Marketing, promoting and caring about it

[SW_Mustang]

ATU, thanks for the great article. Some interesting take-aways:

* If UC Riverside can't cut it at D-1 -- and attendance of 400-500 a game for men's hoops shows that's doubtful -- why not go back to D2? I've never understood the theory of being a D1 bottom feeder instead of trying to be a D2 Grand Valley State.

* I would question that former president Tim White was supportive of athletics. He was at Idaho and a bit non-caring of athletics, and then I heard he was very instrumental in the elimination of Humboldt State football as the CSU Chancellor.

* Being D2 or D3 or NAIA is better than not having sports. There are a couple areas of college life, I'll break it down to two: academics and non-academics. UC-Riverside is a fine academic school, I think even has a med school. On the West Coast it is not confused academically with Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, and the University of Washington; never has, never will be. That's life. I find it interesting that every college, large and small, has a significant faculty base that thinks athletics are stupid and that their employer is the equal to Harvard. They're not. (See Oregon State's English profs complaining about a $50 million donation this week for football stadium expansion. One of their proposals was that in the future, professors should be able to say where donations go, not the donor. Whack-a-doodle. (Read the Corvallis Gazette-Times and OregonLive sports for more information on that.)

* Winning matters more than division for most non-Power 5/Power 6 schools. When Portland State was winning big in D2, they averaged 11,500 fans a game. When they went to the Big Sky/FCS they started losing more and have averaged about 5K-6K a game for 20 years. PSU is also the dregs of the earth in most sports -- 2nd to the last in men's hoops right now; last in football; horrific in Olympic sports. It's a commuter school and most everyone doesn't care they're D1. They average about 500 a game in men's hoops. Go D2 and win national titles in a lot of your sports ... or fix it D1 wise. UC Riverside nor Portland State has the money or will to win in D1. PSU is getting a new hoops arena, perhaps 4K -- they'll still average 500. To win even in FCS they need to average 20K a game, have tons of donors, and in hoops average 4K a game and bring in some great players. It will never happen, they don't care enough. One lawyer/head of a booster organization isn't enough to move the needle.

* Even with the population base, the writer is off-base in thinking UC-Riverside is going to win or capture the community's imagination. I lived in L.A. three straight summers, read the Los Angeles Times sports page every day. Order of importance: Dodgers, Lakers, Rams, (before Chargers came on board) ... then finally UCLA and USC, hockey mixed in there somewhere. Some decent high school sports coverage. Getting coverage of Pepperdine, LMU, etc., is like pulling teeth, and there's no interest in UC Riverside or UC Irvine.

* Instead of having delusional D-1 dreams, how about being dominant in D2?

Great analysis here.

IMHO - the NCAA needs to completely reorganize and rebuild from the ground up. The current division system is too outdated and clunky. Obviously the NCAA is too incompetent to do this properly, nor will it ever happen, but it needs too. It rewards underperforming, unsupported, financially unstable schools with a Division I classification. It punishes well-performing lower division schools. Worst of all, it's distorted the casual fan's idea of what quality college athletics is.

There are two changes I'd like to make -

1) DI non-football schools get their own basketball tournament, if not their own level of competition completely removed from FBS/FCS schools in postseason play across all sports.
2) The NCAA needs to adopt a better system of promotion/relegation to prevent rogue programs from jumping up and not contributing (and to prevent big schools from dominating smaller divisions, though that's not as big of a problem - if a problem at all).

Schools usually make the jump up to get a piece of the March Madness pie. Either because they want first round, one-and-done payoffs, or because they think they can make an FGCU run. It's a terrible plan financially, I'd imagine you'd have to consistently make the tournament for it to pay off. Cinderella stories are cool, but they don't provide the financial payoffs long term that being a competitor do. UMBC accomplished something great, but are they still relevant? Did anything change for them significantly long term? Are they drawing 5k-10k a night? There are also a bunch of football schools that would be a Cinderella story in the tournament - like North Dakota State or James Madison.

I'm not sure if I want other sports included in that as well - Cal-Fullerton is very competent at baseball, and baseball doesn't pay out anywhere near what basketball does, but having a completely separate subdivision is very tempting...

