(11-08-2016 07:57 AM)Mrs. Got Ribe Wrote:  Laycock says it at every opportunity--the Laycock Center, the stadium renovations, etc. all speak to the commitment the college has to football. And that commitment is evident to every recruit who walks on campus.

WHY DO WE NOT DO THE SAME FOR BASKETBALL?? What does the college's commitment to basketball look like?

I have been saying this same thing for years.

It is the essential basis for continued growth. I was encouraged by the things put down in the "For the Bold" litany, but I would love to see more actual "action" to go with the pleasing words.

(11-08-2016 07:57 AM)Mrs. Got Ribe Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 01:43 PM)Tribal Wrote:  Let's get to the NCAAT before we worry about volleyball.

One Tribe. One Family.

Worrying about volleyball (and pole vaulting and gymnastics and any other sport that displaces basketball) can help us get to the NCAAT. I have no desire to get rid of volleyball. I just want it to take its appropriate place behind basketball. Basketball is the one sport that can launch William & Mary into national relevance in the sports scene.

Laycock says it at every opportunity--the Laycock Center, the stadium renovations, etc. all speak to the commitment the college has to football. And that commitment is evident to every recruit who walks on campus.

WHY DO WE NOT DO THE SAME FOR BASKETBALL?? What does the college's commitment to basketball look like?

You get what you fight for. Laycock and the football program fought for the upgrades and got them.

(11-08-2016 07:57 AM)Mrs. Got Ribe Wrote:  Basketball is the one sport that can launch William & Mary into national relevance in the sports scene.

Couldn't agree more. Unless the school is willing to push for our football team to be an FBS program, basketball is our best path to having a nationally relevant sports program. Aside from the potential revenue we could receive from being televised more often, another benefit of a nationally relevant sports program is better visibility for the school, which can in turn increase applications and decrease selectivity - thus, an ancillary benefit would be an improvement in various college rankings. I'm reading an interesting book called Weapons of Math Destruction (what can I say, I'm an accountant and numbers nerd). One of the chapters talks about how colleges can game the system when it comes to the US News rankings by understanding the metrics that play into the ranking's algorithms. Specifically, the book talks about how TCU made large, strategic investments in football 5-10 years ago, which led to better teams that were able to qualify for some nationally relevant bowl games. As the TCU administration predicted, this led to better visibility and increased applications. This in turn led to decreased selectivity and a swift rise in the college rankings (the book mentions they shot up something like 40 spots in a 5-10 year time frame). Not saying we should invest in basketball to 'game the system', but a nice unintended consequence of a better team might be an increase in college rankings. Of course, you all already knew this - I think several on this board got after a Northeastern commenter this past winter citing several articles about how Northeastern's high average test scores for incoming students were inflated due to some of their strategic applicant targeting practices (which was presumably done to improve their ranking)! Of course, I'd just love to see us in the Final Four one day with the Kentucky's and North Carolina's of the world!

(11-08-2016 09:55 AM)tribemike09 Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 07:57 AM)Mrs. Got Ribe Wrote:  Basketball is the one sport that can launch William & Mary into national relevance in the sports scene.

Couldn't agree more. Unless the school is willing to push for our football team to be an FBS program, basketball is our best path to having a nationally relevant sports program. Aside from the potential revenue we could receive from being televised more often, another benefit of a nationally relevant sports program is better visibility for the school, which can in turn increase applications and decrease selectivity - thus, an ancillary benefit would be an improvement in various college rankings. I'm reading an interesting book called Weapons of Math Destruction (what can I say, I'm an accountant and numbers nerd). One of the chapters talks about how colleges can game the system when it comes to the US News rankings by understanding the metrics that play into the ranking's algorithms. Specifically, the book talks about how TCU made large, strategic investments in football 5-10 years ago, which led to better teams that were able to qualify for some nationally relevant bowl games. As the TCU administration predicted, this led to better visibility and increased applications. This in turn led to decreased selectivity and a swift rise in the college rankings (the book mentions they shot up something like 40 spots in a 5-10 year time frame). Not saying we should invest in basketball to 'game the system', but a nice unintended consequence of a better team might be an increase in college rankings. Of course, you all already knew this - I think several on this board got after a Northeastern commenter this past winter citing several articles about how Northeastern's high average test scores for incoming students were inflated due to some of their strategic applicant targeting practices (which was presumably done to improve their ranking)! Of course, I'd just love to see us in the Final Four one day with the Kentucky's and North Carolina's of the world!

