Kevin Durant to Texas?

[TigerHoya]

Couldnt find this anywhere else on this board and just heard about it elsewhere from Friday's Post:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601248.html

[SFHoya99]

Quick note from this, but amongst Durant's stated reasons were Texas' world class facilities, especially its weight room.

[DFW HOYA]

Well, it goes without saying that Texas takes a back seat to no one on its building efforts. A recent article on UT athletic director DeLoss Dodds mentions the building boom under his tenure:

"Dodds, who oversees a program with an $83 million budget, orchestrated the creation of the Longhorn Foundation, UT athletics fundraising organization that has grown to more than 12,000 members and raises $20 million a year. Texas' athletics director since 1981, Dodds has helped the Longhorns renovate or build $150 million in facilities in the last seven years and is in the process of looking at expanding on that....

"We've put all the pieces together," Dodds said. "The money, the facilities, the foundation, the coaches. I think you could say it's not been this good in a long time."

Yeah, but the Aggies are coming up fast...

Texas Facilities:
www.texassports.com/index.php?s=&change_well_id=2&url_article_id=123

[TigerHoya]

I heard NC and Clemson were surprised by Texas coming in at the last minute with him looking to go to college now instead of pro.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

My analysis:

Clearly Mr. Durant decided based on facilties. This is a huge get for Texas, and I bet right now that the Texas boosters feel that their investment in their athletics program has been worth every penny. As has been noted by DFW Texas has an immense program in terms of its scope and its deep pockets - it is probably the best (or second best behind Stanford) in investing in athletics across the board. Does Georgetown need to be Texas-East? No. That's impossible because Texas has an enrollment of 50,000+ in its Austin campus alone, the resources of the state of Texas, and numerous rich alumni to draw on. That is not something that I would want us to replicate point for point on the Hilltop - but what we should be asking ourselves are the following questions:

1) Does the size, scope, and mission of Georgetown, a Jesuit institution with a small undergraduate population with a committment to cura personalis justify the investment in athletics necessary to compete at the highest levels?

I would answer yes here full heartedly - cura personalis is about caring for the whole person, the physical fitness and athletic aptitude of a person is a part of that outlook on life. If we can take student-atheletes and care for their minds and bodies at Georgetown then IMO we are fulfilling that mission. I think the experiences of 1983, 1984, and 1985 tell us that an investment in athletics and a desire to compete at the highest levels can propell a very good school into the national spotlight and have an economic multiplier effect that allows it to become an internationally recognized school that competes for the best and brightest high school seniors every year. There are ofcourse other reasons that can be more forcefully explicated by others, but I feel that an investment in athletics is not anathema to the credo of cura personalis and has an incredible positive impact on the hilltop community as a whole.

2) What are we doing well, as a whole, in our athletic programs and what could we be doing better?

It is important that we assess ourselves thouroughly before we make an investment in GU athletics. I do not get to see the AD from the inside nor do i presume to know the facts exactly about what is in need of repair with GU athletics - but I would like to take a stab at this:

What we are doing well - I feel that we give the athletes who come to Georgetown ample academic support and give them every chance to succeed in the classroom. I also feel that we have top notch coaches in most of our sports programs - some who work long hours essentially unrewarded with campus-wide support (sailing, track, cross-country and crew teams especially, but this is not only limited to them). However, we have not tapped the full potential of alumni giving - this is partially the AD's fault and partially the alumni's fault - there needs to be more targeted marketing of higher quality, the development of a very specific list of perks for higher paying donors (better seats, better parking spots, valet service, access to luxury boxes, whatever it takes) in order to ellicit big donations. In addition, the AD's office need to coordinate structured giving, bequesting of money through wills, and donations from prominent alumni in a more intensive fashion. There also needs to be a clear set of goals set for teams and facilities: i.e. this is the computer design of renovated McDonough that we want to build - now help us build it, we want our basketball team to stop being a team on the rise and start being a contender for the BE title every year, this is what the new track and field facilities will look like help us build them, etc. There are problems and strengths with the ADs office that we do not know about and I do not presume to have covered them all here - but this is just what I see as an outsider looking in.