They'd still compete at a high level of basketball, ESPN would still broadcast some of the games - and schools willing to adopt a football program would be eligible for re-entry. They'd also be allowed to drop down to D2, and be given a 5-year timespan to decide.

[tsull]

Great analysis here.

IMHO - the NCAA needs to completely reorganize and rebuild from the ground up. The current division system is too outdated and clunky. Obviously the NCAA is too incompetent to do this properly, nor will it ever happen, but it needs too. It rewards underperforming, unsupported, financially unstable schools with a Division I classification. It punishes well-performing lower division schools. Worst of all, it's distorted the casual fan's idea of what quality college athletics is.

There are two changes I'd like to make -

1) DI non-football schools get their own basketball tournament, if not their own level of competition completely removed from FBS/FCS schools in postseason play across all sports.
2) The NCAA needs to adopt a better system of promotion/relegation to prevent rogue programs from jumping up and not contributing (and to prevent big schools from dominating smaller divisions, though that's not as big of a problem - if a problem at all).

Schools usually make the jump up to get a piece of the March Madness pie. Either because they want first round, one-and-done payoffs, or because they think they can make an FGCU run. It's a terrible plan financially, I'd imagine you'd have to consistently make the tournament for it to pay off. Cinderella stories are cool, but they don't provide the financial payoffs long term that being a competitor do. UMBC accomplished something great, but are they still relevant? Did anything change for them significantly long term? Are they drawing 5k-10k a night? There are also a bunch of football schools that would be a Cinderella story in the tournament - like North Dakota State or James Madison.

I'm not sure if I want other sports included in that as well - Cal-Fullerton is very competent at baseball, and baseball doesn't pay out anywhere near what basketball does, but having a completely separate subdivision is very tempting...

They'd still compete at a high level of basketball, ESPN would still broadcast some of the games - and schools willing to adopt a football program would be eligible for re-entry. They'd also be allowed to drop down to D2, and be given a 5-year timespan to decide.

I agree with a lot of this, though I do like the Gonzagas, VCUs, George Masons, of the world interrupting the big boys in the Big Dance.

That said, I tire of the D1annabes. I just don't think schools should be able to ransom their universities by chasing D1 dreams when they attract 500 people a game. The immediate argument is, "Well, yeah, look what Gonzaga did!" That's a one-off, they also have chartered planes and a new $45 million basketball facility. "Oh yeah, that's what happens when you become Gonzaga!" That's the 2nd argument.

Some how they need to make it either too tough to jump up or more appealing to go D2. First off, I'd get rid of FCS. You're either D-1 or you're not. If you can't play FBS football, you play D2. Idaho State, Sac State, and even power EWU draw around 5k or less for football games; all are way under 1,000 for men's hoop games. Northern State (D2) in South Dakota AVERAGES over 4K a game in men's hoops. By making it harder, I would say an entrance fee of $10 million to play D1 hoops and $15M if you play FBS football. Go back to those attendance requirements they used to have: 17K average or 30K stadium. They dropped it to 15K and I'm not sure on the stadium deal. Idaho cheated for years with give away tickets since they were playing in a 16K stadium, had to play in Pullman for awhile to make D1 regs. Make it tough on universities.

Riverside is wrong: Don't cut sports, cut D1. The columnist is wrong. I know it's a major metro area even without L.A., that doesn't matter. I lived in L.A. three straight summers, I rarely saw anyone even in UCLA or USC gear. I saw Dodgers stuff everywhere. It's not a college sports city, and the state is not a college sports state. Most of the Big Sky and Big West should be playing D2.

My final option: Be like European soccer. If you suck (or in this case aren't meeting regs) you get bumped down. The only way you rise up is if you meet regs. Idaho went down to FCS on their own accord. The NCAA hasn't moved one school down a level. Make it tough. If you can't average 2,500 a game in men's hoops, sorry, you're going to D2. If you don't have a 25K stadium in football, you're going D2; and if you can't get 20K a game in football, you're going D2.

The NCAA is the biggest "everyone gets a trophy" league in the world.

[Wildcat Khan]

Great analysis here.