There is not a doubt in my mind that making our athletic programs more visible would improve our academic selectivity. In fact, I believe its the one area (okay one of two areas if you include endowment) where UVA is light years ahead of us and often accounts for their higher ranking in publications

(11-08-2016 10:17 AM)zablenoise Wrote:  There is not a doubt in my mind that making our athletic programs more visible would improve our academic selectivity. In fact, I believe its the one area (okay one of two areas if you include endowment) where UVA is light years ahead of us and often accounts for their higher ranking in publications

To me, this is the bigger point and the logical extension of Mrs. R's argument. Athletics, most especially basketball, has the ability to lift the whole university. I think it's a strategy UR is following now, as Georgetown did before, and as Duke and Wake did before it.

But I also agree with Paul about getting what you fight for. Over the years, I'm not sure that our basketball coaches have been all that effective in the fight, relative to other sports. That's something that might change with a new AD. I hope so.

Lately, Mrs. R and I have been restricting some gifts to basketball, just to focus some much needed funding on what I see as the university's most important sport. Making the restriction isn't as easy as it seems. A dollar restricted to basketball might be used to increase basketball spending, or it might just be used to supplant some unrestricted dollar which could then be used elsewhere. Getting the department to agree not to supplant was arduous and contentious. I felt like withdrawing the gift a lot of times, but eventually we found common ground.

Still pondering whether there might be a way to jumpstart the practice facility without writing an eight figure check, which would bounce a mile high.

(11-08-2016 11:24 AM)Got Ribe Wrote:  Still pondering whether there might be a way to jumpstart the practice facility without writing an eight figure check, which would bounce a mile high.

Post date the check?

(11-08-2016 09:17 AM)Rocco Wrote:  You get what you fight for. Laycock and the football program fought for the upgrades and got them.

I have always thought that the football program realized that there was a target on their back, and that they took matters into their own hands to make the program virtually self-supporting. Kudos!

Now, football only has to compete with track for use of the stadium, and football involves at least 65 scholarship athletes (future donating alumni).

Basketball shares its facilities, and has 12 scholarship athletes. Big difference, and more complicated.

Other Tribe sports have had facilities built for them by alumni. Once a sport has its own facility, a lot of problems go away.

So, I agree with Rocco. Basketball needs to target its donor base, and get the practice facility done, and not wait for the Athletics Department as a whole, unless the new AD happens to be hoops friendly.

I think basketball facility upgrades are the highest priority NOW and if you look at the current situation as a snapshot, with no historical context, one could reach the conclusion that basketball is getting the short end of the stick. However, 10 to 15 years ago, a snap shot would show basketball had the best facility on campus. Say what you want about the Hall, yes it shows some age, but it was built as an ACC level basketball arena. By comparison football, practiced on the rock-hard baseball outfield, had a musty dungeon-like locker room that couldn't even fit the entire team, no lights, a 1950's scoreboard, and an ancient stadium with a plywood press box. We've given baseball and football the upgrades they need to compete, and based on where we were 15 years ago, these were the higher priorities. I agree basketball is now at the top of the list for needed facility upgrades. Upgrades will allow Shaver to further capitalize on the momentum he has created from less than vapors. Now is the time to apply some gas to this smoldering fire. No denying the highest potential sports visibility would come from a nationally competitive basketball team similar to what Davidson or Butler have accomplished.

Great posts! It appears that we agree that an investment in basketball will pay the greatest benefits to the College at this time. Increased visibility and publicity that basketball could generate will benefit the College in many ways.

I remember speaking with a Geology professor 20+ years ago that my company used for consulting and testing. He was downcast the particular Monday I called. I asked why and he replied that the football team had lost that weekend. I expressed surprise that a Geology professor would find that distressing. He replied that they had done studies that indicated each football loss cost the university approximately $1 million in donations and by extension cost the Geology Department approximately $5,000 in decreased giving. That was over 20 years ago. I would imagine the numbers are more dramatic today.

I don't really know how to make this point in a cogent way to the powers that be, but a rising tide does indeed lift all ships. A relatively modest investment in basketball has the potential to benefit the College in many ways. Our profile is more similar to Duke, Georgetown, Richmond, Davidson, etc. than it is to Auburn. Basketball is probably a better and cheaper catalyst for W&M.

(11-08-2016 03:47 PM)LeadBolt Wrote:  Great posts! It appears that we agree that an investment in basketball will pay the greatest benefits to the College at this time. Increased visibility and publicity that basketball could generate will benefit the College in many ways.

