|
Post by fsohoya on Sept 20, 2011 13:40:23 GMT -5
Do you really want to be Xavier? They may be good but this program currently needs to consider ways to stay closer to elite. No -- I want to be better than Xavier. My point is that Xavier manages to stay pretty high-profile despite never having been in a BCS conference. If they can do it, we and a conference made up of basketball-only BE schools and Xavier should be able to be even better. And there's no point in complaining about this if we are left with no other choice. Indeed, I think it would be far from the end of the GU hoops world.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Sept 20, 2011 13:41:36 GMT -5
But here's what I don't understand: How does Xavier stay good? And if they can do it in a crummy A10, why can't we it with Xavier lots of good BE schools? Because we don't own our home court, we rent. Xavier owns an on campus home court. McDonough is not too small for uninteresting games
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Sept 20, 2011 13:43:54 GMT -5
The point isn't "how does Xavier stay good," it's recognizing how thin the margin for error is when you're in Xavier's position (or Butler's or Gonzaga's). The point is: there aren't that many of them. It's very hard to do. And it's nearly impossible to sustain. Temple couldn't do it; UMass couldn't do it (just to name two schools with relative periods of sustained success recently in our general area that could not sustain it).
Xavier is consistently good, but they're still not on TV particularly often (and certainly Butler isn't). If the ball bounces the other way in either the first or second round this past year, Butler is gone, and their story is not nearly as compelling. If Xavier slips up for a two or three year stretch (key injuries; a couple of recruiting misses; bad breaks in games), they're in deep trouble. And in their situation, it's hard to climb back up to where they were.
That's the danger to being in a lesser-tier league. It's not impossible to sustain prominence, but it's a lot harder.
Maybe we won't have a choice -- and almost surely our situation would be better than the CAA's or the A-10s -- but it still would be very difficult.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Sept 20, 2011 13:45:15 GMT -5
This league will be pretty much a disaster for our other sports besides men's basketball, especially since I don't think ND will stay with it If this is what we end up with I think it shows that the admin was totally unpprepared for the events that unfolded. I'm sure that they will put a spin on it that there was nothing else they could do given our limited resources.
I guess we can sell Bball recruits on being a big fish in a small pond, NBA prep, and good academics but I'd have to think that recruiting will take a slow steady decline. I think the games will be competitive and exciting as ever, but the natl or even regional buzz will be limited. Coaching exodus at the other league programs will accelerate too. Coaching jobs will become purely stepping stones.
For us, I would think that rectg in other sports like women's bball which was on the rise, soccer, lax to name a few will also take hits. Probably will lead to some kind of rationalization of our overall sports program which should have been done anyway-just bellowing about how we compete in 29 sports(even if many sports are mediocre) always seemed pretty weak to me. This titanic shift in our position could probably be the catalyst for some kind of rationalization.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,728
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Sept 20, 2011 13:48:29 GMT -5
But not overnight. As RBHoya has pointed out in many threads, on Day 1 the all basketball Big East/CYO would be the preeminent mid major conference in America. It would only be after many years of futility would we look anything like non-scholarship Holy Cross. There are so many problems with this (TV, diminished RPI, etc.) I won't even get into those, but here's an easy one: Verizon Center. Georgetown needs somewhere around 8,000 a game just to break even at the building--with probably 5,000 students and season ticket holders, it drives attendance from walk-up traffic and, during BE season, more locals and out of towners. There's no secret why WVU and Syracuse can bring in 15K when South Florida and Providence do not--people don't care about them. If DC locals perceive an inferior product, they stay away. Are Dayton and St. Joe's or Duquesne perceived that way? Yes they are. Evidence? Check the attendance numbers at GW, which plays much the same schedules as these A-10 Catholic teams and drew 1,788 last year--it's biggest game was 3,532 hosting Temple. GW can get by with poor attendance because they own the Smith Center. They just spent $43 million to renovate it and they still can't sell out a 5,000 seat hall. Georgetown can't even put a shovel in the ground to build a decade-delayed practice facility--what do they do if they can't pay the rent downtown? And reformation, a "rationalization" of sports would largely mean defunding basketball to maintain what is already out there. You may not appreciate other sports but the alumni do--half of all athletics gifts come from sports other than basketball. The marginal cost to keep a baseball or tennis team, even at a subsistence level, is far more palatable institutionally than giving basketball money it can't cover, to justify a 25% share of the budget in a mid-major setup. St. John's tried gutting its department of sports to prop up basketball and its fundraising (and record) plummeted. At the onset of a capital campaign, that's the last thing you do.
