(12-06-2012 09:40 AM)Falcon1407 Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 09:04 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 08:49 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 08:23 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  Akron and Ohio have struggled compared to expectations but I suspect they will be fine.

MAC football started off with NIU losing to Iowa and Kent getting blown out by Kentucky. They turned it around... Basketball will do the same.

It also included many significant OOC wins, over teams like PSU, Iowa, Kansas, etc.

Where are the significant MAC OOC bball wins?

If you call Iowa or Kansas significant wins this year in football you also need to call the basketball wins over PSU and Nebraska significant. I'm happy with the wins over Drexel and Richmond as well.

Drexel is 2-6. With losses to Rider and Tennessee State.

I'd imagine the "What has gone wrong with Drexel hoops" thread is pretty nasty then, since they were supposed to be real good this year.

For Miami, the biggest problem is that our hockey team receives so much support from our fan base that it saps it away from basketball, and to an extent football. Why go all the way to Millett Hall (a twenty minute walk for most students) to watch a mediocre (at best) mid-major when we have a top-notch hockey team at Goggin just across the street? Maybe BG and WMU have the same problem, I'm not sure.

Success here isn't impossible, we had the Sweet 16 run in the 90's and the tourney bid in 2007. The only way it can thrive is to build an interest here at Oxford in basketball, there's very little now. How to do that? Just win, it comes down to that. Looking long-term, a replacement to Millett is going to be needed, it's not a good place to watch a game and its location is brutal. With Goggin built and so much other new construction going on at Miami, our donors will be tapped out to fund a new arena for an unsuccessful program.

Coles is gone after last year, and I'm optimistic about Cooper and his new style of ball. He'll be on a short leash (and Treadwell for that matter) since our AD Brad Bates went to BC, so whoever we hire might want to get his own guy in there if he doesn't like what he sees.

(12-06-2012 10:31 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  For Miami, the biggest problem is that our hockey team receives so much support from our fan base that it saps it away from basketball, and to an extent football. Why go all the way to Millett Hall (a twenty minute walk for most students) to watch a mediocre (at best) mid-major when we have a top-notch hockey team at Goggin just across the street? Maybe BG and WMU have the same problem, I'm not sure.

Success here isn't impossible, we had the Sweet 16 run in the 90's and the tourney bid in 2007. The only way it can thrive is to build an interest here at Oxford in basketball, there's very little now. How to do that? Just win, it comes down to that. Looking long-term, a replacement to Millett is going to be needed, it's not a good place to watch a game and its location is brutal. With Goggin built and so much other new construction going on at Miami, our donors will be tapped out to fund a new arena for an unsuccessful program.

Coles is gone after last year, and I'm optimistic about Cooper and his new style of ball. He'll be on a short leash (and Treadwell for that matter) since our AD Brad Bates went to BC, so whoever we hire might want to get his own guy in there if he doesn't like what he sees.

Same problem at WMU.

Hockey averaged 3600 fans per game last year.
Basketball averaged 3100.

(12-06-2012 09:03 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 08:57 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote:  BG's troubles can be attributed to the decision to hire and extend one Louis Orr.

But BG is in the middle of the conference. I am curious as to what the conference and its members should do differently.

Good question....being a one bid league hurts us over the long haul. The lack of any national presence on TV doesn't help either. The talent level in the conference's football programs took a step forward when we cultivated more bowl tie ins and built a national profile by playing on ESPN at 6pm on Wednesdays....

I don't know if you can make direct comparisons between the sports as the dynamcs are somewhat different. There's no FCS/FBS style split in D1 hoops so you have more programs after the same athletes but you also need fewer athletes to turn a program around...

(12-06-2012 10:48 AM)EA3 Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 10:31 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  For Miami, the biggest problem is that our hockey team receives so much support from our fan base that it saps it away from basketball, and to an extent football. Why go all the way to Millett Hall (a twenty minute walk for most students) to watch a mediocre (at best) mid-major when we have a top-notch hockey team at Goggin just across the street? Maybe BG and WMU have the same problem, I'm not sure.

Success here isn't impossible, we had the Sweet 16 run in the 90's and the tourney bid in 2007. The only way it can thrive is to build an interest here at Oxford in basketball, there's very little now. How to do that? Just win, it comes down to that. Looking long-term, a replacement to Millett is going to be needed, it's not a good place to watch a game and its location is brutal. With Goggin built and so much other new construction going on at Miami, our donors will be tapped out to fund a new arena for an unsuccessful program.

