royski
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,296
|
Post by royski on Apr 3, 2008 0:29:54 GMT -5
|
|
moe09
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by moe09 on Apr 3, 2008 6:31:14 GMT -5
Damn! You beat me to it, royski. I really wanted to be the one to post this, I almost fell off my chair when I saw the front page...
|
|
moe09
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by moe09 on Apr 3, 2008 7:31:32 GMT -5
"A lot more schools around the country that don't have football have figured it out that if you pour most of your budget into men's basketball, it's going to generate a tremendous amount of income." - Gary Williams
Or you can have a great football team, make a ton of money from it, and then pour the excess into the basketball team? What a dumb comment. If you're a small school, without a football program, you probably don't have a ton of money to pour into anything in the first place. Instead, Maryland is a large state school with a tremendous amount of income to spend on basketball. How can their budgets even compare? Maybe Gary should look in the mirror instead of blaming his failure on others.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 3, 2008 7:54:54 GMT -5
"A lot more schools around the country that don't have football have figured it out that if you pour most of your budget into men's basketball, it's going to generate a tremendous amount of income." - Gary Williams Who is he referring to? Or did he count the number of schools w/o D-I football that even made it into the second round of the tournament (Xavier, Marquette, Siena)? The number of non-football schools is about 27% of the Division I membership. Most are not consistent participants at the NCAA tournament level and most rank in the bottom third of the revenues to which Gary may be unaware.
|
|
moe09
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by moe09 on Apr 3, 2008 7:58:30 GMT -5
Well, when you make statements like this, the great thing is that you don't have to back it up with any sort of concrete evidence.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 3, 2008 10:01:34 GMT -5
Maybe Gary should look in the mirror instead of blaming his failure on others. Yeah, and maybe Jennifer Connelly will finally return one of my e-mails. I'm pretty sure George Bush or Dick Cheney would admit their own shortcomings before Gary Williams would.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Apr 3, 2008 10:16:57 GMT -5
Does anyone else read those excuses and think he has a very specific school in mind (and one that is close to home)?
Even then its a stupid statement. I guess he doesn't realize that we do have a football program, but that actually puts us at a disatvantage because it doesn't generate revenue. Its a testiment to JTIII and the school that we can be elite even up against football schools and their bloated budgets
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 3, 2008 11:41:35 GMT -5
Even then its a stupid statement. I guess he doesn't realize that we do have a football program, but that actually puts us at a disatvantage because it doesn't generate revenue. Football generated $235,676 in revenue in FY2007, down from over $400,000 in 2006.
|
|
JimmyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Hoya fan, est. 1986
Posts: 1,867
|
Post by JimmyHoya on Apr 3, 2008 11:51:33 GMT -5
Or maybe, VC, he's referring to GW's football-less athletic program since the Twerps have descended to their level and are fighting them for our scraps these days?
|
|
Hoya06
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 406
|
Post by Hoya06 on Apr 3, 2008 12:16:53 GMT -5
DFW - Did football turn a profit?
|
|
|
Post by dajuan on Apr 3, 2008 12:51:33 GMT -5
Even then its a stupid statement. I guess he doesn't realize that we do have a football program, but that actually puts us at a disatvantage because it doesn't generate revenue. Football generated $235,676 in revenue in FY2007, down from over $400,000 in 2006. Does that include any academic scholarship money given to football players because they play football?
|
|
|
Post by grokamok on Apr 3, 2008 13:50:01 GMT -5
Read: "A lot of non-BCS football schools have figured it out..."
Could be a side-dig at Georgetown and the Big East in general (seven schools of which do not have BCS football programs) but I think he's just miffed in general at his team's performance and his conference's loss of dominance (UNC's title hopes this year notwithstanding).
Of the 192 teams that made it past the first round since MD won its title in 2002, only 65 (or 34%) have been from non-BCS schools, even though the 66 BCS schools (63 until the ACC/Big East/CUSA realignment) account for only one-fifth of D-1 basketball programs. It is obvious that basketball programs at BCS schools reap great financial support from their football programs.
Meanwhile, the ACC has suffered 13 of its 28 (46%) tournament losses and 6 of its 14 (42%) upset (by seed) losses (compared to 5 upset wins) to these teams from non-BCS schools. Five of these six have been particularly notable for the unexpected nature of the upset (GMU over UNC, VCU over Duke, Villanova over Clemson) or the dashing of serious title hopes (UConn over Duke, GU over UNC), but perhaps I am reading into it too much.
