- so they got the best of both worlds. Will be interesting going forward.

In basketball, your conference means far less- always had- just maybe a smidge bit more now than 20 years ago.

(05-22-2015 12:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's an interesting thought. I think totally different depending on the sport... In football- I think the better one to use for the comparison with Boise is TCU. I think TCU still had the underdog label last year- so they got the best of both worlds. Will be interesting going forward.

In basketball, your conference means far less- always had- just maybe a smidge bit more now than 20 years ago.

Yes, I think it's much different depending upon the sport. In football, your conference means everything. It ultimately does no good to be a "media darling" in football - TCU being an underdog last year equaled getting shut out of a playoff spot. Football wants heavyweights (and that means being in a power conference at a minimum, and as TCU and Baylor have seen, you need to do even more than that).

Basketball is different because so much focus is on the NCAA Tournament and allows for smaller conference teams and underdogs to get a moment in the sun. However, 100 out of 100 college administrators would take a conference upgrade in a heartbeat even in basketball. They want an athletic program that makes money and gets on TV even in the inevitable bad seasons, which isn't possible unless you're in a power conference.

Boise State and Gonzaga would both take Pac-12 invites within two seconds. The fact that they're able to maximize their on-the-field/court success without being in a power conference is a testament to their adaptability, but rest assured that they would trade it all for being in the middle of the pack in the Pac-12.

(05-22-2015 12:54 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  Hmmmm i wonder if NIU qualifies as a media darling...

Yes, keep beating up the Big 10 schools.

(05-22-2015 03:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:54 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  Hmmmm i wonder if NIU qualifies as a media darling...

Yes, keep beating up the Big 10 schools.

Will do

...just not next year. Ohio St is a tough out for anyone

(05-22-2015 12:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  My point is this - is it possible that schools gain more from being a media darling than they can possibly gain from joining a better conference?

I would say no, not even close. Riding a hot streak as a mid major is exhilarating in the way that winning at blackjack with your rent money is exhilarating. Being a somewhat less resourced school in a major conference is more like taking a paycheck and having enough to stash in a 401k and rainy day fund. Your best day may not be as exciting, but you also won't be sleeping in the gutter in a couple years with people stepping over you pretending that they don't remember you from when you had that one good run.

(05-22-2015 01:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's an interesting thought. I think totally different depending on the sport... In football- I think the better one to use for the comparison with Boise is TCU. I think TCU still had the underdog label last year- so they got the best of both worlds. Will be interesting going forward.

In basketball, your conference means far less- always had- just maybe a smidge bit more now than 20 years ago.

Yes, I think it's much different depending upon the sport. In football, your conference means everything. It ultimately does no good to be a "media darling" in football - TCU being an underdog last year equaled getting shut out of a playoff spot. Football wants heavyweights (and that means being in a power conference at a minimum, and as TCU and Baylor have seen, you need to do even more than that).

Basketball is different because so much focus is on the NCAA Tournament and allows for smaller conference teams and underdogs to get a moment in the sun. However, 100 out of 100 college administrators would take a conference upgrade in a heartbeat even in basketball. They want an athletic program that makes money and gets on TV even in the inevitable bad seasons, which isn't possible unless you're in a power conference.

Boise State and Gonzaga would both take Pac-12 invites within two seconds. The fact that they're able to maximize their on-the-field/court success without being in a power conference is a testament to their adaptability, but rest assured that they would trade it all for being in the middle of the pack in the Pac-12.

North Dakota State got media darlings look for football, basketball and in baseball. One year, all three of their sports went to the post season.

Here are my examples in recent years.