IMHO - the NCAA needs to completely reorganize and rebuild from the ground up. The current division system is too outdated and clunky. Obviously the NCAA is too incompetent to do this properly, nor will it ever happen, but it needs too. It rewards underperforming, unsupported, financially unstable schools with a Division I classification. It punishes well-performing lower division schools. Worst of all, it's distorted the casual fan's idea of what quality college athletics is.

There are two changes I'd like to make -

1) DI non-football schools get their own basketball tournament, if not their own level of competition completely removed from FBS/FCS schools in postseason play across all sports.
2) The NCAA needs to adopt a better system of promotion/relegation to prevent rogue programs from jumping up and not contributing (and to prevent big schools from dominating smaller divisions, though that's not as big of a problem - if a problem at all).

Schools usually make the jump up to get a piece of the March Madness pie. Either because they want first round, one-and-done payoffs, or because they think they can make an FGCU run. It's a terrible plan financially, I'd imagine you'd have to consistently make the tournament for it to pay off. Cinderella stories are cool, but they don't provide the financial payoffs long term that being a competitor do. UMBC accomplished something great, but are they still relevant? Did anything change for them significantly long term? Are they drawing 5k-10k a night? There are also a bunch of football schools that would be a Cinderella story in the tournament - like North Dakota State or James Madison.

I'm not sure if I want other sports included in that as well - Cal-Fullerton is very competent at baseball, and baseball doesn't pay out anywhere near what basketball does, but having a completely separate subdivision is very tempting...

They'd still compete at a high level of basketball, ESPN would still broadcast some of the games - and schools willing to adopt a football program would be eligible for re-entry. They'd also be allowed to drop down to D2, and be given a 5-year timespan to decide.

I'm curious how you'd feel about Gonzaga and non-football Big East schools in your plan? They all have proven they can get to the second weekend regularly and even make the Final Four unlike most non-football D1 schools. In the last 5 tournaments they have 2 National Championships (Villanova) and one runner up (Gonzaga). The Big East schools without football are DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, St. John's, Seton Hall, and Villanova.

The football related ideas I like though.

[Runnin' Cat]

Los Angeles and Riverside are 60 miles apart distance wise, and much more in many other ways. Riverside is part of the Inland Empire; different politics, different people. In Riverside, you don't read the LA Times; you read the Press Enterprise.

Not saying that UCR is not in trouble, but some of the things that have been written just do not apply.

[Pounder]

Los Angeles and Riverside are 60 miles apart distance wise, and much more in many other ways. Riverside is part of the Inland Empire; different politics, different people. In Riverside, you don't read the LA Times; you read the Press Enterprise.

Not saying that UCR is not in trouble, but some of the things that have been written just do not apply.

[tsull]

Regarding Riverside I guess my point is in Southern California they're going to chase D1 and 6- and 7-figure coaching contracts and millions and millions of facilities for what?

Good points about the Bay Area. A friend of mine is a sports writer in the Bay area and he said when Cal football had it going with Jeff Tedford it was the hardest ticket to get of any sport in the Bay Area. When they started losing, you could get a ticket easily. Outside of the University of Washington and University of Oregon, there are not a ton of rabid fans up and down the West Coast. It's just not the culture. I went to a USC game in Los Angeles once when the Trojans were .500, about half the stadium was full.

I don't mind George Fox marketing their football program, but at least they know they are not division one or trying to chase a foolish dream that will just bankrupt the college. Most universities in this country think they're division one when they are not.

[SW_Mustang]

I'm curious how you'd feel about Gonzaga and non-football Big East schools in your plan? They all have proven they can get to the second weekend regularly and even make the Final Four unlike most non-football D1 schools. In the last 5 tournaments they have 2 National Championships (Villanova) and one runner up (Gonzaga). The Big East schools without football are DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, St. John's, Seton Hall, and Villanova.

The football related ideas I like though.

Both Georgetown and Villanova have football already, so they are fine. G-Town is so bad at football, most people don't really acknowledge the program - but it's there. I think they just opened a new stadium in the last couple years.

In a perfect world, they'd 'simply' adopt football. I know that's a lot easier said than done, but I don't see why Marquette - a big private school in football hungry Wisconsin, home to one D1 program can't adopt it. St John's has more money than Fordham, who has football. There could be a waiver system to grandfather the top programs in, but I feel like that would be abused which would put us not only back at square one, but possibly even further behind.