3) How do we want to change our athletics programs?

There are only a few ways to change athletics programs (not the teams but the programs in football, basketball, track and field over the years): new coaches, new facilities, and new support structures. I contend that we have good coaches - in many cases some of the best, and we have good academic support structures (tutors, the writing center, etc.). So I contend that what is of primary concern now is taking the positive momentum that is created in little things going on in our Men's BB program - players coming back, possible new unis, transfers coming in, etc. and one big positive - JTIII and leverege those things into making a fundamental change in our athletics programs: facilities. We have already realized that facilities are critical to the success of our men's football and lacrosse programs as evidenced by the construction of the MSF. If we are willing to invest in sports that are essentially non-revenue generating and have not had the past success of the Men's BB program, why aren't we willing to step up and support our men's basketball program. It is clear that facilties are the weak link in our program and we need to improve them. The catalyst for this change is increasing the amount of donors and the amount of giving from each donor - to do this we are put in a position where we need to spend moeny (direct mailing programs, phone banks, whatever it takes) to make money.

4) If we are to change facilties, how are we going to change them?

This is the point that I think there is the most argument about on the board. I think most of us agree that facilties are the weak link in our Men's BB program, and with that being the flagship program for our athletic department it is dangerous to not put it in a position to succeed (think: does Oklahoma, Texas, or Florida State sit idly while their football teams go into decline, does Duke, Kansas, or UNC tolerate problems in their Men's BB programs, etc.) why should we tolerate this weakness? And a weak link like this could cause other problems (such as JTIII leaving, loosing out on recruits, etc.) down the road. I contend that since we are in the conceptual phases of talking about improvements to the men's BB facilties we should think big and not take anything off the table. Is it more economical to build a new weight room? Yes, but should we just limit our selves to raising a few thousand dollars for some new macnines and a new coat of paint? That doesn't seem like the kind of investment that is justified by how much prestiege the teams of 1983 - 1985 garnered for this University and how it put them on the map - I feel that we owe the program more than that and that if we invest now we will see returns early and spread out in ways that we cannot imagine - just as was the case with our push to invest in athletics preceeding the hiring of JTII. It is not easy to change things on the Hilltop - there are still people who think in ways that are not helpful or think that the investment isn't worth it and there are some who will throw up roadblocks to these ideas (the neighborhood, etc.) but I feel the risks inherent in dealing with these people in the course of our investment is well worth the reward.

So to conclude if we want to start pulling of coups like UT has clearly done in its recruiting class, we need to recommitt to athletics on the hilltop, assess our strengths and weaknesses, and invest where we could be better doing so with the highest of goals and keeping ourselves open to every possibility. I think that the time is now for this process to being because it is frankly long over due, if not know then when?

[MCIGuy]

It has been known since Wednesday that this guy was heading to Texas. At first I thought it was the facilities as well that made him pick Texas over UNC and UConn. But further reading around the web made me aware that Texas was recruiting him longer. As far back as two or three years ago when he wasn't on anyone's radar one of the Texas assistants saw him play and took an immediate interest in him. That assistant has been trying to woo him ever since and has always remained in touch with Durant and his family. It almost didn't happen. Durant was very close to committing to UNC after his official visit there. But he decided to wait it out a bit longer during which time all reports have Roy Williams easing up a whole lot because he was confident he would get Durant. Anyway during this period Durant was finally convinced to take an official visit to Texas (because again of the bond he had formed with that assistant coach) and clicked with the coaches there more than those at UNC and UConn. I'm sure the facilities had something to do with it but lets not forget that UNC has some pretty nice digs too. It was his interaction with the Texas staff and the current players that made him pick the Longhorns, though.

[the_way]

mciguy said:

It was his interaction with the Texas staff and the current players that made him pick the Longhorns, though.

Thank you MCI. That is so true. If i hear another false argument about facilities landing a recruit, I'm going to throw up.