Coles is gone after last year, and I'm optimistic about Cooper and his new style of ball. He'll be on a short leash (and Treadwell for that matter) since our AD Brad Bates went to BC, so whoever we hire might want to get his own guy in there if he doesn't like what he sees.

Same problem at WMU.

Hockey averaged 3600 fans per game last year.
Basketball averaged 3100.

So, let's de-emphasize basketball (MAC is a one-bid league anyway) and emphasize hockey and wrestling.

(12-06-2012 09:48 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Bingo how? How does simply spending money improve the product? Are recruits being paid under the table?

Kyle Whelliston had a graphic a couple of years ago showing the average money spent by confrerences and the conference strength fell almost exactly in that order. Money doesn't just go for recruiting but it helps you get better coaches and coaching staffs. There are a lot of top assistants that wouldn't even look at a MAC school for a job.

(12-06-2012 11:36 AM)OUVan Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 09:48 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Bingo how? How does simply spending money improve the product? Are recruits being paid under the table?

Kyle Whelliston had a graphic a couple of years ago showing the average money spent by confrerences and the conference strength fell almost exactly in that order. Money doesn't just go for recruiting but it helps you get better coaches and coaching staffs. There are a lot of top assistants that wouldn't even look at a MAC school for a job.

The Red Line graph. Teams above the red line (the major conferences, i.e., athletic budgets above $20M) won 83% of the games vs. the ones below the red line (the mid-majors).

(12-06-2012 12:10 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 11:36 AM)OUVan Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 09:48 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Bingo how? How does simply spending money improve the product? Are recruits being paid under the table?

Kyle Whelliston had a graphic a couple of years ago showing the average money spent by confrerences and the conference strength fell almost exactly in that order. Money doesn't just go for recruiting but it helps you get better coaches and coaching staffs. There are a lot of top assistants that wouldn't even look at a MAC school for a job.

The Red Line graph. Teams above the red line (the major conferences, i.e., athletic budgets above $20M) won 83% of the games vs. the ones below the red line (the mid-majors).

That's an answer to "what". I'm more interested in "how".

How do you hire better coaches? How do you recruit better talent with more money for recruiting trips to wider recruiting areas? How do you use better facilities?

There is simply a clear correlation in D-I basketball that bigger basketball budgets equals more wins. Is it a perfect correlation? Of course not. Some schools manage to do more with somewhat less, but they are exceptions. The smallest budgets almost never have any national success.

(12-06-2012 12:57 PM)axeme Wrote:  How do you hire better coaches? How do you recruit better talent with more money for recruiting trips to wider recruiting areas? How do you use better facilities?

Those are some hows. (Although the better coach can be tautological and difficult to define)

Now I'm interested in how much. How many more recruiting trips do you need? At what cost? Does it depend on starting location?

Given that DI talent is a zero sum game, I'd think snagging 2 players from other mid major teams would make the difference in getting past them. Snagging 2 players from good major conf teams would make you competitive with them.

Better facilities? When does it end? How much better is better?

Quote:There is simply a clear correlation in D-I basketball that bigger basketball budgets equals more wins. Is it a perfect correlation? Of course not. Some schools manage to do more with somewhat less,.

But it's easy to do less w/ more (Penn St). That's what I worry about when calls to throw money at the problem pop up.

Once again, what's the final objective? Maybe spending more on wrestling & hockey gets you there.

Toledo's problem is that they're dealing with a somewhat heavy-handed NCAA penalty for academic issues caused by previous players under coaches no longer here--not even one of the current players was partof the problem. But the penalty was two-fold: practices affected by a later start than others and fewer hours/week, and the post-season ban, which resulted in the NCAA-allowed "emergency" transfer of Curtis Dennis, a double-digit, athletic scorer from last season who just hasn't been replaced in the rotation. We simply don't have much of a bench, and the legs seem to still be adjusting. Rockets are 2-6 but have lost several games that they lead late and could've/should've won. Like others have mentioned here about their teams, UT has 2 transfers eligible next season, as well as perhaps the best class of 3 incoming freshmen that we've seen in quite awhile--so make your hay against Toledo this season, because we should be back in the mix in 2013-14.

(12-06-2012 11:08 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 09:03 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 08:57 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote:  BG's troubles can be attributed to the decision to hire and extend one Louis Orr.

