Play Angry wrote:BirdsEyeView wrote:Play Angry wrote:
I imagine it had as much to do as fan bases at most other schools with comparable attendance and financial support. A terrific percentage of our programs are funded by that fanbase, so, yes, it certainly plays a significant role.
Why so combative this week?
I'm really not trying to be, I just hate when fans assume they had a helping hand in things or are the "know-it-alls" on how to be a good basketball program.
I have strong beliefs that Football has very little impact on their basketball programs
I have strong beliefs that MVC schools all understand what it takes to become consistently good, but just make erroneous hires that set them back many years
I understand the pro-FCS football argument and think that for certain schools, football serves as a strong compliment to the other programs in the athletic department and is a true asset to the university. Other schools probably should consider cutting bait depending on their financial situation, fan support, mission and a myriad of other issues. No real one-size-fits all there.
I don't really disagree that MVC schools understand what it takes to become consistently good - there are so many blueprints out there, I think everyone can see what successful programs have in common. I do disagree that erroneous hires are the primary factor holding some schools back.
Bradley is probably the example that best supports your point. They generally do all the "right" things (sufficient budget, good fan support, etc.) but have been submarined by a mediocre Les hire and a bad Ford hire. Totally agreed there - this is a program whose long-term expectations should be much, much higher than what they've recently put on the court.
It's not that certain schools don't want to be good. Instead, they've prioritized their budget allocations and development/redevelopment projects on their campuses in a way that (i) makes it harder to catch lightning in a bottle to begin with since that school is not viewed as much of a destination from a facilities/fan support/budget/etc. standpoint, thereby attracting a less competitive (this is poorly worded but I think the point still works) candidate for a position, and (ii) makes it harder to swiftly reallocate their budget resources to pay what it takes to keep that coach if they do catch lightning in a bottle since the reallocation to line items would be incredibly drastic. It's just sort of the nature of the beast.
The programs operating on a shoestring would love to dance every year, and some of them put a decent product on the court considering those limitations, so in a sense they are "trying." In another sense, until the President and AD at those schools prioritize those programs to a degree that substantially raises their chances for success, both short-term and long-term, they aren't fully committed and could be characterized as "not trying."
Luck and chance always play into it too, and that's a big part of what makes sports fun - otherwise everything would just go to the highest bidder. I do think there is a lot that some MVC schools could be doing that would further their causes for athletics. I also understand when enrollment, state budgets and other factors necessitate otherwise.
Well stated and level-headed response. I can't disagree with literally any of it.