They'd still be classified as 'D1,' but they'd have their own subdivision - similar to FBS/FCS. It would still be a high level of competition that gets support. Personally, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over seeing some of these programs move down. There will always be someone to fill their shoes of the dominant small-school.

In other words, unless there is a waiver system - there would be casualties.

[tsull]

I have to admit, if the little guys are taken out of the NCAA tournament, or the non-football schools, I'm not watching and neither are several people I know. By the end of football season I'm so sick of 'Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, all things Big 10, SEC, Big 12, I'm ready for something different.

What makes the NCAA hoop tourney interesting isn't Kentucky or Kansas, it's Gonzaga and Creighton.

[SW_Mustang]

(1)I agree with a lot of this, though I do like the Gonzagas, VCUs, George Masons, of the world interrupting the big boys in the Big Dance.

That said, I tire of the D1annabes. I just don't think schools should be able to ransom their universities by chasing D1 dreams when they attract 500 people a game. The immediate argument is, "Well, yeah, look what Gonzaga did!" That's a one-off, they also have chartered planes and a new $45 million basketball facility. "Oh yeah, that's what happens when you become Gonzaga!" That's the 2nd argument.

(2) Some how they need to make it either too tough to jump up or more appealing to go D2. First off, I'd get rid of FCS. You're either D-1 or you're not. If you can't play FBS football, you play D2. Idaho State, Sac State, and even power EWU draw around 5k or less for football games; all are way under 1,000 for men's hoop games. (3) Northern State (D2) in South Dakota AVERAGES over 4K a game in men's hoops. By making it harder, I would say an entrance fee of $10 million to play D1 hoops and $15M if you play FBS football. Go back to those attendance requirements they used to have: 17K average or 30K stadium. They dropped it to 15K and I'm not sure on the stadium deal. Idaho cheated for years with give away tickets since they were playing in a 16K stadium, had to play in Pullman for awhile to make D1 regs. Make it tough on universities.

(4) Riverside is wrong: Don't cut sports, cut D1. The columnist is wrong. I know it's a major metro area even without L.A., that doesn't matter. I lived in L.A. three straight summers, I rarely saw anyone even in UCLA or USC gear. I saw Dodgers stuff everywhere. It's not a college sports city, and the state is not a college sports state. Most of the Big Sky and Big West should be playing D2.

(5) My final option: Be like European soccer. If you suck (or in this case aren't meeting regs) you get bumped down. The only way you rise up is if you meet regs. Idaho went down to FCS on their own accord. The NCAA hasn't moved one school down a level. Make it tough. If you can't average 2,500 a game in men's hoops, sorry, you're going to D2. If you don't have a 25K stadium in football, you're going D2; and if you can't get 20K a game in football, you're going D2.

The NCAA is the biggest "everyone gets a trophy" league in the world.

(1) Someone would fill their shoes, though. Odds are, Gonzaga will fall by the wayside eventually. Maybe St. Thomas takes over for them? That would be interesting. Otherwise yeah, I agree. There can only be so many small D1 basketball programs to upset the system. Not everyone can do it, and mortgaging your entire athletic department for "a chance" is not a smart financial move - especially if you aren't having success at your own level.

(2) I honestly wouldn't mind seeing this either. FCS football occupies a neat little niche, but it's effectively the second division of college football. That's how a lot of FBS fans see it already, and there is no convincing them otherwise. It's why I think the division system is broken - we have two Division Is, one clearly superior to the other? It just doesn't make any sense. I had to explain to some family members from Texas a couple years ago that when I mean D2, I mean Tarleton State (when they were D2), and not North Dakota State.

(3) Interesting that you bring up Northern here. One quirk of South Dakota basketball is that SDSU and USD are behind Northern State and Augustana in average game attendance. I'd even argue that at times, both Northern and Augie are better than SDSU and USD. When NSU was in the championship game a couple years ago in Sioux Falls, tickets were impossible to get. They picked the G-League venue for the game - which was way, way too small to hold everyone. It looked like a big time game on TV. How cool is that?


