While Butler has obviously been a big boost to the conference, there is more to it than that, as one good team does not turn a conference that consistently trailed the MAC into one that is now consistently ahead of us.  Nor does Gary Waters alone explain it, as Cleveland State has not been consistently good during that stretch.  In any event, even if those two alone explain the difference, that doesn't mean that budget hasn't been an issue, since both those programs spend more on hoops that the vast majority of the MAC (as illustrated below).

You keep pointing out the fact that one MAC coach was hired from a Horizon school, but that proves little, just as GMU hiring away Larranga back in 1997 from BGSU didn't mean that the CAA was on par with the MAC in those days.  Those are fluke occurrences, as most coaches wouldn't jump from one mid-major league to another.  With Kowalczyk, it was a case of a guy fleeing the second lowest budget in the Horizon (Green Bay) for the best budget in the MAC (Toledo).  

I believe that a big part of the MAC's fall compared to the Horizon and CAA is budgetary.  The average MAC budget for hoops (based on the numbers on bbstate.com) is $1,445,538, compared to $1,552,735 for the Horizon and $1,828,604 for the Colonial.  While those gaps don't seem huge at first glance, a lot of that is because all three conferences have some pretty small budgets at the bottom end of the conferences (BGSU, Youngstown State, UNC-Wilmington, etc.).  The disparity becomes much more stark if you focus on the top half of each conference's basketball spend.

In the MAC you have Toledo leading the way at $1,934,500, followed by Ohio at $1,787,577, Akron at $1,603,402, and both NIU and Ball State coming in around $1,515,000.  Compare that to the Horizon, where the top five budgets are Milwaukee at $2,169,702, Detroit at $2,035,783, Wright State at $1,983,545, Cleveland State at $1,952,828, and Butler at $1,729,754.  Therefore, only two MAC schools would place in the top half of basketball spending in the Horizon, and our biggest basketball budget would only rank 5th in the Horizon.

The gap between the top of the MAC and CAA is even larger.  VCU spends $2,772,146, followed by Old Dominion at $2,458,897, James Madison at $2,263,835, George Mason at $2,055,164, and Drexel at $2,008,147.  Most of the MAC isn't anywhere in that same ballpark.

Those type of disparities will ultimately have a big impact over the course of a decade.  In particular, they will also impact the quality of coaching, both in terms of the types of candidates you attract initially, as well as your ability to retain quality coaches.  Sure Ohio got its man in Groce, but most up-and-coming, mid-major target coaches will likely hold out for a coaching position in the Horizon and CAA rather than the MAC at this point, due to the resource differential.  Those schools likely get candidates (like Shaka Smart, for instance), that wouldn't seriously consider taking a head coach position at a MAC school.

There is no doubt in my mind that that spending disparity ultimately boils down, at least in part, to the MAC's decision to compete at the FBS level in football.  The most recent data I found comparing MAC vs. CAA football budgets was a couple years old, but it showed that on average the MAC spent around $1 million more per school on football than the FCS CAA (and that does not factor in the related cost-savings on women's sports).  If we took even half of that differential and gave it to basketball, the MAC would easily pass the Horizon and would be right up there with the CAA in basketball spending.

Now that isn't necessarily intended to argue that dropping football down and giving some of the savings to basketball is the most prudent strategy (there are a lot of other factors to consider in that type of analysis).  Rather, my point is just that it seems quite clear to me that football has had an effect on basketball, given the above.  I still strongly suspect that if we had historical budgetary data, we would see that the differences between the CAA, Horizon, and the MAC in basketball spending would have been quite a bit different 10-15 years ago, before the MAC's concerted emphasis on improving football.

Completely agree with Flomogenized's last post.  Good work!

+1

I do think there is something to be said for how the lower tier D1 conferences have started to catch up to MAC level basketball and more competition in the sport than say 20 years ago. The edge the MAC had back in those days was that they played in arenas while the lower leagues played in gyms. MAC schools today need to go out and build the basketball practice facilities if they want to get moving in the basketball arms race. That is the answer. The budget levels are probably fine though if some catch up is needed freeze football spending levels for a couple of years until the basketball budget is more on par. Ohio spent 7.3 million on football last year while Bowling Green spent 4.3 million so its not like budget resources are scarce at Ohio. Afterall most of the budget is scholarships and student fee indexed every year by tuition rates. Donations to the athletic department may be scarce and I'd rather concentrate them on a basketball practice facility w/ olympic lockers than a 20 million dollar IPF that really isn't necessary.

