Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCAA Lacrosse Returns Sanity to Early Recruiting. Soccer Next?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Talking Soccer

    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    This is really a cop out. That is why they have conferences. They equalize things like enrollment differences.
    Not the OP that you are replying to, but how is the response a cop out? Poster is stating a constraining reality. You offer no solution, yet call his response a cop out...#rich

    Comment


      #17
      The poster's point was that schools like HC don't have the ability to compete against the likes of UNC or Michigan. It's really a private vs state school issue. While that poster may in fact be correct that a school like HC cannot compete against a school like UNC or Michigan in big time sports, that is an active choice of the part of the smaller school. The reality is they don't compete against them athletically because they play in different conferences. The only time a school like HC competes head to head with them is either when it makes an active decision put a big school like Michigan or UNC on the schedule of one of its teams or on the rare occasion when one of it's teams makes it into a NCAA post season tournament. The real issue actually is, why is a school like HC so uncompetitive in the Patriot League which is a grouping of similar sized and motivated schools? The correct answer is that their school administrators make an active decision to not be a sports power, not that they are somehow limited because of their enrollment. That is why they can't compete against the giant state schools, not because they are somehow incapable of doing so. Playing the HC type situation off as some David vs Goliath type thing is just a very weak response to something that is clearly an active decision. There are plenty of instances where private schools with much lower enrollments compete favorably against big state schools - Gonzaga, Duke, Stanford, and Butler are just a few recent examples. What it takes is a willingness to spend the money be in the business of big time college sports and the business acumen to make it work. Small schools like HC simply choose not to.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        The poster's point was that schools like HC don't have the ability to compete against the likes of UNC or Michigan. It's really a private vs state school issue. While that poster may in fact be correct that a school like HC cannot compete against a school like UNC or Michigan in big time sports, that is an active choice of the part of the smaller school. The reality is they don't compete against them athletically because they play in different conferences. The only time a school like HC competes head to head with them is either when it makes an active decision put a big school like Michigan or UNC on the schedule of one of its teams or on the rare occasion when one of it's teams makes it into a NCAA post season tournament. The real issue actually is, why is a school like HC so uncompetitive in the Patriot League which is a grouping of similar sized and motivated schools? The correct answer is that their school administrators make an active decision to not be a sports power, not that they are somehow limited because of their enrollment. That is why they can't compete against the giant state schools, not because they are somehow incapable of doing so. Playing the HC type situation off as some David vs Goliath type thing is just a very weak response to something that is clearly an active decision. There are plenty of instances where private schools with much lower enrollments compete favorably against big state schools - Gonzaga, Duke, Stanford, and Butler are just a few recent examples. What it takes is a willingness to spend the money be in the business of big time college sports and the business acumen to make it work. Small schools like HC simply choose not to.
        Cannot believe you are comparing HC with those four schools, which all are substantially bigger, and two of which can get basically anyone they want.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          Cannot believe you are comparing HC with those four schools, which all are substantially bigger, and two of which can get basically anyone they want.
          Ignoring that debate...but there are lots of D1 programs out there, even at state schools, that will never ever generate revenue. Take a look at the total D1 list. Plenty of smaller schools on there, probably many you've never heard of. Huge quality differences top to bottom across nearly 300 programs. D1 is not all created equal and that's true in most sports. I don't see how you can make a paying system work without crushing the programs at many schools.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            Cannot believe you are comparing HC with those four schools, which all are substantially bigger, and two of which can get basically anyone they want.
            Have you ever been any of the schools and compared their facilities and the quality of their coaches? Landing talent is about having all the trappings of success and that takes money. It's a big reason why BC struggles. They never really commit to playing with the big boys. They'll spend for a couple of years then scale back. That inconsistency drops right to the recruiting bottom line and without top level recruits you aren't going to compete with top level programs.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              Ignoring that debate...but there are lots of D1 programs out there, even at state schools, that will never ever generate revenue. Take a look at the total D1 list. Plenty of smaller schools on there, probably many you've never heard of. Huge quality differences top to bottom across nearly 300 programs. D1 is not all created equal and that's true in most sports. I don't see how you can make a paying system work without crushing the programs at many schools.
              What you are talking about is the state vs private debate. The real issue comes down to how much a school is willing to invest in its sports programs and what that investment will yield. The business of sports has evolved dramatically over the past 30 years and it's not just about putting fannies in the seats of the school's athletic facilities any longer. It's really about corporate sponsorship and merchandising (The whole school book store thing). The value the sports programs bring to each university is really more about brand recognition and helping to increase application numbers and getting lots of people to baseball caps and t-shirts with the school's logo on it. You don't have to win a NCAA tournament to have make money and build brand recognition you just have to be near the top of your conference. A good example of a local school that seems to get what is going on is PC. Look at the spending they have made on their athletic facilities over the past couple of years and the up tick they have had in athletic success. That was a result of a business decision made by the administration to step up its support for its athletic programs. They clearly realize that they don't have to compete with the likes of Michigan or UNC, they just need to be at the top of the Big East and that if they do that consistently they will make money for the university. That's all the big time they actually need.

              Comment

              Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
              Auto-Saved
              x
              Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
              x
              Working...
              X