The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(12-07-2017 03:34 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 03:27 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 03:16 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:24 AM)monarx Wrote:  This was an interesting snippet from an article about the SMU coach leaving, and how facilities and fan support matter to recruiting and coaching.

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college...g-arkansas

"Of course, Morris wasn't in it for the long haul on the Hilltop, but SMU should have at least made it a hard decision, if for no other reason than to keep the job attractive for all the coaches to come. Like most in today's arms race, Morris wanted an indoor practice facility. Promises reportedly were made; still, no dirt has been turned.
Worse, from a visual standpoint, was the embarrassing spectacle of all those empty seats. How can you impress recruits with that as a backdrop?
Fans simply didn't support Morris' efforts. Wouldn't even come in from the Boulevard.
Until they make that short walk, it'll be difficult to hire -- much less keep -- a good coach.
Many SMU students remember the good ol' days or consider anything less than "power five" status unworthy of their time. Students support the basketball program because it was national caliber under Larry Brown. Easier to build something big in basketball, especially when it's fronted by a legendary coach."

This is off topic, but I wonder when non P5 schools will realize this, and allocate funding accordingly. There is much more room for schools like ODU and SMU to build their brand, and bring attention to their university, via basketball than football.

Probably when the revenue brought in matches or exceeds football. People are literally buying bball season tickets just to improve their seats at football. When that happens the other way around, I'm sure priorities will change.

Because we do not invest at the necessary level to make basketball a hot ticket, nor a national level competitor. Your approach ensures that football is more valuable than basketball by under-funding basketball to support football.

If basketball got the first bite at the pie then we would be paying a basketball coach as much as our football and basketball coaches are making combined. We would also have built a bigger, more impressive practice facility, would be focusing our marketing efforts on filling The Ted etc. That is what I am talking about when I say I wonder how long it will take for admins at our level to realize that basketball can bring more attention and branding opportunities that football ever can. If you don't believe me do some research on Gonzaga's ROI from basketball, or just look down the road at the benefits that VCU has reaped from its basketball reputation. It is much harder to find mid major football programs that have seen the same type of ROI for their university.

And one could just as easily point to Memphis or Boise State as counterpoints. The former has invested heavily in hoops and are now seeing better returns in football.

Further, let's not act as if what VCU or the Zags was done by investing big before they won. They hired the right guys when they were young and affordable. They then won big and kept the ball rolling. They caught lightning in a bottle and capitalized.

Neither program spent heavily on hoops until they went deep in the dance. But you want to reverse that order when football is already driving double the donations VCU will collect this year? Okay. Good luck explaining that to the boosters when the majority give solely for football.