[TigerHoya]

Facilities alone won't get a recruit, but if all other things are equal they can help sway the decision. That's the way it has been playing out in recent years in football. Facilities may indeed not be the most important thing a recruit bases his decision on but to say that facilities play no role at all is just as farcical as saying they are the only thing decisions are based upon.

As it relates to facilities, the ones that matter are the day-to-day facilities including practice facilities, lockerrooms and academic enrichment centers, more so than a stadium or arena.

[MCIGuy]

tigerhoya said:

Facilities alone won't get a recruit, but if all other things are equal they can help sway the decision.

I definitely agree with that.

And in the cases of a few top talents the facilities are EVERYTHING. But some people are shallow like that. ;D

[TigerHoya]

mciguy said:

I definitely agree with that.

And in the cases of a few top talents the facilities are EVERYTHING. But some people are shallow like that. ;D

Those are the people who are why Knight of Nike spent so much money on a new lockerroom for Oregon and why Duke spent as much money as anyone else in the ACC on a new football practice, training and lockerroom facility.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

theway said:

mciguy said:

It was his interaction with the Texas staff and the current players that made him pick the Longhorns, though.

Thank you MCI. That is so true. If i hear another false argument about facilities landing a recruit, I'm going to throw up.

I think that this is actually a really good case of facilities landing a recruit because it can be argued that UNC has a prouder basketball tradition, an on-campus arena, recent tournament success and top-flight coaching - however the recruit in question chose Texas - which is not in as strong and storied a basketball conference and has not even had success in winning their conference with the like of Ok State and Kansas in their conference. His stated reason was facilities. If we want to recruit these players we need to have facilties - adacemic centers, locker rooms, weight rooms, an arena, etc. I think that the logic that i used in my post and the questions asked are very apt - and the lesson drawn from this recruit is apt.

[the_way]

stpetersburghoya said:

theway said:

Thank you MCI. That is so true. If i hear another false argument about facilities landing a recruit, I'm going to throw up.

I think that this is actually a really good case of facilities landing a recruit because it can be argued that UNC has a prouder basketball tradition, an on-campus arena, recent tournament success and top-flight coaching - however the recruit in question chose Texas - which is not in as strong and storied a basketball conference and has not even had success in winning their conference with the like of Ok State and Kansas in their conference. His stated reason was facilities. If we want to recruit these players we need to have facilties - adacemic centers, locker rooms, weight rooms, an arena, etc. I think that the logic that i used in my post and the questions asked are very apt - and the lesson drawn from this recruit is apt.

Your argument is weak. Rick Barnes is a great recruiter, and his Texas teams are very successful, and they were in the final four 2 years ago. Don't act like Texas was bottom feeder for the Big 12 and Barnes' staff have no clue on what to do when it comes to coaching basketball, and they just so happen to land this great recruit because of the world-class facilities. Lets be real here. So what are you talking about?

[DFW HOYA]

theway said:

If i hear another false argument about facilities landing a recruit, I'm going to throw up.

You seem to use facilities as a "straw man". No one is suggesting that facilities are a substitute for good recruiting, but it is a complement to it.

That having been said, Georgetown would be very short-sighted and foolish to assume an attitude that "we have JT III, so all is well" without giving him and his staff the infrastructure needed to consistently recruit quality student athletes. (Notice I said "infrastructure", which includes facilities but other assets too.) Without it, Georgetown is susceptible to the same predatory practices that sent Dave Leitao from Chicago to Charlottesville.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

theway said:

stpetersburghoya said:

I think that this is actually a really good case of facilities landing a recruit because it can be argued that UNC has a prouder basketball tradition, an on-campus arena, recent tournament success and top-flight coaching - however the recruit in question chose Texas - which is not in as strong and storied a basketball conference and has not even had success in winning their conference with the like of Ok State and Kansas in their conference. His stated reason was facilities. If we want to recruit these players we need to have facilties - adacemic centers, locker rooms, weight rooms, an arena, etc. I think that the logic that i used in my post and the questions asked are very apt - and the lesson drawn from this recruit is apt.

