Question for College Sports Fans

[Bob B.]

This is way, way off the topic of personal finance, but I've not found a group of clearer thinking, straighter shooting people on the entire internet...

I'm a Michigan State University fan and graduate. As anyone who is following the NCAA tournament knows, MSU has earned a spot in the Sweet 16 this year, and 13 of the past 18 years. The football team has also been fairly successful the past handful of years, and especially the past two years. I'm not claiming MSU is a football "powerhouse", but there has been a degree of success since Mark Dantonio was hired eight years ago, and Tom Izzo has been among the most very successful NCAA basketball coaches since he was hired in 1995.

My question is...Why do relatively few colleges traditionally have both a successful football team, and a successful basketball team?

Some traditional "football only" powerhouses include:

Alabama
USC
Notre Dame (present basketball success excepted)
Florida State
Nebraska
Penn State


Some traditional "basketball only" powerhouses include:

Duke
UNC
Kentucky
Kansas
UCLA
Indiana

For the most part, these schools seem to concentrate on success on either the football field or the basketball court, but not both.

Florida, Arizona, Michigan, Texas, are schools that seems to emphasize success in both football and basketball. But for the most part, it just seems that your elite powerhouses emphasize one or the other.

Any thoughts?

My apologies if I left out your favorite team!

[greenskeeper]

scholarship dollars would be a first guess

[kork13]

scholarship dollars would be a first guess

.....and suddenly it's a financial discussion. boom.

Seriously though, I think that's a very plausible explanation. Universities can only afford to recruit so many athletes, one primary method of which includes offering scholarships. Financially, it makes the most sense for a school to focus its recruiting/scholarship efforts in collecting folks who can all work together to make the school more successful. Some schools choose to do so through football scholarships, others basketball, others academic. Yes, you can (literally) spread the wealth in order to get some of everything, but then your end result is only *some of everything* (i.e., only "some" success in "everything").

[GREENBACK]

Some traditional "football only" powerhouses include:

Alabama
USC
Notre Dame (present basketball success excepted)
Florida State
Nebraska
Penn State

I think it's mostly a matter of the number of scholarships that each school is allowed to provide across the board. The NCAA only allows schools to give a certain number of scholarships to men's athletics regardless of the sport played. This applies to women's athletics too. I'm not sure why some conferences decide one sport should be more dominant than another but it probably has to do with money. BTW, you left The Ohio State Buckeyes off your list

[Bob B.]

BTW, you left The Ohio State Buckeyes off your list

I would put OSU as a school that concentrates on both basketball and football. In fact, it seems to me that most of the schools in the Big 10 spread the wealth between football and basketball, except Nebraska and Penn State (football) and Indiana and maybe Maryland (basketball). Maryland is too new to the Big 10, and I'm not so sure about that, former ACC, right?.

But MSU, OSU, U of M, Wisconsin, can all have pretty good to great seasons in both football and basketball.

ACC prefers basketball.

SEC prefers football.

Big 12 probably prefers football.

Pac 12 is more like the Big 10.

[feh]

My question is...Why do relatively few colleges traditionally have both a successful football team, and a successful basketball team?

Odd you should mention this. I just saw this article yesterday:

http://host.madison.com/sports/columnists/andy_baggot/andy-baggot-uw-s-run-of-success-in-men-s/article_4e2fc594-5eeb-5963-a24e-737348878a60.html

[herdjohnson]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks it's a scholarship issue. Alabama offers just as many basketball scholarships as UNC, and UNC offers just as many football scholarships at Alabama. That may have not been the case before the 85 scholarship limit was put in place, when the top tier football schools like Ohio State would just hoard blue chip athletes on scholarship just to prevent them from going elsewhere.

It's really just a question of money, IMO. It's very costly to have top level facilities in football AND basketball, and without top level facilities you're not going to have top level talent. Same with investing in a coaching staff. That's why those you talk about at the bottom - Texas, Michigan, Florida are traditionally at the top of the athletic budget spectrum. They have the money to throw around to any and all sports they wish to play.