A breakdown:
2008 - UMD did not make the tournament, 1 of 4 ACC teams lost (1 upset) to these 11 non-BCS schools that made it past the first round (UNC has not lost yet but could do so to Memphis if both make the finals): 2 - Georgetown 6 - Marquette 12 - Villanova (beat #5 Clemson in 1st round) 1 - Memphis 3 - Xavier 7 - Butler 8 - UNLV 10 - Davidson 12 - Western Kentucky 13 - Siena 13 - San Diego
2007 - 6 of 7 ACC teams lost (3 upsets) to these 9 non-BCS schools that made it past the 1st round: 2 - Georgetown (beat #7 BC in 2nd round, #1 UNC in 4th round) 2 - Memphis 4 - Southern Illinois (beat #5 VA Tech in 2nd round) 5 - Butler (beat #4 UMD in 2nd round) 7 - UNLV (beat #10 GA Tech in 1st round) 7 - Nevada 9 - Xavier 11 - VCU (beat #6 Duke in 1st round) 11 - Winthrop
2006 - UMD did not make the tournament, 2 of 4 ACC teams lost (1 upset) to these 12 non-BCS schoolsthat made it past the 1st round: 1 - Villanova (beat #4 BC in 3rd round) 7 - Georgetown 1 - Memphis 3 - Gonzaga 7 - Wichita St 8 - GW 9 - Bucknell 11 - UW-Milwaukee 11 - George Mason (beat #3 UNC in 2nd round) 12 - Montana 13 - Bradley 14 - Northwestern St
2005 - UMD did not make the tournament, 1 of 5 ACC teams lost (no upsets) to these 12 non-BCS schools that made it past the 1st round: 5 - Villanova 3 - Gonzaga 4 - Louisville (beat #5 Georgia Tech in 2nd round) 6 - Utah 7 - Southern Illinois 7 - Cincinnati 8 - Pacific 9 - Nevada 11- UAB 12 - UW-Milwaukee 13 - Vermont 14 - Bucknell
2004 - 3 of 6 ACC teams lost (1 upset) to these 12 non-BCS schools that made it past the 1st round: 2 - UConn (beat #1 Duke in semi-final, beat #3 Georgia Tech in final) 8 - Seton Hall 1 - St. Joe's (beat #4 Wake Forest in 3rd round) 2 - Gonzaga 4 - Cincinnati 7 - Memphis 7 - Xavier 8 - DePaul 9 - UAB 10 - Nevada 12 - Pacific 12 - Manhattan
2003 - 0 of 4 ACC teams lost (no upsets) to these 9 non-BCS schools that made it past the 1st round: 5 - UConn 3 - Xavier 3 - Marquette 4 - Louisville 9 - Gonzaga 9 - Utah 11 - Central Michigan 12 - Butler 13 - Tulsa
Notes: 1) BC was in the Big East until the 2005-06 season 2) Louisville and Cincinnati were in Conference USA until the 2005-06 season 3) UConn did not join the Big East in football until the 2004-05 season
|
|
|
Post by vamosalaplaya on Apr 3, 2008 14:40:23 GMT -5
I just read a startling blog entry that seems to add up. Since 1990 the ACC has had 19 Final Four appearances. The Big East has had 5. The Big East has had less than every single other power conference. Duke and UNC have each had more final four appearances than the entire Big East.
There are occasional snickers on this board about the ACC, UNC, Duke, etc.
And once again this year there is an ACC team in the Final Four, and no Big East team.
I knew UConn pulled up lame in the 90s, and the conference wasn't deep, but I didn't realize just how bad it was.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 3, 2008 14:51:57 GMT -5
"It is obvious that basketball programs at BCS schools reap great financial support from their football programs."
Possibly true, but your statistic is a correlation, not causation. Most of the BCS schools happen also to be large state schools who have committed vast sums of money to all athletics. It isn't just a matter of football feeding the beast.
Large schools with money tend to do well in football and basketball and there aren't many large schools with money who emphasize one and not the other.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 3, 2008 14:55:50 GMT -5
I just read a startling blog entry that seems to add up. Since 1990 the ACC has had 19 Final Four appearances. The Big East has had 5. The Big East has had less than every single other power conference. Duke and UNC have each had more final four appearances than the entire Big East. There are occasional snickers on this board about the ACC, UNC, Duke, etc. And once again this year there is an ACC team in the Final Four, and no Big East team. I knew UConn pulled up lame in the 90s, and the conference wasn't deep, but I didn't realize just how bad it was. Three thoughts: 1. Who measures the strength of a conference only by the number of teams in the top 1% of college basketball? In what other measurement of quality is only the extreme best evaluated? 2. Most of the talk about the ACC, Duke, etc., is relevant to this year. Why is Final Fours since whatever date you choose relevant to those comments? Clue: it isn't. 3. I bet no conference beats our Final Four conversion rate in that time period: 60%.