But BG is in the middle of the conference. I am curious as to what the conference and its members should do differently.

Good question....being a one bid league hurts us over the long haul. The lack of any national presence on TV doesn't help either. The talent level in the conference's football programs took a step forward when we cultivated more bowl tie ins and built a national profile by playing on ESPN at 6pm on Wednesdays....

I don't know if you can make direct comparisons between the sports as the dynamcs are somewhat different. There's no FCS/FBS style split in D1 hoops so you have more programs after the same athletes but you also need fewer athletes to turn a program around...

"Good question....being a one bid league hurts us over the long haul. The lack of any national presence on TV doesn't help either. The talent level in the conference's football programs took a step forward when we cultivated more bowl tie ins and built a national profile by playing on ESPN at 6pm on Wednesdays...."

While some MAC fans ***** and complain and then ***** more about playing those weeknight games but here is someone who thinks they are apparently a big + (plus the ever increasing number of bowl games).

(12-06-2012 01:07 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 11:08 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 09:03 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 08:57 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote:  BG's troubles can be attributed to the decision to hire and extend one Louis Orr.

But BG is in the middle of the conference. I am curious as to what the conference and its members should do differently.

Good question....being a one bid league hurts us over the long haul. The lack of any national presence on TV doesn't help either. The talent level in the conference's football programs took a step forward when we cultivated more bowl tie ins and built a national profile by playing on ESPN at 6pm on Wednesdays....

I don't know if you can make direct comparisons between the sports as the dynamcs are somewhat different. There's no FCS/FBS style split in D1 hoops so you have more programs after the same athletes but you also need fewer athletes to turn a program around...

"Good question....being a one bid league hurts us over the long haul. The lack of any national presence on TV doesn't help either. The talent level in the conference's football programs took a step forward when we cultivated more bowl tie ins and built a national profile by playing on ESPN at 6pm on Wednesdays...."

While some MAC fans ***** and complain and then ***** more about playing those weeknight games but here is someone who thinks they are apparently a big + (plus the ever increasing number of bowl games).

Many of us were critical early on. But, it may have worked out for the benefit of the conference. Certainly it helped to have a good product on the field.

Success in hockey (very expensive startup) and wrestling are not even in the ballpark with success in basketball. That's why there are 350+ schools playing basketball and about half that many in hockey and wrestling combined. The financial rewards are great in basketball, even though the odds of achieving that are diminished by every dollar you do not invest in your program. Spending less than $2M. per year on hoops? You will win about 15% (this season so far) of your games vs. schools that spend more.

(12-06-2012 01:15 PM)axeme Wrote:  Success in hockey (very expensive startup) and wrestling are not even in the ballpark with success in basketball. That's why there are 350+ schools playing basketball and about half that many in hockey and wrestling combined. The financial rewards are great in basketball, even though the odds of achieving that are diminished by every dollar you do not invest in your program.

Quote: Spending less than $2M. per year on hoops? You will win about 15% (this season so far) of your games vs. schools that spend more.

Now that's more to the point. So, what happens if you spend $3M? Do you make back that extra mil?

What about $1M?

Do you ever break even?

If not (or if most don't), I'd be more interested in seeing the net returns for all the teams on your red line graph. If all but the best 10 are losing money, who's losing the most, who's losing the least?

Everyone says hockey is expensive, but it used to be said that it was cash positive for BG. Was that an exaggeration?

Stillwater, OK has a population of 46K. They got 9K for their Bedlam match against OU. I see Iowa, PSU and Minn routinely with 10-15K sellouts for their matches.

Can the MAC match that? Probably not, but maybe 3K for a wrestling match isn't impossible, and that's what bball is getting in some places.

(12-06-2012 09:53 AM)EA3 Wrote:  Classic example is Oakland University. They schedule a ridiculous amount of high profile BCS squads in their non conference games because they want to to charter a plane everywhere they go. It's a selling point for recruits. So now, instead of players like Valentine, Mondy, Bader and Petros (not to mention Jalen Hayes next year) all playing in the MAC, they end up at Oakland in the Summit league. Our product has gradually been diluted over time. We aren't getting the talent we used to get and it starts with the budgets.

This is a great point.. Also remember.. They don't have football, their men's coach has served as interim AD twice and their women's coach is married to the school president.