I remember speaking with a Geology professor 20+ years ago that my company used for consulting and testing. He was downcast the particular Monday I called. I asked why and he replied that the football team had lost that weekend. I expressed surprise that a Geology professor would find that distressing. He replied that they had done studies that indicated each football loss cost the university approximately $1 million in donations and by extension cost the Geology Department approximately $5,000 in decreased giving. That was over 20 years ago. I would imagine the numbers are more dramatic today.

I don't really know how to make this point in a cogent way to the powers that be, but a rising tide does indeed lift all ships. A relatively modest investment in basketball has the potential to benefit the College in many ways. Our profile is more similar to Duke, Georgetown, Richmond, Davidson, etc. than it is to Auburn. Basketball is probably a better and cheaper catalyst for W&M.

I agree with you about the investments--No doubt that basketball is an opportunity for increased visibility. As stated, "peer" institutions have found success in it. As much as VCU isn't comparable for a variety of reasons, they've invested heavily in their program and have seen very solid returns in applications, fundraising and ticket sales.

I have a really hard time buying the 1-million number. Seems a bit hyperbolic. Looking specifically back in years past, Fall 2012 Football season produced the 2-9 season. Fundraising for WM during FY 2013 had more than $104 million in new activity recorded than FY 2012.

Link: http://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2013/will...ear123.php

I have no doubt that football losses cost incremental donations and incremental revenue in future ticket sales and concessions, but I don't buy the 1-million in donations line.

And all that said--I wish more Professors were THAT invested in the success of our teams!

Rocks for Jocks!!

(11-08-2016 04:32 PM)tribetime10 Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 03:47 PM)LeadBolt Wrote:  Great posts! It appears that we agree that an investment in basketball will pay the greatest benefits to the College at this time. Increased visibility and publicity that basketball could generate will benefit the College in many ways.

I remember speaking with a Geology professor 20+ years ago that my company used for consulting and testing. He was downcast the particular Monday I called. I asked why and he replied that the football team had lost that weekend. I expressed surprise that a Geology professor would find that distressing. He replied that they had done studies that indicated each football loss cost the university approximately $1 million in donations and by extension cost the Geology Department approximately $5,000 in decreased giving. That was over 20 years ago. I would imagine the numbers are more dramatic today.

I don't really know how to make this point in a cogent way to the powers that be, but a rising tide does indeed lift all ships. A relatively modest investment in basketball has the potential to benefit the College in many ways. Our profile is more similar to Duke, Georgetown, Richmond, Davidson, etc. than it is to Auburn. Basketball is probably a better and cheaper catalyst for W&M.

I agree with you about the investments--No doubt that basketball is an opportunity for increased visibility. As stated, "peer" institutions have found success in it. As much as VCU isn't comparable for a variety of reasons, they've invested heavily in their program.

I have a really hard time buying the 1-million number. Seems a bit hyperbolic. Looking specifically back in years past, Fall 2012 Football season produced the 2-9 season. Fundraising for WM during FY 2013 had more than $104 million in new activity recorded than FY 2012.

Link: http://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2013/will...ear123.php

I have no doubt that football losses cost incremental donations and incremental revenue in future ticket sales and concessions, but I don't buy the 1-million in donations line.

And all that said--I wish more Professors were THAT invested in the success of our teams!

I didn't make the $1 million figure clear, that was at Auburn not William and Mary. If you have been to a football game at Jordan-Hare Stadium (I have), it would be more believable. Football @ a SEC school is pretty much everything. Auburn's FB attendance is approx. 87,000 ish per game where as ours is 10,000 ish per game. It certainly won't impact us as much.

I believe that the direction is the same, but the amounts will be much less at W&M.

A basketball practice facility would potentially run 40% of the cost of the Laycocke Center. Combined scholarship costs for men's & women's basketball combined is just over 40% of scholarship costs of football without generating needs for other Title 9 scholarships.

The benefits that could potentially be generated from success in Div. 1 basketball to the College would far outweigh the benefits that success in FCS football would generate.

As cost benefit ratios go, a basketball practice facility has the potential to be a real winner. Not only would benefits accrue to men & women's basketball teams, but benefits would also accrue to other programs such as gymnastics, volleyball, etc.

Finally break the Big Dance barrier, and win a few games while they are at it, and the $$ payout from the NCAA could easily seed jumpstart a few big donors to help realize a new practice facility quicker than we think. As long as that payoff is allowed to go exclusively to the MBB program. That payout would, also, help provide funds for buying a couple of home games each year.

Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app