Who cares whether PSU would be the favorite over X, Y, or Z? Getting it done on the court is what matters, not what some oddsmaker thinks.
How did we not make the NIT??
- Thread starter PennStateNate
- Start date
Who cares whether PSU would be the favorite over X, Y, or Z? Getting it done on the court is what matters, not what some oddsmaker thinks.
My prediction is that in a very short time Rutgers will pass us in Men's BB. Illinois is down, but IL has a bit of history and tradition going for them which makes you think they will eventually turn it around. Assuming IL turns it around, and IF Rutgers passes us, we will be the worst program in the B1G.
A trajectory towards the worst program in the B1G is where Chambers is taking us.
The team beat us twice. Most recently a few days back, by a ton, on a neutral court.
Minnesota would be favored & likely win 9/10.
Reality comes into play here.
And it also means we lost to them. Winning is still the priority. Minnesota did. We did not.
Historical cache is redundant…
Now if you're talking about historical cachet I guess that's redundant too
You mean ... the same way Michigan State beat Michigan twice including in Ann Arbor and yet Michigan was favored in the Big Ten title game?
Penn State would still be very likely favored over Minnesota. We may not win and go 0-3 (also like Michigan did) but we'd still be favored over them and most teams.
Btw ... I don't know how Minnesota beat us "by a ton" when we lost by 5 in OT.
I think the comments in support of Chambers from Sandy are insightful. We’ve had a debate over the past year in various threads as to whether Penn State cares about the basketball program and is willing to pay $3 million plus to attract a Capel/Hurley class head coach. We just got our answer: no.
If Sandy was serious about having a team that could compete for Big Ten titles and consistently make the NCAA tournament, a change would have been made. This past year we had one player make the all Big Ten team and one make the all defensive team. Last year, we had one of the best players in Penn State history in Tony Carr. In 8 years we haven’t made the NCAA tournament and this year we once again ended the season in the Big Ten tournament. Recruiting, other than the Carr class, continues to be average when compared to other Big Ten school’s recruiting classes.
This is not a program that is “climbing”. A change needed to be made and it wasn’t. We have our answer. Penn State is happy to continue making millions from the Big Ten media rights while the basketball program continues to wallow in the lower half of the Big Ten. With her inaction, Sandy has spoken.
If Sandy was serious about having a team that could compete for Big Ten titles and consistently make the NCAA tournament, a change would have been made. This past year we had one player make the all Big Ten team and one make the all defensive team. Last year, we had one of the best players in Penn State history in Tony Carr. In 8 years we haven’t made the NCAA tournament and this year we once again ended the season in the Big Ten tournament. Recruiting, other than the Carr class, continues to be average when compared to other Big Ten school’s recruiting classes.
This is not a program that is “climbing”. A change needed to be made and it wasn’t. We have our answer. Penn State is happy to continue making millions from the Big Ten media rights while the basketball program continues to wallow in the lower half of the Big Ten. With her inaction, Sandy has spoken.
With this year's bubble, everyone had huge holes in their resume. Oklahoma got in at 7-11. TCU was expected to be in at 7-11. St John's is in at 8-10 in a Big East that's much weaker than the Big 10/Big 12. Alabama was sitting at 18-15 overall. Greensboro was seriously lacking in quality wins. Indiana was also 8-12, but was only 17-15 overall and lost twice to OSU.
They had to come up with 36 at-large teams, and as you reached the bubble, everyone had big warts. I thought it was pretty obvious that Ohio St had fewer than many of the others.
I am trying to analyze this from strictly a $$$ decision.
>> Right now PSU has decided to invest the least in Men's BB. Chambers has the lowest salary amongst B1G Head Coaches and we have the smallest operating budget for BB in the B1G. ....... For this minimal investment they get a 1/14th share of B1G TV revenue. They also get a 1/14th share of NIT/NCAA tournament revenue.
>> Outside of TV deal revenue and tournament revenue, where else can a Men's BB generate revenue??? Ticket sales.
>> Let's say that PSU decided to scrap Chambers and his $600k salary and hire a $2mil per year coach. Chances are a coach who demands $2mil is also only going to agree to come to PSU if we commit more operating revenue to the sport. Right now we are dead last in the B1G. Let's say that this new coach agrees to Penn State if we agree to raise our operating budget to at least 7th in league (middle of pack). I believe we were a good $3-4 million below those teams in that 6-7-8 range.
>> So, hiring a new a "name brand" type of coach is going to increase the expense side by roughly $4-5 mil per year.
>> IF the only line item we have to increase revenue, in order to off-set this increased cost of $4-5 mil is in ticket sales, then that's a whole lot of tickets. And there is no guarantee that this new coach will generate more wins ... more fan interest ... more ticket sales.
>> Right now PSU has decided to invest the least in Men's BB. Chambers has the lowest salary amongst B1G Head Coaches and we have the smallest operating budget for BB in the B1G. ....... For this minimal investment they get a 1/14th share of B1G TV revenue. They also get a 1/14th share of NIT/NCAA tournament revenue.
>> Outside of TV deal revenue and tournament revenue, where else can a Men's BB generate revenue??? Ticket sales.
>> Let's say that PSU decided to scrap Chambers and his $600k salary and hire a $2mil per year coach. Chances are a coach who demands $2mil is also only going to agree to come to PSU if we commit more operating revenue to the sport. Right now we are dead last in the B1G. Let's say that this new coach agrees to Penn State if we agree to raise our operating budget to at least 7th in league (middle of pack). I believe we were a good $3-4 million below those teams in that 6-7-8 range.