(12-06-2012 09:53 AM)EA3 Wrote:  Bingo in that our facilities overall as a conference do not match up with the MVC and the majority of our teams still do not charter planes. Recruits see these things.

Classic example is Oakland University. They schedule a ridiculous amount of high profile BCS squads in their non conference games because they want to to charter a plane everywhere they go. It's a selling point for recruits. So now, instead of players like Valentine, Mondy, Bader and Petros (not to mention Jalen Hayes next year) all playing in the MAC, they end up at Oakland in the Summit league. Our product has gradually been diluted over time. We aren't getting the talent we used to get and it starts with the budgets.

Coaching salaries are another example. We lag behind big time as a conference.

We are gonna get what we pay for.

Oakland indeed shows the problem the MAC is having in Michigan.

We are losing a lot of Michigan H.S. players whom we did not 10 or 20 years ago.

EA3 didn't bring it up but a lot of Michigan h.s. players are leaving the state. I consider it a serious talent drain.

(p.s. I don't mean from Southfield, MI to Toledo, OH. I mean kids going all over the country. Some are even leaving before graduating from h.s. - going to prep schools in Va, NV, etc.).

We're an net 'exporter' of basketball players.

Money and dedication

It means we lose coaches who build up a program because someone offers them more. We don’t get the coaching candidate we want because we can’t offer enough. And we can’t bring in experienced and top notch assistants because of money.

Those assistants help recruit as well as coach. When our assistants have a couple years or less under their belt they can’t be as effective as a guy who has been around 10 years in the A10, MVC, etc. I think we are seeing a small change in this.

We can’t recruit like other schools because of budget, coaching, facilities, losses, lack of TV, lack of bids, lack of fans, and lack of scheduling.

Poor recruiting means less future pros in the league.

Less pro talent means less talent that people want to watch, thus only 3,000 fans per game. That means less gate money.

We didn’t have TV exposure like other conferences for a long time. We are starting to pick it up a little and the conference has shown a slight uptick in talent since. But it needs a bigger TV presence still. They don’t like showing a TV game with 3,000 people. Packed arenas may mean more games.

We took forever to have an internet presence showing our games. Being able to watch for free online sparks interest from people. If the product is good and the atmosphere they watched was solid they want to be a part of it in person. Be innovative, not followers. Get your product out there to people.

We play a lot of road games as a conference. It’s hard to win on the road. More losses mean less interest from recruits, TV, fans, the NCAA selection committee. They don’t have the funds to get big time opponents to our arenas. I know this season some teams have lost a few home games too. See lack of recruiting.

Facilities need to get better. Whether it’s their home arenas, locker rooms, weight rooms, or practice facilities.

No money means less comfortable travel. Quicker travel. Get in, get out with staying a night somewhere. That means busing it instead of flying somewhere. That puts a burden on the athlete.

No dedication to the sport from administration. The conference needs to have standards that the universities live up to without question or push back. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. You even have to risk losing it sometimes to get a return. Administration may need to risk giving a coach $1M in hopes that his name and skill returns that money in a beefier schedule, more recruits wanting to play for him, television games from the networks because he is a big name and a winner, which draws more fans and sell outs, and ultimately because he gets NCAA bids.

We have seen that we can be on the national scene and make an impact with only a big time player or two on a roster. Gary Trent, Wally Szczerbiak, Antonio Gates, Chris Kaman, Earl Boykins, Ron Harper, Dan Majerle, Dave Jamerson, and Bonzi Wells just to name a few.

(12-06-2012 09:05 AM)axeme Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 08:57 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote:  BG's troubles can be attributed to the decision to hire and extend one Louis Orr.

Or every coach for the last decade after DD ran out of gas.

Orr is Dakich's immediate and only successor.


Also, has Oakland achieved any NCAA tournament wins? Maybe a play-in game?

(12-06-2012 04:21 PM)MacLord Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 09:05 AM)axeme Wrote:  

(12-06-2012 08:57 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote:  BG's troubles can be attributed to the decision to hire and extend one Louis Orr.

Or every coach for the last decade after DD ran out of gas.

Orr is Dakich's immediate and only successor.


Also, has Oakland achieved any NCAA tournament wins? Maybe a play-in game?

Oakland boasts the following in the last 4 years.

2 NCAA appearances, both first round losses
1 CIT semi final appearance
1 CIT second round apearance
1 NBA draft pick