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Sept 20, 2011 14:01:37 GMT -5
DFW - man, I admire your opinion, but you are fighting the inevitable.
The best thing for the program now is to go on a all-out offensive campaign to create and sell a re-vamped, improved basket-focused Big East Conference that is built upon a new, sustainable architecture and will feature the highest caliber basketball, top student athletes, a cadre of great young coaches, major media markets, etc.
In my opinion, this is not the time to list the reasons the new Big East will fail. If we don't spin the message, the headlines and media outlets will CRUSH us, kill our recruiting, and set us back 35 years.
We have never needed vision and leadership more at this point in time. Someone needs to step up. Right. Now.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Sept 20, 2011 14:03:22 GMT -5
But not overnight. As RBHoya has pointed out in many threads, on Day 1 the all basketball Big East/CYO would be the preeminent mid major conference in America. It would only be after many years of futility would we look anything like non-scholarship Holy Cross. There are so many problems with this (TV, diminished RPI, etc.) I won't even get into those, but here's an easy one: Verizon Center. Georgetown needs somewhere around 8,000 a game just to break even at the building--with probably 5,000 students and season ticket holders, it drivews attendance from locals and, during BE season, more locals and out of towners. There's no secret why WVU and Syracuse can bring in 15K when South Florida and Providence do not. If DC locals perceive an inferior product, they stay away. Are Dayton and St. Joe's or Duquesne perceived that way? Yes they are. Evidence? Check the attendance numbers at GW, which plays much the same schedules as these A-10 Catholic teams and drew 1,788 last year--it's biggest game was 3,532 hosting Temple. GW can get by with poor attendance because they own the Smith Center. They just spent $43 million to renovate it and they still can't sell out a 5,000 seat hall. Georgetown can't even put a shovel in the ground to build a decade-delayed practice facility--what do they do if they can't pay the rent downtown? And reformation, a "rationalization" of sports would largely mean defunding basketball to support what is already out there. You may not appreciate other sports but the alumni do--half of all athletics gifts come from sports other than basketball. The marginal cost to keep a baseball or tennis team, even at a subsistence level, is far more palatable institutionally than giving basketball money it can't cover, all to justify a 25% share of the budget in a mid-major setup. St. John's tried gutting its department of sports to prop up basketball and its fundraising (and record) plummeted. At the onset of a capital campaign, that's the last thing you do. Diminished tv and such is a problem that all mid majors currently have, not a barrier for the Big East to be the preeminent one. Again, on Day 1 we have more fans and more draw than almost every mid major has right now. You cite the fact that GW could only get 3,500 for a game against Temple (probably on a Saturday) as a warning sign. Two years ago we got nearly 9,000 people to show up early afternoon on a Monday in November against the Owls. The last home game against USF drew over 12,000. The last home game against Providence drew over 16,000. And in neither case can you argue that it was opposing fans that made up any significant part of those numbers. Now, let me repeat myself, unlike some here I DO NOT want the Catholic League to happen. Keeping the Big East as a BCS league should be the goal. But we must be rational and not alarmist about the future
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,596
|
Post by guru on Sept 20, 2011 14:06:53 GMT -5
DFW - man, I admire your opinion, but you are fighting the inevitable. The best thing for the program now is to go on a all-out offensive campaign to create and sell a re-vamped, improved basket-focused Big East Conference that is built upon a new, sustainable architecture and will feature the highest caliber basketball, top student athletes, a cadre of great young coaches, major media markets, etc. In my opinion, this is not the time to list the reasons the new Big East will fail. If we don't spin the message, the headlines and media outlets will CRUSH us, kill our recruiting, and set us back 35 years. We have never needed vision and leadership more at this point in time. Someone needs to step up. Right. Now. As hard as DFW works on this site and as valuable as his insight often is, it's worth remembering that he was on the wrong side of a similar debate back when Esherick was running our program into the ground. His forecast was gloom and doom back then as well - and the program turned around pretty nicely, I'd say. Agreed that this is not the time for rending garments and crying despair. The truth is that Georgetown's program is nationally relevant and strong at the moment - and we MUST build on that. It can be done without aligning with football schools because it must be done without aligning with football schools. In all honesty, we don't fit all that well with our departing conference brethren anymore - we've been a square peg in a round hole for a decade or so. Georgetown hoops is one of the 20 most storied programs in the country. It'll take more than a little realignment to knock us out.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Sept 20, 2011 14:07:12 GMT -5
