This blog discusses resource allocation options for mid-majors.

Quote:This is a common problem for schools in the MAC, Sun-Belt, Conference USA and Mountain West. They can’t figure who they are.

My sports editor at the Ball State Daily News explained it perfectly to me when I covered the school’s mens volleyball team. Mid-majors like Ball State can’t focus on every sport. They simply don’t have the resources. It leaves schools in Ball State’s situation a tough to choice to make.

1.Focus on football at the expense at every other sport you have. Count on the football team to increase boosters and hope the other sports can do more with less.

2.Just view football as another sport and pool more resources to others. Don’t worry if the football team struggles because other programs should emerge to satisfy fans and boosters.

Actually it's not a tough choice at all. The pecking order should be determined by the return on investment. Football is #1, men's basketball is #2, women's basketball or baseball is #3. There's special cases where one might trump the other but 99% of the time that's your top 3/4 revenue producers. After that IMO, every G5 should operate at the absolute minimum # of sports while complying with title 9.

This

By this definition, with many programs in the AAC exceeding the average Athletic Budgets of other conferences, would the exclude the AAC?

I.e. most AAC programs (ignoring Temple for the moment, given their Olympic Sports cuts) can afford to make the hires and maintain the facilities needed to compete at a high level in all sports. Can Utah State, Marshall, Troy, ULaLa, NIU etc say the same?

The OP does have a point. Other than Cincinnati, which schools in the American past 2013 have both a top-25 like football program AND an NCAA tournament quality team at the same time on a consistent basis? It's no coincidence.

(02-03-2014 06:34 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  By this definition, with many programs in the AAC exceeding the average Athletic Budgets of other conferences, would the exclude the AAC?

I.e. most AAC programs (ignoring Temple for the moment, given their Olympic Sports cuts) can afford to make the hires and maintain the facilities needed to compete at a high level in all sports. Can Utah State, Marshall, Troy, ULaLa, NIU etc say the same?

This is what I was thinking when reading the opinion piece. However, having a school's identity tied to one sport is not unique to mid-majors."

(02-03-2014 06:51 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 06:34 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  By this definition, with many programs in the AAC exceeding the average Athletic Budgets of other conferences, would the exclude the AAC?

I.e. most AAC programs (ignoring Temple for the moment, given their Olympic Sports cuts) can afford to make the hires and maintain the facilities needed to compete at a high level in all sports. Can Utah State, Marshall, Troy, ULaLa, NIU etc say the same?

This is what I was thinking when reading the opinion piece. However, having a school's identity tied to one sport is not unique to mid-majors."

You're right, but one could argue that those in a position of a traditional identity in one sport supercedes the lack of resources.

I'm reminded of the story when a (Kansas or Kentucky, not sure which) for basketball was awarded with a new Cadillac for whatever accolade, whereas the football coach was awarded a gold ring. I think the reference was in the 30 for 30 done on SMU.

My point is, there are some programs that have the financial ability to succeed in all sports, but simply don't.

I think you have to decide a IF successful which would bring the biggest amount of fans booster and money. In Florida that's a no brainer a successful football team will bring you a lot more than basketball. In a basketball centric state that might not be the case. UL is one that I would singe as using basketball success and support to then move up football. Many of the MAC schools have better support for basketball than football so it would make more sense to build the basketball side over football.

In 2011 uconn played in a bcs game and won the NCAA men's tourney. Not many Schools have accomplished that.

We probably spend as much as some Top 25 football teams which really is nothing to brag about. We're spending over 2 million a year on assistants, which is way more than paid under Pasqualoni.

(02-03-2014 06:39 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  The OP does have a point. Other than Cincinnati, which schools in the American past 2013 have both a top-25 like football program AND an NCAA tournament quality team at the same time on a consistent basis? It's no coincidence.

How many schools in P5 do?? answer well below 1/2.

(02-03-2014 07:18 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 06:39 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  The OP does have a point. Other than Cincinnati, which schools in the American past 2013 have both a top-25 like football program AND an NCAA tournament quality team at the same time on a consistent basis? It's no coincidence.

How many schools in P5 do?? answer well below 1/2.

I think you're being generous with that 1/2

Off the top of my head, the programs that are consistently ranked in both polls are Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Louisville (of late), Cincinnati, Oklahoma State... I really can't think of any others.... a case could be made for Arizona State, Mizzou, Wisconsin...

so 8 schools in the P5 out of... a whole bunch.

WELL BELOW 1/2

(02-03-2014 07:36 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  WELL BELOW 1/2

Well in that case, I can guarantee that every single NCAA team will possibly win the tournament.

(02-03-2014 07:30 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 07:18 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 06:39 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  The OP does have a point. Other than Cincinnati, which schools in the American past 2013 have both a top-25 like football program AND an NCAA tournament quality team at the same time on a consistent basis? It's no coincidence.

How many schools in P5 do?? answer well below 1/2.