Your argument is weak. Rick Barnes is a great recruiter, and his Texas teams are very successful, and they were in the final four 2 years ago. Don't act like Texas was bottom feeder for the Big 12 and Barnes' staff have no clue on what to do when it comes to coaching basketball, and they just so happen to land this great recruit because of the world-class facilities. Lets be real here. So what are you talking about?

Are you suggesting that I have some sort of motive in promoting a re-investment in Hoya Basketball?

Your really only supporting my argument here because even if I grant you that Rick Barnes is a really good coach - which I do not dispute in my post - it is completely checked by the fact that Roy Williams is a really good coach who has just won a national title - therefore like I have said in my post - facilties, when all other items are controlled - do matter in recruiting.

Since you want a clarification of what I am saying let me explain:

My argument is not only about why facilties and a re-investment in our support structure (weight rooms, video rooms, practice facilities, coachs' offices, team rooms, etc.) is important to recruiting. One of my points is that when all things are equal it does play a factor in recruiting because players want to see where they will be taken care of the most and be able to win. The other points of my argument are that a re-investment in our support structure is warranted because the investment in Hoya athletics that lead to the 1982-1985 tournament drives by JTII has reaped unexpected benefits for Georgetown - raised national stature and increased revenue flows as a result from merchandise, etc. We also need to re-invest to protect what we have - i.e. JTIII, his coaching staff, our new AD and his staff, are all poachable if there is no committment made to them through re-investing in the program. We have already concluded that it is prudent to re-invest in the facilties available to our football and Lax programs, which do not create revenue hence it seems very short-sighted to not be re-investing in our basketball program, which is the flag ship of the Georgetown Athletic Department. I have always suggested that facilities are a compliment to good recruiting and that we should surround what is positive in our programs by investing in the weak links in these programs. I also contend that with the strength of the team that we are putting on the floor in the coming season we should strike when the iron is hot and carry over this success into our fundraising efforts.

Your argument seems to be centered around doing things in a different, Georgetown, way which you haven't really defined in any way other than the fact that it is counter to what many have suggested about re-investing in facilities on this board. You also seem to suggest the JTIII's coaching and the results on the court are all that matter in the success of the program over the long term. I think this argument is a little short sighted because it assumes that JTIII will want to stay at GU without the items needed to support him and that coaching is the only factor in a programs success. It is clear that good programs cannot exist without good coaches, but it is not clear that they are all that is needed for the sustained excellence of the program.

[TigerHoya]

theway said:

Your argument is weak. Rick Barnes is a great recruiter, and his Texas teams are very successful, and they were in the final four 2 years ago. Don't act like Texas was bottom feeder for the Big 12 and Barnes' staff have no clue on what to do when it comes to coaching basketball, and they just so happen to land this great recruit because of the world-class facilities. Lets be real here. So what are you talking about?

Barnes is a great recruiter as long as players don't find out that he goes after their girlfriends, especially if they're cheerleaders or dance team members.

The people who bash any talk of facilities as vital for success of any sport at the big-time level in college are too focused on proving facilities don't factor into it to realize how silly they look.

The same factors that drive why a non-athlete picks a school also drive why athletes pick a school. That being said, no two people are totally alike in why they decide where to go.

I've seen the football facilities argument going on elsewhere over the past 6 or 7 years and the facilities have finally actually started to be built.

There are always a small number of people who bash any mention of facilities by coaches or the school or anyone else and say that the coach is using facilities as an excuse for losing whenever the subject is brought up. There are rarely if ever any mentions by those who want the new facilities that the lack of facilities caused losing.

Depending on the the success or lack thereof of the team on the court or on the field, the stridency of the anti-facilities crowd ratchets up and down and winning one big game or having one good season without great facilities is always pointed out as a reason these new facilities aren't needed. All the while schools in the same conference with less tradition and less winning history are beating out this team for recruits because they have either committed to facilities or already built them (or are somewhere in the process.)

When the facilities are finally approved and the money raised for Phase I, these same facilities-doubters start bashing the coach yet again and saying that now he has no excuse to lose because he got the facilities he wanted.