But not overnight. As RBHoya has pointed out in many threads, on Day 1 the all basketball Big East/CYO would be the preeminent mid major conference in America. It would only be after many years of futility would we look anything like non-scholarship Holy Cross. There are so many problems with this (TV, diminished RPI, etc.) I won't even get into those, but here's an easy one: Verizon Center. Georgetown needs somewhere around 8,000 a game just to break even at the building--with probably 5,000 students and season ticket holders, it drives attendance from walk-up traffic and, during BE season, more locals and out of towners. There's no secret why WVU and Syracuse can bring in 15K when South Florida and Providence do not--people don't care about them. If DC locals perceive an inferior product, they stay away. Are Dayton and St. Joe's or Duquesne perceived that way? Yes they are. Evidence? Check the attendance numbers at GW, which plays much the same schedules as these A-10 Catholic teams and drew 1,788 last year--it's biggest game was 3,532 hosting Temple. GW can get by with poor attendance because they own the Smith Center. They just spent $43 million to renovate it and they still can't sell out a 5,000 seat hall. Georgetown can't even put a shovel in the ground to build a decade-delayed practice facility--what do they do if they can't pay the rent downtown? And reformation, a "rationalization" of sports would largely mean defunding basketball to maintain what is already out there. You may not appreciate other sports but the alumni do--half of all athletics gifts come from sports other than basketball. The marginal cost to keep a baseball or tennis team, even at a subsistence level, is far more palatable institutionally than giving basketball money it can't cover, to justify a 25% share of the budget in a mid-major setup. St. John's tried gutting its department of sports to prop up basketball and its fundraising (and record) plummeted. At the onset of a capital campaign, that's the last thing you do. I see the facilities problem, but still do not see that this must be a disaster. Keep the good non-football BE schools, add Xavier, and do quality OOC. That should bring in revenue (though I know not as much as the BE). And, sadly, I don't see that we'll have much choice. For facilities, I know the schools faces a huge problem with the neighbors to get a decent on-campus venue, but is there any chance the administration gets extra motivated to put together a practice facility that also seats about 6,500, but maintains a Verizon connection for bigger games? Isn't this essentially what Nova does? It would be cheaper but still let us play high-profile teams in front of lots of people.
|
|
gujake
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 831
|
Post by gujake on Sept 20, 2011 14:11:02 GMT -5
+1 to aleutianhoya's post above
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,728
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Sept 20, 2011 14:12:53 GMT -5
As hard as DFW works on this site and as valuable as his insight often is, it's worth remembering that he was on the wrong side of a similar debate back when Esherick was running our program into the ground. His forecast was gloom and doom back then as well - and the program turned around pretty nicely, I'd say. I've been on the same side all along--I support the head coach at the time, no matter who it is. When Craig was the coach, I supported him. (Didn't agree with his strategies, but I supported him.) John Thompson III is the coach, I support him. If the next coach was Kevin Pittsnogle, I'd grumble but I'd support him, too. Doom and gloom was averted in 2004 by a strong coaching hire and a considerable financial infusion into the program. Had Georgetown hired Fran Dunphy or Joe Scott and tried to fund it at the 2004 level, it would have never reached an NCAA berth in a 16 team Big East. Where's the money today to get to a next step? For facilities, I know the schools faces a huge problem with the neighbors to get a decent on-campus venue, but is there any chance the administration gets extra motivated to put together a practice facility that also seats about 6,500, but maintains a Verizon connection for bigger games? Isn't this essentially what Nova does? It would be cheaper but still let us play high-profile teams in front of lots of people. Not in the next 25-30 years.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,705
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 20, 2011 14:13:19 GMT -5
1. There's no doubt, no matter how many times Ranch repeats himself, that maintaining in a Big Boy league is better for the program.
2. However, if it doesn't happen, there's also no doubt in my mind that with effective leadership a basketball league could be enough of a financial success to maintain our current level of program and continue to be a contender for a national title every once in a while. Shh. Butler. Xavier. Gonzaga. And with less major conferences, a really strong basketball conference will be better.