What I'm saying more with that tradition comment is not so much over a span of 50 years as much as what the programs have done over the last 10 or so. George Mason, VCU, ODU have been very successful and the lower half of the league not as bad as the MAC West. The Horizon doesn't outspend the MAC by very much. Outspending the MAC by 200,000 per school in basketball is not really a big deal. As stated in the tread the Horizon is mostly riding the coattails of Butler basketball. The problem in the MAC has to do with recruiting not budget. MAC schools need to invest in basketball practice facilites the smaller D1 schools could never afford to give them an edge once again.

Considering football is a money loser, if we were to pull football entirely, just out of the blue, the athletic department would gain money, not lose it.  Then, yes, it could be spend on basketball or volleyball or track or men's swimming or whatever.

I enjoy MAC basketball as much as MAC football.  However, MAC football garners much more National Attention for the representative schools than MAC basketball, Horizon Basketball and CCA Basketball COMBINED.  Butler has gained some significant National Television time this year due to their amazing run last year to the title game. Like George Mason they have returned to reality and anonymity as evidenced by their current record.  Even with Butler's rewarded exposure; the rest of the league will garner little attention until the bracket buster.  Pre-season Horizon League contender; 12-0 Cleveland State plays ONE game on television in 2010-2011 and that game is @ Butler. The rest of the league will hope to get some exposure during their tournament.  

So far, Gonzaga has been the only mid -major basketball program to sustain national repeated national prominence.  Unlike Boise, TCU and Utah the few others have been one, done and back to the mid majors.  

Turn on virtually any NFL game and you will likely see a professional ball player that has played in the MAC.  Many of the have played at Peden Stadium in Athens.  From Super Bowl MVPs to Pro Bowl selections.  Many of which are current stars like Burner Turner, Mitchell, Cribbs,  Edleman, Harrision, Price, Leftwich, Pennington and that other guy in Pittsburgh just to name a few.  

In terms of professional athletes you could take all the other sports including basketball from the Horizon, CCA and MAC combined and they would not come close to the success of the professional players produced by MAC football.  

No, it wouldn't. You pull an activity out of a budget and the dollars that go with that activity get pulled too.

Probably, but not necessarily.  It would depend on how it is done.  Given that the administration is willing to lose millions of dollars on athletics in the current environment, it is perfect conceivable that a decision would be made to pull the plug on football, and devote some small percentage of the savings (10-20%) to basketball, with the rest amounting to budget cuts. 

At the end of the day this line of discussion is meaningless, though, as there is no way that the university will cut football entirely.

You dramatically overestimate the significance of playing a few lousy mid-week football games on ESPN.  We are a joke in the FBS Division I football landscape.  In basketball, mid-majors are respected.  I would guess that our win over Georgetown last year single handedly generated more national attention for the MAC than an entire year of crappy football being played on odd nights on ESPN. 



If you think that Butler is a one-year phenomenon (like George Mason), then you have missed most of the last 5 years, I guess.  It is also entirely too early to write them off this year.



That is simply a numbers game.  NFL rosters are 5 times larger than NBA rosters, yet primarily draw from a pool of schools 1/3rd the size.  Given that there are 340+ D-I hoops programs, the odds of one of the 13 D-I college basketball players on a school's roster making an NBA roster are ridiculously small compared to the odds of one of the 85+ football players from one of the 120 FBS programs making an NFL roster.

I don't follow what the lost revenues have to do with my post.  We currently spend more on football than we bring in, so on the whole football is a net money loser for the university.  Even if we entirely lose all football-related revenue, our overall athletics budget deficit would be less in a post-football world.  How much less would depend on whether the university wants to simply use the savings entirely to reduce athletics' annual deficit, or whether it elects to continue to lose some of the potential football-related savings by redirecting some of the money currently going to the football program to another (also currently money-losing) sport. 

I agree that it would be great to generate more basketball revenues going forward, without touching football.  But that doesn't mean that football hasn't had an effect on MAC basketball over the last 10-15 years, which is really my only point in all of this.  As the above data show, we have fallen behind our "peer" hoops conferences both in terms of competitive performance and financial spending.  That doesn't necessarily mean that the conference has made a bad decision by prioritizing football (although personally I think it has), but I don't see how anyone can honestly suggest that the increased football spending by MAC programs over the last 10-15 years is not in any way responsible for the MAC's slide in basketball expenditures.

Here is what I mean. For rough numbers: let's say total athletics spend is $18M with revenues of $3M $2M from football) meaning university budget of $15M. So you cut football at $5M but lose $2M of revenue and add $.5M to basketball. Your spend is now $13.5M but your budget (support) from the university us $12.5M. So you've cut  28% of your spend but only 17% of your budget. Are there net savings? Yes. Good luck getting that $.5M add-back approved is what I'm saying.



First of all, you haven't told me when the "arms race" started or any proof that there is one (that football net spend has grown as a greater percentage than basketball). I'm not being facetious about this. It's kind of the basis for the argument.

