I don't remember discussing a press conference in the late 90's, but perhaps my memory is failing me this morning.  In any event, I picked 2006 because that is when the MAC's precipitous decline in basketball began, and when the increase in MAC football spending really began to ramp up.  Data from the late 90s is not available. 

But what difference does it make if football started harming basketball in the late-90s or mid-00s?  The fact remains that prioritized football spending is hurting us on the hardwood.



How do you know a MAC school could have hired Shaka Smart?  Assistant coaches of his caliber do not just jump at the first available opportunity, just as Groce passed on Duquesne and Toledo before coming to Ohio.  Smart went to VCU because it has the highest basketball budget in one of the best mid-major conferences.  No one in their right mind would take any MAC job over VCU, even if the MAC pay were slightly better.

Second, EMU simply cannot afford to fire Charles Ramsey.  Perhaps part of the reason for that is that since 2006, EMU has increased its football budget by nearly $1.5 million, while only spending $150K more on basketball.  Maybe if they weren't prioritizing football 10:1 over basketball (with nothing to show for it on the gridiron) the money would be there to replace Ramsey with a better coach.

Ted, do you really believe that success is completely divorced from spending?  If not, then I don't understand how you can argue that the problem with MAC hoops lies solely in hiring decisions, and not the fact that our rival mid-major conferences are lapping us right now when it comes to hoops spending (more than doubling the gap in just the last 5 years).  And I don't understand why you are so unwilling to acknowledge that perhaps the fact that the average MAC football spending has gone up over $1 million since 2006, while the average MAC basketball spending has only increased $175K during the same time period, might have something to do with the MAC's decline. 

Reasonable minds can differ on whether prioritizing football over hoops is a smart move.  That's a debate we should be having.  But what I don't think is debatable is that the MAC's athletic budgets are finite, and therefore a dollar spent in one area is a dollar that goes unspent in another area.  Thus, when the increases in spending on the gridiron are so disproportionate to those on the hardwood, football is undeniably harming basketball.  Again, that doesn't mean that we should necessarily drop football, but until we stop sticking our heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that there is more going on here than just a few bad hires, we cannot have a reasonable discussion about how to move forward.

Given that we do not have unlimited athletic budgets in the MAC, we need to spend every dollar as wisely as possible.  I do not believe we are currently doing that.  We are so far behind the majority of D-IA in football spending right now that the extra million we've devoted to the sport in the last five years is just a drop in the bucket.  Our football product would not be significantly worse in any meaningful way if the MAC diverted $500K from its football budgets, and switched it to its basketball budgets.  Yet, MAC basketball would likely improve significantly.  Basketball is the one sport where you can have a significant national impact at a budgetary level that is obtainable for MAC level programs. 

Football is a great sport, and certainly more popular than basketball.  But chasing success in major college football right now for a school at our level is a pipe dream.  While it would take $10 million or more for us to be competitive with just the top non-BCS programs in football, we are only around $500K away from being a top mid-major in basketball.  Had the MAC diverted that extra million to hoops rather than football in 2006, some of our teams could have been doing what the Davidsons, Butlers, and VCUs have done in recent years.  Meanwhile, our football programs would still be going to most of the same toilet bowls they are now, and would likely be getting exactly the same visibility on ESPN during the mid-week games.  I just don't see how anyone can argue that the extra $1 million we've put into football has had anywhere near the same level of impact it would have had if we'd devoted it to basketball instead (even after acknowledging that football is generally more popular).

Success is in the eye of the beholder. All I know is that Ohio has improved drastically in football in the past 5-6 years so I think the investment in it has been worth it.  If somehow you could prove that we weren't getting our moneys worth so to speak-that is pouring money in with no results=wins on the field, than I would support your argument.  

I'm wondering how much of the difference in BB budgets is about what the coaching staff is paid.  I would guess that's a biggest part of the difference in budgets since scholarships, another big expense has to be the same(allowing for tuition differences).  Just like in football, the MAC is able to get  a lot of pretty good coaches (albeit early in their careers), it just can't keep them.   And if we had $500,000 bigger budget right now, how would that make us a top-mid-major?  Details please?

"State of the art locker rooms" must include boudets.

No one is saying that back-to-back Final Four appearances are guaranteed.  The point is that money drives success in college athletics, so if we were spending more than the CAA and Horizon on basketball, it would be reasonable to expect that on the whole we'd be out-performing them on the court.  While a Final Four appearance is unlikely for any mid-major, I don't think it is a stretch to say that we'd likely be getting more bids to the Dance, and more Sweet 16 appearances, if we increased our spending to a level comparable to the better mid-major conferences.

A little bit different interpretation than what I took away. But hey, everyone sees things through a different set of eyes.

Let me clarify  my part. 7552 is their capacity ...they sold  it out most games with the smallet crowd all year being north of 5700+ . For those that know me ....I believe the Convo whould have 10K in it every night. Look at what Steve Fisher has a chieved in a town with multiple choices of what to see. By building from scratch and getting people out to see a game he now packs the place. Reallly......out of all of you here who does not want to get back to a game at the Convo. What keeps you from doing that? Ted makes it from Dayton, McBin makes it from Cols. and there are plenty of local folks who need to be converted from watching tv to Bobcat followers.

