|
Post by mrose on May 2, 2012 22:47:22 GMT -5
There isn't any synergy gained by adding schools such as you suggested. Look at the (proposed) conference RPI over the past 10 years--With Butler and w/o Butler (but with RMU, Drexel, and OU). Drexel has no reason to leave the CAA for the Horizon (it's a pipe dream for some), and the CAA is a better fit for many reasons for the Dragons: 1) Geography. 2) CAA is now much better than horizon w/o Butler. 3) Phillosphically CAA is similiar to Horizon--Mostly State Institutions with a sprinkling of Private schools--Nothing to be gained by changing conference affliation. Media market is practically irrelevant with Drexel and to a lesser extent RMU. Philly is a pro sports town and only 2-3 schools get any noticable media attention--PSU (football), 'Nova, and Temple. St. Joe's, LaSalle, Drexel, and Penn are paid very little attention by the Philly media. RMU joing Horizon would be an okay fit--It's a step up for them. Travel wouldn't be bad, and RMU has a good local following (though local media will be dominated by pro sports, PSU and Pitt). The only draw back is people in ChicagoLand will probably confuse their RMU with the one near Pittsburgh. I can see RMU, OU, and some Summitt League (an Illinois school), or an OVC (Morehead/Murray State) being extended invitations. Unfortunately, you can add all the NEC/Summitt/OVC schools you want, but they still won't bring enough to the table to replace Butler.
|
|
|
Post by mrose on May 2, 2012 21:36:33 GMT -5
I'm not a LeCrone fan, but he's screwed no matter what he does--It's just a matter of the severity of "screwed." No commish, in any conference (BCS included), can replace a team that has been to the National Championship twice in the last 4 years. Granted, Temple is a difficult school to replace, but the A-10 still has the Philadelphia media market along with other schools with National name recognition. LeCrone can't replicate that. He lost Indianapolis. He lost the only school with National name recognition. And, he can't replace the school he just lost within another major media market or a national name.
|
|
|
Post by mrose on May 4, 2011 17:04:50 GMT -5
That sucks about CSU baseball. It's a shame, more and more schools are doing away with baseball programs--one of our great pasttimes. Two years ago an on campus facility was part of the new master plan that CSU announced. I guess that ambitious plan isn't working out so well...
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Apr 2, 2011 10:40:16 GMT -5
Maybe Wabler tried to leverage the rumored OSU offer (one or two home-and-home series) if Boals is hired into hiring Wojo as long as Duke agrees to home-home series with UD. Perhaps coach K has other thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Mar 27, 2011 19:55:08 GMT -5
"I'm in favor of killing socialism" Barry Collier
Gotta love and respect a man who says that!
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Mar 19, 2011 14:30:51 GMT -5
We're now starting to get somewhere. WSU in recent years has had record enrollment with each student given the opportunity to receive 2 free tickets yet the students support of the program is less now than it was back in the early 90's. Is it their perception the program is mediocre? Are they apathetic? Do they not know where the Nutter Center is? Are they just "morons" and follow the Flyers? It's probably all of the above. I know and see Wright State fans, students, and boosters at UD games and not all of them are "morons."
For the record, I don't believe anyone has stated WSU is an "inferior program." Nor am I "trying to hold down" the perception of the die hard fan or take away from what the program and Atheltic Department has accomplished over the years.
What I'm trying to get across, and obviously not very well, is there is a perception of the program by the casual fan. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe it behooves the University to have the casual fans support.
Of course the level of attendance doesn't determine the level of the program on the court. However, in many cases--not all--the level of attendance (sheer numbers or a % of attendance to capacity) is barometer of the perception of the program.
As far as ticket prices--I agree with you, Big D. You're close to the A.D. you tell us. I presume they've done an analysis and found that the increased ticket sales won't offset the lost revenue by lowering prices. Part of that is the economic climate we're in. Part of it is the perception of the program (which includes who we play at home out-of-conference). Considering men's basketball is really the only source of revenue for the athletic department, how does the current budget compare to that of the early and mid 90's? How does WSU's ticket prices of today vs. then compare to other schools? We all know university budgets, throughout the country, have advanced faster than inflation. When compared to other competitiors of the entertainment dollar (i.e., movies) the move up to $17, from $5 or $8, looks in-line.