I don't see that we have "fallen behind". I see that we are behind (if schools account for them similarly). Maybe I missed it but where did you show the slide in basketball expenditure? As you acknowledged earlier, a CAA team hired a MAC coach back around 1997. So they must have been investing more back then and I'm guessing that was pre-arms race.

Again, you speak to prioritizing football I guess hoping it becomes fact. I'm waiting for evidence of that. What I do know is that conference affiliations are driven by football (see this summer when basketball royalty Kansas was facing not being in a BCS conference). College football is one of the most popular sports in the country and growing in popularity whereas college basketball is declining (see below). I think the one way Ohio moves the dial in Athletics is in a new conference. The only hope (emphasis on hope) is that someone needs an FBS football school. There are no shortage of basketball schools (345 and counting), everyone has one.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/248/Default.aspx

FAVORITE SPORT
"If you had to choose, which ONE of these sports would you say is your favorite?"
Base: All adults who follow one or more sport
		1985		1989		1992		1993		1994		1997		1998		2002
		%		%		%		%		%		%		%		%
Pro football		24		26		28		24		24		28		26		27
Baseball		23		19		21		18		17		17		18		14
College football		10		6		7		8		7		10		9		9
Auto racing		5		4		5		6		5		5		7		10
Men's pro basketball		6		7		8		12		11		13		13		11
Hockey		2		3		3		3		5		4		3		3
Men's college basketball		6		10		8		8		8		6		4		4
Men's golf		3		4		4		6		5		6		4		4
Men's soccer		3		2		2		1		3		3		4		3
Boxing		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA
Horse racing		4		3		3		2		2		2		2		1
Women's tennis		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		3
Swimming		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA
Bowling		3		5		2		2		1		1		2		2
Track & field		2		2		1		1		2		2		3		1
Men's tennis		5		4		4		4		3		3		4		1
Women's pro basketball		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		*		1
Women's soccer		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA
Women's college basketball		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		1		1
Women's golf		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA
Not sure		*		1		4		1		2		2		1		3
Pro football's lead over baseball		1		7		7		6		7		11		8		13

Note 1: NA = Not asked in that year. Men and women's sports were not always distinguished

Note 2: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Note 3: "*" indicates less than 0.5%

TABLE 1 (continued)
FAVORITE SPORTS
"If you had to choose, which ONE of these sports would you say is your favorite?"
Base: All adults who follow one or more sport
		2003		2004		2005		2006		2007		2008		2009		CHANGE 1985–2008
		%		%		%		%		%		%		%		%
Pro football		29		30		33		29		30		31		35		+11
Baseball		13		15		14		14		15		16		16		-7
College football		9		11		13		13		12		12		12		+2
Auto racing		9		7		11		9		10		8		9		+4
Men's pro basketball		10		7		4		7		4		6		5		-1
Hockey		3		4		5		4		5		5		4		+2
Men's college basketball		6		6		5		5		4		5		3		-3
Men's golf		5		4		4		4		4		4		4		+1
Men's soccer		3		3		2		2		2		3		2		-1
Boxing		NA		2		2		1		1		2		2		NA
Horse racing		2		1		2		1		2		1		2		-2
Women's tennis		2		2		1		1		*		1		1		NA
Swimming		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		2		1		NA
Bowling		1		1		1		1		2		1		1		-2
Track & field		3		1		*		2		1		1		1		-1
Men's tennis		2		1		1		2		1		1		1		-4
Women's pro basketball		1		*		*		*		*		*		*		NA
Women's soccer		NA		1		*		*		*		*		*		NA
Women's college basketball		*		1		*		1		1		*		*		NA
Women's golf		1		*		*		1		*		*		*		NA
Not sure		1		2		2		3		2		1		2		-
Pro football's lead over baseball		16		15		19		15		15		15		19		+11

Actually that isn't true.  Of the 340+ Division I schools, only around 245 field football teams (and that includes a fair number of schools that have non-scholarship football teams).  But the vast majority of NFL players come out of the FBS ranks.



All mid-week games are not equal.  There is a significant perception gap between playing on Thursday (a now almost traditional night for college football) and playing on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays.



The World Wide Leader shows all sorts of things to fill time.  Just because we draw better ratings than sychronized swimming and women's bull fighting doesn't mean we are producing strong ratings.



Yes we got slaughtered by a top 5 Kansas team, but we were horribly overrated to start the season.  In contrast, the MAC Champion Miami Redhawks lost 45-3 to a 4-8 Cincinnati squad.  I'd offer that that is a much more embarassing loss.



I agree with you generally, but disagree when it comes to athletics.  I cannot envision any scenario is which a MAC program comes out stronger (let alone "must stronger) than any BCS school (let alone "many") given how little overall interest and revenue generation capability the MAC programs have.