I wholeheartedly disagree with Ranch that his option is the best, and I don't really see a massive urgency relative to other options. It makes it harder work. But I don't get the defeatism as well.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Sept 20, 2011 14:17:15 GMT -5
Ranch, if basketball-only happens, I'll be the first one to look to the positive, hope it works, and argue against those that call us inferior or "mid-major" or irrelevant or whatever. I don't think the national media will be looking to our comments here to determine how the league is spun and, surely, ESPN will not be looking here but rather at a hard set of quantitative numbers to determine the television revenue. And of course it could work; it will need to work.
But that doesn't mean we have to think it's the preferred position at this exact point in time. It may be the preferred solution tomorrow. I don't think we lose anything by waiting to make that move until after the football schools desert. Hopefully, we've already talked with Xavier and whomever else you'd want to invite (if anyone) and an announcement is ready to roll right after the conference implodes, along with enough spin and marketing to make you proud. But until the conference implodes, I think we do whatever we can (and that may not be much) to stay with the I-A schools.
This isn't defeatist by any stretch; just recognition that one outcome presents a greater likelihood of success (in my opinion) than another. Failure or success is possible with both.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Sept 20, 2011 14:19:24 GMT -5
1. There's no doubt, no matter how many times Ranch repeats himself, that maintaining in a Big Boy league is better for the program. 2. However, if it doesn't happen, there's also no doubt in my mind that with effective leadership a basketball league could be enough of a financial success to maintain our current level of program and continue to be a contender for a national title every once in a while. Shh. Butler. Xavier. Gonzaga. And with less major conferences, a really strong basketball conference will be better. I wholeheartedly disagree with Ranch that his option is the best, and I don't really see a massive urgency relative to other options. It makes it harder work. But I don't get the defeatism as well. I'm with you SF.
|
|
KennaHoya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 181
|
Post by KennaHoya on Sept 20, 2011 14:21:07 GMT -5
I agree that DFW maintains one of the best sports-related Internet sites I have visited. And I would love to hear his preferred option.
But you have to play the cards you are dealt, and people can scream about it all they like, or seek to blame administrators from 60 years ago or those sitting on campus now, but it may turn out that the football schools just do not want to dance with you. You can try every option, you can bend over backwards on travel and revenue splitting, and whatever, but if the football gods won't favor you, all the huffing and puffing won't blow their house down.
(1) No one seems to believe the "Ivy League" scenario has any legs at all;
(2) The ACC, SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 football schools are going to call the shots on what happens to the Big East/Big 12 remnant football and non-football schools; you obviously try to find enough of the best basketball schools in any conference to make sense for the league, but you will not dictate to football schools in the end. If the ACC , Big 12 and other current Big East football schools do not give you any option . . . .
You have to bite the bullet, band together with the best basketball schools you can find that make business sense (religious affiliation plays no factor): large TV markets, some history of basketball success, and the willingness to attract and retain great coaches. Make no mistake - you will have to commit dollars to upgrading or preserving your facilities in addition to your coaching and recruiting budgets. You will have to focus on new media options as well as the standard existing ones. Then you will have two to three years to make your program and/or the league attractive enough for recruits to stay at the elite level. No it is not optimum, no it is not where you sat even a year or two ago, but if that is what you are left with, you best do it and work hard at it.