|
|
|
Post by grokamok on Apr 3, 2008 14:58:09 GMT -5
"It is obvious that basketball programs at BCS schools reap great financial support from their football programs." Possibly true, but your statistic is a correlation, not causation. Most of the BCS schools happen also to be large state schools who have committed vast sums of money to all athletics. It isn't just a matter of football feeding the beast. Large schools with money tend to do well in football and basketball and there aren't many large schools with money who emphasize one and not the other. True enough. The point was that Gary's whining about "non-football" schools (which I read as "non-BCS football schools") investing money in basketball was ludicrous in the light of the amount of money that the BCS schools tend to be able to spend on their basketball programs. Though their income comes from many sources, it is a widely-held notion that football at these schools tends to support all other athletics.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 3, 2008 15:01:09 GMT -5
I just read a startling blog entry that seems to add up. Since 1990 the ACC has had 19 Final Four appearances. The Big East has had 5. The Big East has had less than every single other power conference. Duke and UNC have each had more final four appearances than the entire Big East. There are occasional snickers on this board about the ACC, UNC, Duke, etc. And once again this year there is an ACC team in the Final Four, and no Big East team. I knew UConn pulled up lame in the 90s, and the conference wasn't deep, but I didn't realize just how bad it was. Champions break down like this since 1990: ACC: 6 SEC: 5 Big East: 3 Pac 10: 2 Big 10: 1 UNLV: 1 Big 12: 0
|
|
|
Post by grokamok on Apr 3, 2008 15:19:44 GMT -5
I just read a startling blog entry that seems to add up. Since 1990 the ACC has had 19 Final Four appearances. The Big East has had 5. The Big East has had less than every single other power conference. Duke and UNC have each had more final four appearances than the entire Big East. There are occasional snickers on this board about the ACC, UNC, Duke, etc. And once again this year there is an ACC team in the Final Four, and no Big East team. I knew UConn pulled up lame in the 90s, and the conference wasn't deep, but I didn't realize just how bad it was. Three thoughts: 1. Who measures the strength of a conference only by the number of teams in the top 1% of college basketball? In what other measurement of quality is only the extreme best evaluated? 2. Most of the talk about the ACC, Duke, etc., is relevant to this year. Why is Final Fours since whatever date you choose relevant to those comments? Clue: it isn't. 3. I bet no conference beats our Final Four conversion rate in that time period: 60%. I agree with SF here and would posit that there are three main criteria for conference performance: 1) Percentage of conference teams invited to the tournament - I suppose one might argue that top-to-bottom rating (whether RPI, Sagarin, Pomeroy, etc.) indicates conference strength but the result that matters to fans is participation in the big dance. It's kind of like finishing in the money in a poker tournament - nobody wants to be bubble boy. 2) Performance versus expected performance by seed of teams in the tournament - once in the tournament, fans want their teams to advance; disappointment awaits those who bow out earlier than expected and joy finds those who make an upset run. I've seen some stats about ARF (Ability to Reach the Final Four) but this is a poor arbitrary standard that discounts losses in earlier rounds and wins once in the Final Four, itself. Personally, I would also want to adjust by obvious home-court advantage (the Big East had some nice locations in the 80s, to be honest, but the Carolina Invitational that Duke/UNC have gotten so often far outweigh this) 3) National championships - no matter what one's team is seeded, this is the ultimate achievement. That said, going back to 1990 is also arbitrary. Why not go back to 1985, when the field expanded to 64? (The 65th team's inclusion is something of a joke from a statistical standpoint.) Rework the analysis with these metrics in mind and I believe you will find the ACC is not as highly-performing as you might think. I doubt anyone thinks the ACC is a bad basketball conference and they do have years of great success in the tournament; however, the snickers are, I believe, about how often they are overrated. Champions break down like this since 1990: ACC: 6 SEC: 5 Big East: 3 Pac 10: 2 Big 10: 1 UNLV: 1 Big 12: 0 Since 1985: ACC: 6 SEC: 5 Big East: 4 Big 10: 3 Pac 10: 2 Big 12: 1 UNLV: 1 Louisville: 1
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 3, 2008 15:28:42 GMT -5
Champions break down like this since 1990: ACC: 6 SEC: 5 Big East: 3 Pac 10: 2 Big 10: 1 UNLV: 1 Big 12: 0 And since 2003, they break down like this: Big East: 2 SEC: 2 ACC 1 So clearly, in the last five years, the Big East and SEC are superior conferences.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 3, 2008 15:44:33 GMT -5
Since 1985: ACC: 6 SEC: 5 Big East: 4 Big 10: 3 Pac 10: 2 Big 12: 1 UNLV: 1 Louisville: 1 If you're going back to 1985, why not go back one more year to 1984? ;D
|
|