>> So, hiring a new a "name brand" type of coach is going to increase the expense side by roughly $4-5 mil per year.
>> IF the only line item we have to increase revenue, in order to off-set this increased cost of $4-5 mil is in ticket sales, then that's a whole lot of tickets. And there is no guarantee that this new coach will generate more wins ... more fan interest ... more ticket sales.
If it purely a $$$ argument, we are throwing money away. Why do we need a $600K per year coach? Hire a good high school coach for $100K. Minimize travel costs by only playing PA teams in the non conference portion of the schedule so the team can bus to all the games. I could go on...
I would argue this the other way. The basketball program, with the inclusion of Big Ten media money, makes $5 million per year. As such, the basketball program does not need to increase revenue to cover the additional costs of a top coach and an increased operating budget. The money is there...Sandy just needs to be willing to spend “basketball generated money” on basketball.
If we're going to spend an extra $5 million a year in hoops, then I'm all aboard the "fire Pat" bandwagon...if we're going to stay in the same ballpark with some minimal year-over-year increases, meaning we're going to hire a John Becker or Tim Cluess, then I'd rather see us push any decisions out another season.
Increasing the basketball operating budget by $4.5mm (I'm taking the average of your range) will not pay for itself. Using an average ticket price of $20 per seat, attendance would have to increase by 15,000 per game to break even. Gonna need a bigger boat.
Put aside specific numbers. Clearly what will be needed to offset increased expenses is a combination of increased attendance and ticket prices. Consider that a lot of home games are in the dead of winter, on work/school nights, how many fans are going to drive distance to see the team even if it wins? I don't have an answer. Barbour should at least have a clue to support whatever decision she makes and it would not surprise me that she doesn't.
Yep, the bubble does change from year to year, and I agree with you that there are many components to a team's resume for the NCAA including bad losses, conference record, quality wins...... But the bubble never includes 14-18 teams....
Lots of financial impact to consider in addition to just tickets. Selling season tickets to fans that don't show because the product is sad cuts into concession sales at games. And increased ticket sales to people that actually attend also contributes to ticket sales. And then there is licensed merchandise sales.
But the decision to spend more money is also about pride in PSU. Wanting to win. And really, the BOT wastes that amount of money monthly on over zealous building project and other pet programs. Not to mention inflated professor salaries and benefits.
There are "winners" and "losers" and under Sandy and the current administration PSU BB is being handcuffed into being a loser....
A) Chambers makes about twice what you think he does.
B) No legit good coach that isn't an up and comer (like Chambers was btw) will come here probably for less than twice his salary. In addition, any new coach will need assistants that are on the higher (for PSU standards) end as well.
I’ve never once advocated we cut sports. When we need to, money seems to be able to be found to fund higher salaries for other athletic department staff. When O’Brien threatened to leave after his first season, poof, we found more money to give him. No sports were cut. When Franklin’s contract was extended, poof, we found more money to give him. No sports were cut. And just recently, even Sandy’s compensation was just raised significantly. Someone found money to fund her extension. And so far, I haven’t heard of any sports being cut.
My point is this. If the basketball program’s objective is to be a cash cow and generate money for the athletic department to use in other ways, which seems to be the unstated goal, it’s unlikely that it will ever be a top of the Big Ten program. If the objective is to be a top Big Ten program, the money needed to make this move gets generated each year by the program. The program just needs to be allowed to spend it on itself.
Not sure why you're replying to me. Did someone indicate that it did include 14-18 teams? Or are you just trying to troll?
No, I was agreeing with your review of the strengths and weaknesses of the resumes of this year's bubble teams. And with that questioning why anyone would believe a 14-18 team deserves any consideration for any selective tournament.
The only thing that saved the sucknuts was that this was the weakest at large field in years. Any normal year and they would have been headed to the NIT. I believe they were the 64th team in - the final team that didn't have to play their way in. Very lucky a-holes.
The administration does not care about basketball, they showed us that by keeping Chambers. Everyone on this board keeps s saying he’s a great coach and he develops players. I would like to know who the players are that he developed. We currently have no one in the NBA and he has sent no players in the eight years he has been here. Don’t say Tony Carr he wasn’t good enough for the nba. So there you have it
There you have it all right...another ignorant PSU basketball fan.
Another gem. I somehow miss the hundreds of posts with "everyone" saying he's a "great" coach.
You missed the ones that I wrote? Gonna have to type them all in caps and boldface.
Why can't we just hire a real coach? Why do UCLA and others get to toss money around to rebuild or build?
UVA arguably had a worse year than us last year (16 beats 1, vs. winning NIT).
Time for a coach with a plan.
UVA arguably had a worse year than us last year (16 beats 1, vs. winning NIT).
Time for a coach with a plan.
That is hilarious if you even for a second think that it is true. They were a freaking #1 seed in the NCAAs. Also, our tradition/history are on two opposite ends of the spectrum. What exactly do you mean with this comment?
As for UCLA... again... that's like what if we fall off a cliff in 5 years, post-post Paterno (pretty even comparison) - do you not think that money would be thrown at our "top" program? Same thing with UCLA - hoops is their "top" program and is what the donors care about. FTR, UCLA was passed over by so many coaches... for them to fire a coach mid-year and just NOW finally get someone to go there is eye-opening.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Podcast Jerquaden Guilford Decommits + Top Targets To Replace Him- Latest: NittanyNation51
-