The above example is pretty true to life of what I've seen elsewhere and I predict that's where it will eventually go on this board. It got pretty nasty in the discussions above and I'm sure it will here as well if it keeps going this way.

Not understanding that facilities do play a role in a program's recruiting success is incredibly shortsighted.

They do matter. The degree to which they matter is open for debate, but enough recruits, blue-chip or otherwise, who say favorable things about a school's facilities (whether it be gameday, practice or academic enrichment buildings) to convince me that it does factor into the equation.

There are similar arguments about whether recruits and their parents read message board from schools they are considering as well. The nay-sayers usually wind up eating crow when they find out future prospects and current players read alot more than they think online.

Like I said earlier, day-to-day facilities are probably as important, if not more important, than gameday ones. The places the players spend most of their time on a daily basis will matter to some extent in their decision-making process.

When you let yourself get way behind in facilities (and ticket pricing and fundraising re: the unnamed example I used above) by not building anything for along time because you don't think it matters then you have to do a massive catch-up that strains resources, donor pocketbooks and raises ticket prices and levels of giving for tickets, parking and tournament/championship/bowl game tickets.

I've seen it happen before and it can happen again at any other school.

All the things required for a winning program complement each other. Facilities and success help recruiting and that recruiting in turn should help bring future sucess. However, when other pieces of the cycle get short shrift following success (like facilities for example) then the cycle breaks down.

[the_way]

Nobody is saying that we DON't need an upgrade in facilities. I'm talking strictly basketball here, football is a different animal. The Doom and Gloom guys are always on the prow. Is the GU situation the perfect situation, NO. But no place is. Some of you guys are clueless when it comes to basketball recruiting. I can tell some of you guys have never experienced what goes on in basketball recruiting. Facilities are one of the last thing recruits think about when coming to a school. Maybe to non-athletes having nice basketball nets, pretty,color coordinated practice basketball courts, and nice whirl-pools are what would entice you. Facilities may play a smidgen in landing a recruit. Do we need an upgrade in facitilities and new on- or near-campus arena? YES! Are we going to lose recruits to other basketball schools ONLY because we don't have state-of-the-art facilities? NO.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

So if your only argument is that an upgrade in facilties will have a limited impact in recruiting then why are you arguing with those on the board who are saying that this is true but it can have an important limited effect in recruiting when other things are held equal as well as delivering very important benefits in other areas of the program?

[jerseyhoya34]

Didn't we have this argument last week? Welcome to the offseason, Kenner recaps in 4-5 hours, barring quadruple overtime.

[TigerHoya]

theway said:

Nobody is saying that we DON't need an upgrade in facilities. I'm talking strictly basketball here, football is a different animal. The Doom and Gloom guys are always on the prow. Is the GU situation the perfect situation, NO. But no place is. Some of you guys are clueless when it comes to basketball recruiting. I can tell some of you guys have never experienced what goes on in basketball recruiting. Facilities are one of the last thing recruits think about when coming to a school. Maybe to non-athletes having nice basketball nets, pretty,color coordinated practice basketball courts, and nice whirl-pools are what would entice you. Facilities may play a smidgen in landing a recruit. Do we need an upgrade in facitilities and new on- or near-campus arena? YES! Are we going to lose recruits to other basketball schools ONLY because we don't have state-of-the-art facilities? NO.

The dynamics I referred to are the same in academics and any other major sport, not just football. If you don't lay the foundation for facilities now, when you get to the point that you're even on everything else you'll be playing catch-up.

[the_way]

stpetersburghoya said:

So if your only argument is that an upgrade in facilties will have a limited impact in recruiting then why are you arguing with those on the board who are saying that this is true but it can have an important limited effect in recruiting when other things are held equal as well as delivering very important benefits in other areas of the program?

No, my whole argument is that the world is not coming to an end if we don't upgrade facilities to 29th century, state-of-the-art status. Its really inconsequential to our success. Some people act like we are a poor little helpless school who can't do anything. People need to get their inferiority complexes in check.