(4) I'm a fan of more college sports, not less. I believe in finding the right niche for every program instead of everyone competing at D1. Eventually it will get so bloated that it won't mean anything anymore.

(5) I actually just learned about the European system of promotion/relegation a few days ago. It's a hardcore way to field a sports league. It rewards the best programs for being the best, and punishes the worst for being the worst. Programs have skin in the game and can't just "get by" for the most part. There are only so many spots in the Tier 1 leagues, and they aren't letting anyone in that hasn't earned it. Dropping down to the second Tier can mean a loss of jobs, or even the program itself. I really gained a new respect for European soccer after learning that. It's something we need to do in the US once we become developed enough, but I digress.

I think adopting that system full-on would cause a lot of chaos, but we definitely need to adopt aspects of it. Reviews every 4-years. ADs are rated based on financial performance, attendance/ticket sales, athletic performance, facilities... etc. The NCAA needs to take a bigger role in deciding who goes where within their organization at the very least - and they need to enforce those rules.

[Wildcat Khan]

I have to admit, if the little guys are taken out of the NCAA tournament, or the non-football schools, I'm not watching and neither are several people I know. By the end of football season I'm so sick of 'Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, all things Big 10, SEC, Big 12, I'm ready for something different.

What makes the NCAA hoop tourney interesting isn't Kentucky or Kansas, it's Gonzaga and Creighton.

I bet you loved seeing UMBC a few years ago knock off Virginia. Still one of my favorite tourney runs is LMU to the elite 8 after their best player collapsed during the WCC tourney and later died. Knocking off the defending champ before losing to eventual champ UNLV. That team was a lot of fun to watch.

At least college basketball has a playoff so that we can see these moments. I remember one year where everyone wanted to see an undefeated Boise State from the WAC and TCU from the MWC take on the big boys or even make the title game, but both got sent to the Fiesta Bowl.

[SW_Mustang]

I have to admit, if the little guys are taken out of the NCAA tournament, or the non-football schools, I'm not watching and neither are several people I know. By the end of football season I'm so sick of 'Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, all things Big 10, SEC, Big 12, I'm ready for something different.

What makes the NCAA hoop tourney interesting isn't Kentucky or Kansas, it's Gonzaga and Creighton.

We don't disagree - the goal isn't to keep Gonzaga or Creighton out of the tournament, it's to prevent the Irvines, Riversides, and whatever "St. Francis - Brooklyn" is out of the top tier of competition. My point is that there are 200 other schools that fit that mold - some are already successful like Butler and UCONN.

IMO, in order to be considered for the top tier of college athletics - an institution must demonstrate a commitment to sports as a whole, and not just one that's convenient and seven others to fill Title IX regulations. Football should be one of the core programs required for admittance. I'd say that soccer, T/F, wrestling, volleyball, and basketball should round out that core requirement.

It's like how academics work. The AAU is the "Division I" of academics - but they only admit 65 members. It's a very exclusive club that not everyone is allowed to join - and having a commitment to all aspects of academia is very important to them. There are more than 65 excellent schools in the US - but they only take the best of the best. The NCAA allows 350+ into their "exclusive club," which waters it down a lot (IMO).

I wouldn't be opposed to having a waiver system so as to not punish successful programs - but in reality, this would just be abused and mishandled by the NCAA.

[SW_Mustang]

I bet you loved seeing UMBC a few years ago knock off Virginia. Still one of my favorite tourney runs is LMU to the elite 8 after their best player collapsed during the WCC tourney and later died. Knocking off the defending champ before losing to eventual champ UNLV. That team was a lot of fun to watch.

At least college basketball has a playoff so that we can see these moments. I remember one year where everyone wanted to see an undefeated Boise State from the WAC and TCU from the MWC take on the big boys or even make the title game, but both got sent to the Fiesta Bowl.

Even I'll admit that was pretty cool - and I go back to it every now and again to see the highlights.

I appreciate how they won by 20. As much as I enjoy a good competitive game with a last-second shot, this was like watching a boxing match between a chess nerd and Floyd Maywhether where the chess nerd won decisively.

