You never answer my questions. Do you honestly believe Ohio spent $3M more on football in 2009 than it did in 2006? That fact seems central to your argument that starting then the MAC's spending on football has increased significantly. If that's your basis of argument, then I am placing severe doubt on that assertion.
As I've said several times already, if that is what we reported to the U.S. Department of Education, then yes that is what I honestly believe. Indeed, as far as I'm aware the U.S. Dept. of Ed. is the only publicly available data out there. So until someone provides some data to the contrary, I'm going to go with our official reports, and not your unsubstantiated intuition to the contrary. Afterall, as I and others have pointed out, there are a number of areas that increased funding could support that would not be readily apparent to an outside observer.
I will say there are a few CAA programs whom I believe have ALWAYS invested more (ODU and VCU come to mind) than the MAC in hoops. The CAA also benefits from Jim Larranaga choosing to stay at GMU at below-market (turned down Providence dollars) rates. But for the most part, it still HAS come down to coaching hires. I'm just note sure what it is you think the CAA and Colonial have. IMO, the Horizon has Butler and the CAA has VCU/ODU/GMU.
While the cream of the crop of course gets the most notice in March, the Horizon and the CAA are both significantly better than the MAC right now from top to bottom. You yourself provided the overall conference rankings from Sagarin below, which pretty clearly reveal that we're falling behind our peers. Another measure is comparing individual team rankings. For example, according to Ken Pomeroy, this year the CAA had 4 top 100 teams, and 2 more teams ranked from 101-150. Meanwhile, the Horizon had only 2 top 100 teams, but 5 more teams ranked from 101-150. Collectively, the two conferences did not have any teams ranked lower than 260. In contrast, the MAC only had 1 top 100 team, and only 3 other teams ranked in the top 101-150, with 4 teams ranked below 260.
That is ultimately a big difference, not only affecting the number of bids that each conference stands to earn to the NCAA tournament, but also the seeding that its teams will receive as well. And as we all know, the higher your seed, the easier it is to advance deep into the tournament. So I would disagree that the Horizon is only Butler, and that the CAA is just a three team league. In addition to the quality at the top, the depth of both conferences is what sets them apart from the MAC in recent years.
Horizon
Butler has earned all the at-large bids and shine in the tourney. But I believe that is the result of good coaching decisions that started in the late 90's. It wasn't money that attracted those coaches and money hasn't been able to retain those coaches (jury still out on Stevens). Other than Butler, I'm not sure what the Horizon has or is investing in that's any different than the MAC. And I further believe that the investment in Butler has come after its performance instead of before.
What makes you say that money didn't attract those coaches? Where is the data? While the Horizon doesn't have enough money to keep much bigger programs from poaching their coaches, that doesn't mean that many Horizon programs aren't more attractive destinations than the majority of the MAC for up and coming basketball coaches.
Indeed, the teams in the Horizon currently on average provide 20% more funding to their basketball programs than the MAC. And it's not just Butler. For instance, according to the U.S. Dept. of Education data, the top six basketball budgets in the Horizon were Butler ($2.822 million), Detroit ($2.676 million), Wisc.-Milwaukee ($2.055 million), Wright State ($1.892 million), Cleveland State ($1.766 million), and Loyola-Chicago ($1.752 million). In contrast, the top six basketball budgets in the MAC in 2009 were Ohio ($2.326 million), Toledo ($1.931 million), Akron ($1.817 million), Kent State ($1.626 million), Miami ($1.528 million), and WMU ($1.441 million). That is a significant difference.
This disparity is all the more apparent in the CAA, where the programs actually spend 23% more on average than the MAC. In the Colonial, the top six basketball budgets are ODU ($2.354 million), VCU ($2.354 million), with Delaware and Drexel pretty much tied for third (at roughly $2.221 million each), followed by GMU ($2.126 million) and Hofstra ($2.028 million). In fact, with JMU ranking seventh in the CAA at $1.985 million, only a single MAC school's basketball budget would even place in the top seven of the CAA in basketball spending.
No one would dispute that factors other than funding alone have contributed to the MAC's demise. But you are ignoring the 500 lb. gorilla in the room if you insist that 20-23% funding disparaties ultimately have little to no effect on the comparative success of the MAC versus the Horizon and CAA. In fact, I'd argue that funding is directly related to a number of the other factors that have contributed to our slide, including your favorite punching bag (poor coaching hires). Part of the reason that the Horizon and CAA have hired better coaches recently is that they spend more on basketball, pure and simple.
And while I hope you are correct that this is just a three year blip on the radar, I don't share your optimism considering that these funding disparaties are continuing to grow.
So instead of calling for more investment, I want an adequate return on the MAC's current investment. There's no reason a MAC team should consistently be 200+ in the Sagarin. And they should NEVER be around 300.
While I agree that no MAC team should ever be in the 300s, there is a perfectly good reason for MAC teams to consistently be in the 200s: money.
4 MAC schools currently fall outside the top 200 in terms of their basketball budget: Buffalo (#218), EMU (#222), CMU (#223), and BGSU (#248). And that does not include NIU who comes in at #199. In fact, Ohio (#112), Toledo (#138) and Akron (#145) are the only 3 MAC schools in the top 150.
http://www.bbstate.com/info/schools-hoopsbudget
So I'd argue that we are in fact getting the expected return from our dwindling investment in men's basketball. It is completely unrealistic to expect all 12 MAC programs to consistently be in the top 200, when 1/3rd of the conference doesn't rank in the top 200 in basketball expenditures. The MAC simply must spend more money across the board on men's hoops in order to improve its performance on the basketball court.
But as long as our conference members continue to prioritize football by giving it 85% of the new investments made in the two primary revenue generating sports, we'll continue to see the CAA and Horizon increase their basketball spending advantages by 100%+ over a 5 year period, with the predictable result that they will continue to lap us on the court as well.
Last Edited: 3/29/2011 6:08:50 PM by Flomo-genized