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Mar 19, 2011 10:28:24 GMT -5
If attendance is directly linked to the economic condition of the Miami Valley then why hasn't the team across town seen a decrease??
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Mar 18, 2011 17:48:58 GMT -5
Wow! You are completely missing the point. Nobody has said a word they aren't excited about Coach Donlon. I think he's the right coach at the right time and I have high expectations for him.
That doesn't change the current perception of the program. If the perception were different that would be reflected in the attendance at home games (granted some of it's who we play) and I believe we would be averaging closer to our early 90's levels if the perception was different.
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Mar 18, 2011 17:33:31 GMT -5
How about I go up to Bob Grant and tell him the perception of the program is that of mediocrity? Vaughn Duggins is simply a student athlete and he has very little control of the program other than give 100% in the classroom and on the court--both in practice and game.
It is not insulting to say the perception is that of mediocrity--In many cases pereception is greater than reality--sometimes the truth hurts and you need to understand that.
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Mar 18, 2011 17:13:36 GMT -5
I think you're missing the whole gist of this thread, Raider Grad. There are passionate fans who want to see bigger and better outcomes for WSU hoops. They are in their right to define it how they have. You seem to be opining that we should be happy and if we're not go away.
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Mar 18, 2011 16:54:29 GMT -5
Buy a thesaurus. Mediocre: fair, lacking exceptional quality or ability, ordinary, not exceptional in any way especially in quality or ability or size or degree, commonplace, neither very good nor very bad, common, of moderate ability, passable, decent.
Most of those define Wright State men's basketball pretty darn well.
You can't simply define a basketball program based on the RPI--There's no clear delineation between a team with a 169 RPI (In the top half, right?) and a team with a RPI of 171 (Bottom half, correct?).
In addition to the flawed and simplistic reliance of RPI rankings to delineate between "above average and below average" you can't define MEAC or SWAC teams that finish at the top of their conference as "better than average" when looking at the universe of D-I basketball.
All that said, I stand by my earlier post. It is up to each individual's definition of mediocrity. You can't solely judge a program on quantitative measures--there's a lot of subjectivity that goes into ones' assessment of a college basketball program.
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Mar 18, 2011 14:14:25 GMT -5
I guess it depends on what each individual's definintion of "mediocrity" is. I don't really know how to define a 100-ish RPI +/- 20 or so spots in each of the past few years in a conferernce ranked 10ish each year; and only 2 post season trips in 20+ Div. I years.
I will say this--I think defining the Schilling years as "mediocre" is very generous.
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Mar 18, 2011 14:04:48 GMT -5
And just like Wright State, they're doing away with a successful wrestling program in their move to Div. I.
I wondered what happened to Trev Albert--I just assumed ESPN fired him since he was a terrible analyst.
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Mar 17, 2011 1:01:25 GMT -5
My question wasn't regarding the financial differences between the women and men pay to play tournaments or if the team is healthy or not. We all know the price tag is like comparing apples to oranges. And after 3 years of, "we're banged up and can't play" I'm a bit skeptical of that "reason" for the men not to play.
That said, I intended my question to be more philosophical in nature. If these tournaments are "third rate" do we want any of our athletics to be affliated with these types of tournies? Should it be a matter of principal of NOT paying to play no matter what the entry cost is?
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Mar 16, 2011 13:07:23 GMT -5
Interesting article. I was under the impression the reason the NCAA doesn't want scoring margin involved in a team's rating--aside from being politically correct--was they don't want the potential of point shaving to influence their metrics. One only has to look at the Toledo scandal a few years back--Just think if that happened at a bigger basketball program and scoring was part of the metric. How would that influence selection or seeding, directly and indirectly?
|
|