Also probably doesn't help that almost half of basketball season takes place during football season. There is only so much fan interest and $$$ to go around.

[rennigade]

I think the better question is why arent college athletes being paid a lot of money!?

I know someone who works at Penn State and they told me how much the university makes in football ticket sales alone. These powerhouse universities make 100's of millions from the athletes. You hear football/basketball fans talk and they speak of these college kids like they are gods (same as pro athletes.) Time for them to start getting paid!

The answer to this question is $$$. If you go to florida state or penn state where the cash cow is football...why would anyone devote time to beefing up other programs? There is no point in risking losing money when you already having a winning lottery ticket that you can cash in every single season.

[feh]

I think the better question is why arent college athletes being paid a lot of money!?

They are being compensated, but not with a paycheck.

Getting off topic now, but IMO - if this kind of money is gonna be involved, these leagues (that's what they are; minor leagues) shouldn't even exist at colleges. There should be true minor leagues for football and basketball like there are for baseball.

[jIM_Ohio]

This is way, way off the topic of personal finance, but I've not found a group of clearer thinking, straighter shooting people on the entire internet...

I'm a Michigan State University fan and graduate. As anyone who is following the NCAA tournament knows, MSU has earned a spot in the Sweet 16 this year, and 13 of the past 18 years. The football team has also been fairly successful the past handful of years, and especially the past two years. I'm not claiming MSU is a football "powerhouse", but there has been a degree of success since Mark Dantonio was hired eight years ago, and Tom Izzo has been among the most very successful NCAA basketball coaches since he was hired in 1995.

My question is...Why do relatively few colleges traditionally have both a successful football team, and a successful basketball team?

Some traditional "football only" powerhouses include:

Alabama
USC
Notre Dame (present basketball success excepted)
Florida State
Nebraska
Penn State


Some traditional "basketball only" powerhouses include:

Duke
UNC
Kentucky
Kansas
UCLA
Indiana

For the most part, these schools seem to concentrate on success on either the football field or the basketball court, but not both.

Florida, Arizona, Michigan, Texas, are schools that seems to emphasize success in both football and basketball. But for the most part, it just seems that your elite powerhouses emphasize one or the other.

Any thoughts?

My apologies if I left out your favorite team!

Leaving Syracuse off the basketball list is just plain wrong...


Recruiting athletes is an interesting thing, and measuring success is an interesting thing.

Is the measurement of success for an athlete
a) getting an education
b) winning a college sports title
c) making it to the pros

If the answer is c), then for football winning is not important- how many Michigan state QBs or Alabama QBs have won superbowls or been the first overall pick of the draft?

If the answer is a), then the sports is a secondary issue- for example I coached a player on Harvard when he was younger- watching him beat UC last year was very very cool.

Clearly the state of Kentucky does not value education...

[GREENBACK]

To address the question of why one school chooses to pick one sport over the other. I wonder if it's simply a competitive issue that translates into a money issue. Example: Alabama gets really good at football and brings lots of media attention and following from the general public, which leads to good enrollment numbers, which leads to alumni contributions and endowments...etc.. LSU, Georgia, Florida and all the other SEC schools look at how well that's working and follow suit...the rest is history. Same scenario could be said for basketball in the ACC or other conferences and individual sports. Just one more theory.

[txex86]

The schools you mention that emphasize success in multiple sports are also schools that are the "state" school of their respective states. Because of their large sizes, they seem to have a more concentrated push to be good in every sport, as if they are asserting their dominance due to sheer numbers. I know that is the case at Texas, my alma mater. Texas strives to dominate in everything from football to tiddly winks. Do they? Not all of the time. But the history is there as it is for the other schools mentioned.

[creditcardfree]

Some traditional "football only" powerhouses include:

Alabama
USC
Notre Dame (present basketball success excepted)
Florida State
Nebraska
Penn State

My apologies if I left out your favorite team!

You didn't leave my team out...Go Big Red!