It amazes me that some programs that I think should be

[Capt. Tuttle]

good on a regular basis are not. For instance: shouldn't schools like Alabama, Clemson, LSU, USC, have regular NCAA successes. They have money, fans (when winning), name recognition, relaxed admissions, etc. Any others to add to the list.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

Football, my friend, football. Pressure to win in basketball isn't nearly as great as in football, so the majority of their resources get focused on the grindiron.

It's fairly rare to have a consistently great football program and a consistently great basketball program. Texas and Ohio St are about as close as you can get in the last decade, but they are not what I would consider elite basketball programs (historically).

Look at the elite basketball programs (that have football), and most of the time their football is subpar. UNC, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UConn, Syracuse (for the last decade) ~ all great basketball programs with below average football programs.

I'd had to think long and hard about it, but I would probably say that Michigan State is the program that is fairly consistent in both football and basketball, but I wouldn't really consider them elite in football. Good, but not elite.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

i know, but with $$$, they could get a good program running and pay to keep the coach. Easier to build a bball program than a fb one, IMO. Just interesting to me.

 

[moqui]

I'd had to think long and hard about it, but I would probably say that Michigan State is the program that is fairly consistent in both football and basketball,

Florida, followed by Ohio State and Texas

 

[OrlandoCuse]

i know, but with $$$, they could get a good program running and pay to keep the coach. Easier to build a bball program than a fb one, IMO. Just interesting to me.

They'd rather buy football players than basketball players, especially in the SEC.

Nick Saban's Salary is almost as much as the entire Alabama basketball budget. He get's paid $5.9 million, their basketball budget is $6.4 million. That's all you need to know about SEC athletic expenditure priorities.

 

[realorange]

Football, my friend, football. Pressure to win in basketball isn't nearly as great as in football, so the majority of their resources get focused on the grindiron.

It's fairly rare to have a consistently great football program and a consistently great basketball program. Texas and Ohio St are about as close as you can get in the last decade, but they are not what I would consider elite basketball programs (historically).

Look at the elite basketball programs (that have football), and most of the time their football is subpar. UNC, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UConn, Syracuse (for the last decade) ~ all great basketball programs with below average football programs.

I'd had to think long and hard about it, but I would probably say that Michigan State is the program that is fairly consistent in both football and basketball, but I wouldn't really consider them elite in football. Good, but not elite.

Football is the biggest part of the answer. It rules in many of these universities over the long haul. A good basketball program once in awhile.

Even with Texas, they think more of their baseball program than basketball and both are Way below football.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

Florida, followed by Ohio State and Texas

Yes, UF should be up there. However, they have fallen back in both sports since their amazing runs 4 or 5 years ago. And both teams really haven't had long term consistency for the past couple of decades (same goes for OSU and Texas too, when talking about hoops).

 

[elkeed]

Culture has everything to do with success in football and basketball. In the deep south, basketball is simply a nice winter diversion between the end of football season and spring practice. If the basketball team doesn't win, no one is committing suicide. But God forbid if the football team struggles.

 

[Victory Lap]

I went to UGA for grad school. The basketball games were FREE, and still almost nobody went. In fact, I was at Chik-fil-a for lunch one day and the UGA coach was actually walking from table to table asking people to show up at the game against UW in 2006 when UW was a top 10 team because the game was going to be nationally televised.

The GF and I went to most games because we had the place to ourself. And, uh, if any of you happen to find yourself at stegeman coliseum for some reason, I wouldn't sit in the top row of section 212... Just sayin

 

[SoBeCuse]

I went to USC to grad school. It has always been distant second fiddle to football. Now that dumpy, dark LA Sports Arena was a factor but even when the basketball team was doing better than football from 1999-2001 (Elite 8 in '01), not many people went. Much like UGA above, we had the place to ourselves practically courtside and it was awesome. UCLA and Arizona would draw big crowds but usually it was just the hoops junkies like all of us, band, and limited season ticket holders attending. Saw guys from Baron Davis to all those great Arizona players (Terry, Bibby, Simon, Woods, Wright) play live. USC has been pretty solid in hoops the past 5 years or so. Early departures from OJ Mayo, Taj Gibson, Nick Young, Gabe Pruitt, Vucevic, etc., have hurt them.

 

[NKR1978]

good on a regular basis are not. For instance: shouldn't schools like Alabama, Clemson, LSU, USC, have regular NCAA successes. They have money, fans (when winning), name recognition, relaxed admissions, etc. Any others to add to the list.

In the northeast (from DC and northern Virginia up through Boston), the best athletes play basketball, which is where the best recruits seem to be. How are backwater schools in Alabama and throughout the SEC going to appeal to kids from Baltimore or Brooklyn when they have no tradition to sell themselves with along with the fact that no one will really care about their team or their careers.

We are lucky to be on the edge of a great recruiting area and to have the basketball equivalent of the history and tradition and fan base of these football factories.

Sure they may have a few home grown talents but it isn't enough for them to compete yearly with Duke, Carolina and the Big East. It's likely the same problem we have with football.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

 

[OrangeTown]

I went to UGA for grad school. The basketball games were FREE, and still almost nobody went. In fact, I was at Chik-fil-a for lunch one day and the UGA coach was actually walking from table to table asking people to show up at the game against UW in 2006 when UW was a top 10 team because the game was going to be nationally televised.

The GF and I went to most games because we had the place to ourself. And, uh, if any of you happen to find yourself at stegeman coliseum for some reason, I wouldn't sit in the top row of section 212... Just sayin

Do I dare ask why, or would a black light provide me the answer to the question I didn't want to ask?

 

[PoppyHart]

Football


Spring Football











Basketball

 

[UelSU]

good on a regular basis are not. For instance: shouldn't schools like Alabama, Clemson, LSU, USC, have regular NCAA successes. They have money, fans (when winning), name recognition, relaxed admissions, etc. Any others to add to the list.

I live in Alabama, and the people here care nothing, I mean N O T H I N G about college basketball. It is college/high school football 24 / 7 / 365 here. It hard to expalin unless you have witnessed it first hand.

 

[armory]

i know, but with $$$, they could get a good program running and pay to keep the coach. Easier to build a bball program than a fb one, IMO. Just interesting to me.

Fans. Fans. Fans. If there is anything I've learned throughout my fanhood it's this:

Fans make college basketball teams.

Money makes college football teams.

 

[SkanSU]

I would just be reiterating what everybody else has said ... that football is always the driving force. It is primary in most schools and basketball is an afterthought. Take a look at the realignment ... totally football driven and has subsequently led to the demise of the BE ... which has been, principally, a basketball conference. In the big conferences football is the money dawg. Some schools are able to field/floor both: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, UCLA, Stanford, Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, Michigan State, etc. ... but none have consistently demonstrated the ability to sustain both programs at an elite level. If push comes to shove throw the red headed stepchild (basketball) in the back seat.

 

[Victory Lap]

Do I dare ask why, or would a black light provide me the answer to the question I didn't want to ask?

Lets just say your head is in the right place.