[tsull]

We don't disagree - the goal isn't to keep Gonzaga or Creighton out of the tournament, it's to prevent the Irvines, Riversides, and whatever "St. Francis - Brooklyn" is out of the top tier of competition. My point is that there are 200 other schools that fit that mold - some are already successful like Butler and UCONN.

IMO, in order to be considered for the top tier of college athletics - an institution must demonstrate a commitment to sports as a whole, and not just one that's convenient and seven others to fill Title IX regulations. Football should be one of the core programs required for admittance. I'd say that soccer, T/F, wrestling, volleyball, and basketball should round out that core requirement.

It's like how academics work. The AAU is the "Division I" of academics - but they only admit 65 members. It's a very exclusive club that not everyone is allowed to join - and having a commitment to all aspects of academia is very important to them. There are more than 65 excellent schools in the US - but they only take the best of the best. The NCAA allows 350+ into their "exclusive club," which waters it down a lot (IMO).

I wouldn't be opposed to having a waiver system so as to not punish successful programs - but in reality, this would just be abused and mishandled by the NCAA.

I agree with this and I think they should make money, attendance, and facilities requirements. I remember when Idaho was struggling to stay FBS. They could do give-away tickets, play in Pullman, grease their way to D-1, while not doing anything to expand their on-campus stadium, raise money, or improve in hoops. At the end of the day the A.D. still got his 6-figure salary, whether things went well or not. I agree in that about 150-200 of these D1wannabes don't belong in D1 -- including Riverside -- so I wish the NCAA would quit expanding D1. Name another sports league on this planet that has 355 teams?

[Wildcat Khan]

We don't disagree - the goal isn't to keep Gonzaga or Creighton out of the tournament, it's to prevent the Irvines, Riversides, and whatever "St. Francis - Brooklyn" is out of the top tier of competition. My point is that there are 200 other schools that fit that mold - some are already successful like Butler and UCONN.

IMO, in order to be considered for the top tier of college athletics - an institution must demonstrate a commitment to sports as a whole, and not just one that's convenient and seven others to fill Title IX regulations. Football should be one of the core programs required for admittance. I'd say that soccer, T/F, wrestling, volleyball, and basketball should round out that core requirement.

It's like how academics work. The AAU is the "Division I" of academics - but they only admit 65 members. It's a very exclusive club that not everyone is allowed to join - and having a commitment to all aspects of academia is very important to them. There are more than 65 excellent schools in the US - but they only take the best of the best. The NCAA allows 350+ into their "exclusive club," which waters it down a lot (IMO).

I wouldn't be opposed to having a waiver system so as to not punish successful programs - but in reality, this would just be abused and mishandled by the NCAA.

Attendance may be a great way to go about it. Minimum gym size, then minimum capacity requirement be met like Tim suggests. Also no gaming the system like Idaho having home games at Martin Stadium to boost attendance to meet the minimum.

[SW_Mustang]

I agree with this and I think they should make money, attendance, and facilities requirements. I remember when Idaho was struggling to stay FBS. They could do give-away tickets, play in Pullman, grease their way to D-1, while not doing anything to expand their on-campus stadium, raise money, or improve in hoops. At the end of the day the A.D. still got his 6-figure salary, whether things went well or not. I agree in that about 150-200 of these D1wannabes don't belong in D1 -- including Riverside -- so I wish the NCAA would quit expanding D1. Name another sports league on this planet that has 355 teams?

Yeah. IMO, the NCAA needs to stop leaving schools to their own devices to determine attendance figures. They need a standardized system for collecting data that's reported directly to the NCAA for verification. If the numbers are tampered with or fudged, the program suffers harsh penalties.

It's clear that the current requirement is not taken seriously by anyone involved. Schools are stretching the numbers anyway they can just to stay FBS. There is no way the MAC meets the current requirements, but they are somehow allowed to stay.

I also like the idea of minimum facility requirements. If a school can't provide baseline facility infrastructure, they should be relegated to the proper division.

What bugs me about D1, and basketball specifically - is that the top 10 D2 teams would clean house with the bottom 25%-33% on a consistent basis. There will always be some amount of overlap (NDSU in football, for example) - but when your top D2 teams can run the show against a good portion of the D1 pool - it's time to rethink who goes where.