I wish there was some other "out-of-the-box" thinking but I do not have the time or the brains to see it, and after four days of board projections, I have not seen any such options.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,596
|
Post by guru on Sept 20, 2011 14:22:50 GMT -5
As hard as DFW works on this site and as valuable as his insight often is, it's worth remembering that he was on the wrong side of a similar debate back when Esherick was running our program into the ground. His forecast was gloom and doom back then as well - and the program turned around pretty nicely, I'd say. I've been on the same side all along--I support the head coach at the time, no matter who it is. When Craig was the coach, I supported him. (Didn't agree with his strategies, but I supported him.) John Thompson III is the coach, I support him. If the next coach was Kevin Pittsnogle, I'd grumble but I'd support him, too. Doom and gloom was averted in 2004 by a strong coaching hire and a considerable financial infusion into the program. Had Georgetown hired Fran Dunphy or Joe Scott and tried to fund it at the 2004 level, it would have never reached an NCAA berth in a 16 team Big East. Where's the money today to get to a next step?. Noted - and only a complete fool would question your support of the program. I was merely pointing out your sometimes questionable prognosticating skills and bent toward the worst-case scenario And just to be clear, I don't like the idea of an all-Catholic League either. But I think some collection of the best non-BCS (NOT MID MAJOR) basketball programs such as these Georgetown Villanova St. John's Xavier Butler VCU Providence Marquette Seton Hall DePaul Gonzaga St. Mary's George Mason could be (a) unique, (b) highly marketable and (c) formidable. Oh and (d) actually, a lot of fun.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Sept 20, 2011 14:23:14 GMT -5
As hard as DFW works on this site and as valuable as his insight often is, it's worth remembering that he was on the wrong side of a similar debate back when Esherick was running our program into the ground. His forecast was gloom and doom back then as well - and the program turned around pretty nicely, I'd say. I've been on the same side all along--I support the head coach at the time, no matter who it is. When Craig was the coach, I supported him. (Didn't agree with his strategies, but I supported him.) John Thompson III is the coach, I support him. If the next coach was Kevin Pittsnogle, I'd grumble but I'd support him, too. Doom and gloom was averted in 2004 by a strong coaching hire and a considerable financial infusion into the program. Had Georgetown hired Fran Dunphy or Joe Scott and tried to fund it at the 2004 level, it would have never reached an NCAA berth in a 16 team Big East. Where's the money today to get to a next step? For facilities, I know the schools faces a huge problem with the neighbors to get a decent on-campus venue, but is there any chance the administration gets extra motivated to put together a practice facility that also seats about 6,500, but maintains a Verizon connection for bigger games? Isn't this essentially what Nova does? It would be cheaper but still let us play high-profile teams in front of lots of people. Not in the next 25-30 years. How about this: I know it wouldn't be ideal, but could McD be spruced up enough -- and enough seating added -- that you could play some of the lower-tier teams there in front of, say, 4,000? It would be a small crowd, but McD games can be fun as heck and sound and look OK on TV. Meanwhile, we try to get up a pratice facility with greater seating ASAP.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Sept 20, 2011 14:29:48 GMT -5
College basketball is more about coaches building programs than about league affiliations or facilities. Look at how bad the ACC has been except for Duke and UNC. Look at how bad the SEC has been except for Kentucky and Florida. Look at how bad the PAC 10 has been, period. Despite all the TV money and facilities, etc. for the BCS conferences, in each of the past two seasons, there were 5 mid-majors in the Sweet 16: Butler, VCU, Richmond, BYU, San Diego St. in 2011 and Butler, Xavier, Northern Iowa, Cornell, and St. Mary's in 2010.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Sept 20, 2011 14:32:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Sept 20, 2011 14:33:53 GMT -5
But not overnight. As RBHoya has pointed out in many threads, on Day 1 the all basketball Big East/CYO would be the preeminent mid major conference in America. It would only be after many years of futility would we look anything like non-scholarship Holy Cross. There are so many problems with this (TV, diminished RPI, etc.) I won't even get into those, but here's an easy one: Verizon Center. Georgetown needs somewhere around 8,000 a game just to break even at the building--with probably 5,000 students and season ticket holders, it drives attendance from walk-up traffic and, during BE season, more locals and out of towners. There's no secret why WVU and Syracuse can bring in 15K when South Florida and Providence do not--people don't care about them. If DC locals perceive an inferior product, they stay away. Are Dayton and St. Joe's or Duquesne perceived that way? Yes they are. Evidence? Check the attendance numbers at GW, which plays much the same schedules as these A-10 Catholic teams and drew 1,788 last year--it's biggest game was 3,532 hosting Temple. GW can get by with poor attendance because they own the Smith Center. They just spent $43 million to renovate it and they still can't sell out a 5,000 seat hall. Georgetown can't even put a shovel in the ground to build a decade-delayed practice facility--what do they do if they can't pay the rent downtown? And reformation, a "rationalization" of sports would largely mean defunding basketball to maintain what is already out there. You may not appreciate other sports but the alumni do--half of all athletics gifts come from sports other than basketball. The marginal cost to keep a baseball or tennis team, even at a subsistence level, is far more palatable institutionally than giving basketball money it can't cover, to justify a 25% share of the budget in a mid-major setup. St. John's tried gutting its department of sports to prop up basketball and its fundraising (and record) plummeted. At the onset of a capital campaign, that's the last thing you do. DFW pls note that I actually do support the other sports at Gtwn with a very significant check each year. By rationalization I was thinking of reallocating resources to programs that have legit nationally competitive aspirations from the sports where we have no focus on excellence. I actually think we are in agreement.
|
|