THe Locker room has to do with kids are spending 4 years of their life in that space. Like it or not it is home and 18 year old kids are going to be wowed. I am not saying we should be all OK State but a place to bring recruits and spend time during the season where you may be from 8-11 and back 3-6 and then back again for film or individual workout . That is sometimes more home than your dorm room. It is sometimes hard to imagine where a college athlete spends their time but in 4 years. That place is the one constant you have whether it is coming home at 2 am or flopping down after a rigorous practice preseason. That is home and we can all poo poo it but to get the kids youwant you need to provide the facilities to compete with the spaces others are providing. WHich do you think attracts a kid more.....the programs your undergrad offers or the facilities they will occupy the next 4 years?

I think the issues are daily weighed and address with regard to scheduling , individual meetings and workouts and all those thins that are the administration of a program that are measured and evaluated with great scrutiny. I am sure any discussion of the schedule and the rationale for home games, a young team and scheduling certain oppponents would blow the board up and fall on deaf ears but it was the right way to go...and using the 57 point anomaly as the measure of where your program is at is equally as useless as using the Georgetown win.

You can t change the conference without upsetting the whole applecart and really I think dominating it like the womens volley has or in the way Butler and Gonzaga has will be what pulls the rest of it up.

It is absurd for anyone to infer or think that 500K will result in final fours. there is work to be done and there becomes a point where more money wont change anything. We are not there yet . Getting closer would be nice if your expectations are to be met. That disparity still exists. Where the collective expectation of OHIO fans support vs what they are willing to spend to support those expectations. Arguing over the cost of a seat whichis a bargain vs why aren't we running the MAC every year is endemic from Muncie to Athens. You get what you pay for.....and FLomo is dead bang on as usual.

The numbers are from the data we reported to the U.S. Department of Education.  We reported total football expenses of $7,385,462 in 2009 (the most recent year available), up from $4,445,964 in 2006.  I have no idea where all of the extra money, but that is what we reported to the federal government, so I assume it isn't too far from the truth.

The data is available here, if you want to check it out yourself:

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

Well, I'd prefer to think for myself. What could it have been? Increase in coaches salaries? No. Bowl game? No. Which would leave scholarships. At 85, that would be an average increase of over $35K. I think something's wrong with your numbers. Or do you honestly believe Ohio spent $3M more on football in 2009 than it did in 2006?

That is anything but absolute. In fact, that is the entire dispute. It could go one way or the other. Your opinion is noted, but clearly your opinion is also heavily influenced by your preference in sport. And so, perhaps, is Ted's.

Ted, the U.S. Department of Education data is widely considered to be the most reliable source for information regarding collegiate athletics spending.  If you don't want to believe the data that Ohio University is legally obligated to report accurately to the federal government, just because it doesn't mesh with your general perceptions of the situation, then I'm not sure what to say, especially since you aren't supplying any real data of your own to the contrary.  I'm also not sure how much it really matters, given that the same data shows that Ohio doubled its basketball budget from 2006 to 2009, so if you think the one is overstated, then the other likely is as well, further increasing the gap between the MAC and other mid-majors on the basketball side of things.

To be honest, I'm not even sure what you are arguing at this point.  You haven't denied that athletic success is directly corrolated to athletics spending.  Nor have you denied that the CAA and Horizon are increasingly spending significantly more than the MAC on basketball.  Nor do you appear to dispute the general proposition that the MAC has increased football spending at a greater rate than it has increased its basketball spending over the last five years (although you appear to question the significance of that period, despite the fact that that marks the MAC's precipitous decline in basketball). 

None of that is opinion, it is all fact.  And given those facts, I'm not sure how you can credibly assert that MAC football has had zero effect on MAC basketball, or that the MAC's problems in basketball are due entirely to bad coaching hires at NIU, EMU, or CMU (which seems to be what you believe).

And finally, yes, I for one would still be having this debate even if VCU and Butler weren't in the final four, if for no other reason than the MAC just completed yet another season in which it was ranked significantly below its modern historical norm by all relevant measures (NCAA seeding, RPI, Sagarin, Ken Pomeroy, etc.) in the one sport where colleges at our budget level are capable of having a national impact. 

I never said there was an "absolute" corrolation, but there is a statistically significant corrolation between basketball budget and overall basketball success.

http://www.midmajority.com/redline

The article demonstrates a likely relationship, but not a statistically provable correlation. My point is this, admittedly chances are good more money will help a program. But in your example, an extra $500,000 spent on OU basketball may very well have no significant impact at all.

This is my point exactly. Since Ramsey's contract keeps rolling over as Dragon has posted, they are going to owe him a year's salary no matter when they fire him. So it's not the money, it's just that they don't care. Instead of holding them accountable, some want to blame the football boogeyman.

They will owe him a year's salary no matter when they fire him. There is no cost avoidance here. Money also doesn't explain why they're letting him go into his seventh season.