|
Post by semosupporter on Oct 23, 2007 10:11:38 GMT -5
Look where the MVC was 5-8 years ago. Their conference rpi was around 20. They then instituted a conference wide program whose ultimate goal was to raise the conference rpi. I think we're being past up. Part of that was scheduling winnable mid-level rpi schools not top 20 type of schools. The other part was eliminating ALL non Div. 1 and high rpi Div. 1 schools. I also spoke to our AD about the non Div 1 games. He said the problem was we had to have so many home games to satisfy our boosters. I didn't talk to the coach about this but here is my take on it. Since we have 2-3 built in losses (money games) we need to have some easy wins or we risk starting out the year with a terrible record.
Face it, this is a very poor conference funding wise. The best way to solve the problem is for all the schools to find alternate funding to replace the money games. That's not going to happen. The only other solution I can think of is to have all the schools drop 1AA football and transfer that money into the basketball programs. If something isn't done to improve the conference rpi then we can expect to continue getting 13-16 seeds in the ncaa tournament and have little chance of winning a game. If we were able to get some 12 or lower seeds in the tournament I think we would start winning some games.
Bottom line. It's all about the MONEY.
|
|
|
Post by semoredhawks on Oct 23, 2007 16:59:04 GMT -5
Look where the MVC was 5-8 years ago. Their conference rpi was around 20. They then instituted a conference wide program whose ultimate goal was to raise the conference rpi. I think we're being past up. Part of that was scheduling winnable mid-level rpi schools not top 20 type of schools. The other part was eliminating ALL non Div. 1 and high rpi Div. 1 schools. I also spoke to our AD about the non Div 1 games. He said the problem was we had to have so many home games to satisfy our boosters. I didn't talk to the coach about this but here is my take on it. Since we have 2-3 built in losses (money games) we need to have some easy wins or we risk starting out the year with a terrible record. Face it, this is a very poor conference funding wise. The best way to solve the problem is for all the schools to find alternate funding to replace the money games. That's not going to happen. The only other solution I can think of is to have all the schools drop 1AA football and transfer that money into the basketball programs. If something isn't done to improve the conference rpi then we can expect to continue getting 13-16 seeds in the ncaa tournament and have little chance of winning a game. If we were able to get some 12 or lower seeds in the tournament I think we would start winning some games. Bottom line. It's all about the MONEY. I just put some data in Toby's blog about funding. Murray spends 1.28m per year (06 expesnes), I can't think of big money games that they pay other schools for.. Peay spent about $430k. SEMO $730k. Murray spends more then Butler, and look at what kind of program Butler has. Murray is no Butler. But Murray since 00, really hasn't been AP either. Peay is doing it spending about $800k less. I do agree about IAA fb, it is a sunk cost. That being said, I think other schools could raise the bar a little in terms of money (you have to have it to spend it, right) by going out and doing a little serious fundraising.
|
|
|
Post by ttueagles on Oct 24, 2007 10:45:52 GMT -5
I think that a school like TTU (in a city of 30K +, a region of over 100,000, a student body over 9K) averaging 3,000 per home game is an unbelievable tragedy. They are currently averaging 9,000 for football - a huge increase over past seasons - but that, too, should be better. My point has been for years, since I played f'ball there, is the communities don't seem to care. The current TTU AD has done a great job, to get local businesses, industries and youth involved with TTU. I know that most people have access to tons of FB and BB games on TV and just would rather go to bigger school's games, but if local communities are supporting it, students will get into their school more, creating a more "school-spirited" alumni base, maybe. Hell, I don't know. I just see a lot of OVC schools as more commuter schools and less like people who fervently attach themselves to athletics. They usually think it's nice when they win, but don't really care one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by ttubasketball on Oct 24, 2007 17:08:55 GMT -5
You know, part of the problem at least in a city like Cookeville is that people would simply rather invest their time and money in bigger schools like UT or Vanderbilt. That's in part why I think the football program has been so successful this year. hey are no longer competing with the SEC and UT on Saturdays. They are for the most part all by themself on Thursday nights.
I don't know what Tech can do for basketball. I do agree that the current AD is doing a great job really trying to build the athletics programs. Great strides have been made. I am hoping to see basketball rejuvenated like football has been. The main thing that would get more support and excitement around the Tech basketball program is to simply win the friggin' OVC tourney for a change. I am tired of going to Nashville and seeing us lose. Since I have been following Tech we have been good in the regular season only to choke it away come tourney time.
|
|