I think you're being generous with that 1/2

Off the top of my head, the programs that are consistently ranked in both polls are Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Louisville (of late), Cincinnati, Oklahoma State... I really can't think of any others.... a case could be made for Arizona State, Mizzou, Wisconsin...

so 8 schools in the P5 out of... a whole bunch.

I would add UNC, Florida State, Pitt, Syracuse, UCLA, WVU, Kansas State, Oregon, Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Michigan State, and Notre Dame, and Baylor to any top two sport list.

Maybe some have had down years but that group of schools usually competes in the post season in both major sports every year.

(02-03-2014 08:09 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 07:30 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 07:18 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 06:39 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  The OP does have a point. Other than Cincinnati, which schools in the American past 2013 have both a top-25 like football program AND an NCAA tournament quality team at the same time on a consistent basis? It's no coincidence.

How many schools in P5 do?? answer well below 1/2.

I think you're being generous with that 1/2

Off the top of my head, the programs that are consistently ranked in both polls are Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Louisville (of late), Cincinnati, Oklahoma State... I really can't think of any others.... a case could be made for Arizona State, Mizzou, Wisconsin...

so 8 schools in the P5 out of... a whole bunch.

I would add UNC, Florida State, Pitt, Syracuse, UCLA, WVU, Kansas State, Oregon, Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Michigan State, and Notre Dame, and Baylor to any top two sport list.

Maybe some have had down years but that group of schools usually competes in the post season in both major sports every year.

The problem with most of those is that they are not consistently good (top 25 worthy) in both sports at the same time. They've had success in both sports, but usually not in the same year or not year to year. I think Ohio State is the best example (and one of the few) of what we're looking for (in terms of being consistently good in both football and basketball).

(02-03-2014 07:18 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 06:39 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  The OP does have a point. Other than Cincinnati, which schools in the American past 2013 have both a top-25 like football program AND an NCAA tournament quality team at the same time on a consistent basis? It's no coincidence.

How many schools in P5 do?? answer well below 1/2.

VEry good point. I think a more reasonable standard would compare NCAA tournament bids to bowl games.

(02-03-2014 10:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 07:18 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 06:39 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  The OP does have a point. Other than Cincinnati, which schools in the American past 2013 have both a top-25 like football program AND an NCAA tournament quality team at the same time on a consistent basis? It's no coincidence.

How many schools in P5 do?? answer well below 1/2.

VEry good point. I think a more reasonable standard would compare NCAA tournament bids to bowl games.

I actually touched on this some time ago in that at one point or another, each of our members from Houston all the way to USF all the way to Tulane will have to figure out which money sport (football or men's basketball) do they want to buy all into. Louisville was a dominant and prolific men's basketball school long before they began having football success. But with the horrendous TV deal our schools have been dealt, along with the massive arms race the NCAA is engaging in, it's going to be hard for most of our schools to really put enough energy and resources into trying to build and maintain a great football program and a great basketball program at the very same time. SMU has tried, their boosters are trying very hard, but it seems they got "Dickey'd" in hiring June Jones some years ago, but they're currently on a national stage in basketball. UCF basketball is honestly woeful, but their football program has been a national bright spot for them the past few years, highlighted by their Fiesta Bowl win. It's going to be important that schools like Tulane, Tulsa, and other schools "teetering" on what they want to be to establish that identity within the conference. If Memphis is going to be a football bottom feeder, fine, as long as they continue to crank out NCAA appearances (credits) every year. If Houston (painfully for me) is going to put little work into being a good bball school again, then we better be competing for league titles in football. But we cannot afford many more situations where Tulane (sorry guys) is turning in a 200+ RPI and in the same calendar year not making a bowl game. Ideally, all of our programs will have solid football and basketball, but that honestly takes time and money. None of the latter is coming from our league partners, so the best way to make hay of this situation is to have some of our schools compete nationally in one area, and the rest do it in the other. In my opinion this is the way to go and stay relevant throughout the year.

(02-03-2014 06:20 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  This blog discusses resource allocation options for mid-majors.

Quote:This is a common problem for schools in the MAC, Sun-Belt, Conference USA and Mountain West. They can’t figure who they are.

My sports editor at the Ball State Daily News explained it perfectly to me when I covered the school’s mens volleyball team. Mid-majors like Ball State can’t focus on every sport. They simply don’t have the resources. It leaves schools in Ball State’s situation a tough to choice to make.

1.Focus on football at the expense at every other sport you have. Count on the football team to increase boosters and hope the other sports can do more with less.

2.Just view football as another sport and pool more resources to others. Don’t worry if the football team struggles because other programs should emerge to satisfy fans and boosters.

Ball State, WGAF; the mac, subelt and what is now cusa are all d1-aa schools. surprise, surprise surprise

they dont have a tough decision, they should just be what they are d1-aa....just like all the bball schools that cant field a d1 football team should be d1-aa.

damn moronic

much easier to turn around a BB program than a FB program - just look at SMU.

I've said for years that we should focus on becoming a BB-first school like Duke. SO much easier for small schools to get it done and to fill an arena vs filling a stadium.

But in Texas, football will always be king.