Boise State (even their basketball was getting buzz.)
Eastern Washington since winning the FCS championship and added the red turf.
Fresno State especially when Derek Carr was there. They were on and off media darlings.
Hawaii is turning the ship around. They went down hill after they lost their head coach who took the job at SMU.
Colorado State
Gonzaga for the past 15 + years
St. Mary's, California basketball
BYU
Air Force
Wyoming
New Mexico basketball
Nevada-Reno
Sacramento State (beating Colorado and Oregon State)
New Mexico State basketball
North Dakota State
Wichita State
Sam Houston State
UTSA 2 sports
Northern Iowa
Minn. State-Mankato
Colorado State-Pueblo
Houston
UTEP
La. Tech
La.-Monroe beating Arkansas, took Auburn into overtime and almost beat Baylor the same year.
Utah State
Milwaukee
Northern Illinois
Illinois State
Southern Illinois
Central Michigan
Western Michigan
Ohio U.
Toledo
Miami, Ohio
Bowling Green
Western Kentucky
Butler
Dayton, Ohio
Xavier
Middle Tennessee State
Southern Mississippi
Troy
North Florida
Florida Gulf Coast
UCF
South Florida
Mercer
Georgia Southern
College of Charleston
East Carolina
Appalachian State
Old Dominion
Richmond
VCU
Jacksonville State
North Alabama
Towson
Navy
Delaware
Temple
Villanova
Duquesne
St. Joseph's
Princeton
Penn
Harvard
Yale
Army
Stony Brook
Fordham
U. Conn.
Vermont
Manhattan
Long Island
U. Mass.

(05-22-2015 12:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  There is a simple recipe for becoming a media darling - play clean, play in a small conference, and start winning a lot of games. Major bonus points if you beat teams with big fanbases.

But is it possible to stay a media darling for long? Sooner or later, most media darlings either stop winning (Hawai'i, George Mason, FGCU) or become part of the establishment by getting invited to a bigger conference (TCU, Utah, Butler).

Two facts:
1) The media loves an underdog that wins.
2) Colleges sponsor D-1 athletics primarily to market the school to the general public.

My point is this - is it possible that schools gain more from being a media darling than they can possibly gain from joining a better conference? Even assuming you can keep winning, can the increased attention from the "underdog" label outweigh the monetary gains of a new conference?

In short, which school is receiving more positive attention for its continued success - Utah or Boise? VCU or Butler?

If you're in a small conference it's difficult to continue being good since you're always losing coaches and one bad hire can kill the program for a decade. You get way more exposure being in a better conference on a day-to-day basis, instead of only being covered when it's convenient for the media, even if you don't win as many games.

(05-22-2015 06:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  There is a simple recipe for becoming a media darling - play clean, play in a small conference, and start winning a lot of games. Major bonus points if you beat teams with big fanbases.

But is it possible to stay a media darling for long? Sooner or later, most media darlings either stop winning (Hawai'i, George Mason, FGCU) or become part of the establishment by getting invited to a bigger conference (TCU, Utah, Butler).

Two facts:
1) The media loves an underdog that wins.
2) Colleges sponsor D-1 athletics primarily to market the school to the general public.

My point is this - is it possible that schools gain more from being a media darling than they can possibly gain from joining a better conference? Even assuming you can keep winning, can the increased attention from the "underdog" label outweigh the monetary gains of a new conference?

In short, which school is receiving more positive attention for its continued success - Utah or Boise? VCU or Butler?

If you're in a small conference it's difficult to continue being good since you're always losing coaches and one bad hire can kill the program for a decade. You get way more exposure being in a better conference on a day-to-day basis, instead of only being covered when it's convenient for the media, even if you don't win as many games.

Except for Boise State and Arkansas State. They still win with a new coach.

(05-23-2015 05:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 06:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  There is a simple recipe for becoming a media darling - play clean, play in a small conference, and start winning a lot of games. Major bonus points if you beat teams with big fanbases.

But is it possible to stay a media darling for long? Sooner or later, most media darlings either stop winning (Hawai'i, George Mason, FGCU) or become part of the establishment by getting invited to a bigger conference (TCU, Utah, Butler).

Two facts:
1) The media loves an underdog that wins.
2) Colleges sponsor D-1 athletics primarily to market the school to the general public.

My point is this - is it possible that schools gain more from being a media darling than they can possibly gain from joining a better conference? Even assuming you can keep winning, can the increased attention from the "underdog" label outweigh the monetary gains of a new conference?

In short, which school is receiving more positive attention for its continued success - Utah or Boise? VCU or Butler?

If you're in a small conference it's difficult to continue being good since you're always losing coaches and one bad hire can kill the program for a decade. You get way more exposure being in a better conference on a day-to-day basis, instead of only being covered when it's convenient for the media, even if you don't win as many games.

Except for Boise State and Arkansas State. They still win with a new coach.

And, so far, NIU. But how long can that continue? Boise has more money to pay a coach when they get a good one, so they have less of a problem.