Are we a basketball school?

[JimmyDimes]

Wyoming isn't a football or basketball school. Not enough success in either sport. If we had to be classified as one or the other it would be basketball based on the success of the program. It definitely isn't a football school.

Using this type of criteria, I would bet only 50 schools qualify as either. Wyoming has had more success than most in both sports....but some of that success happened years ago. Right now I would call Boise the only football school and Unlv....maybe SDSU as the only basketball schools in the MWC. SDSU has only had success under on head basketball coach. Because of this, I don't know if they qualify.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

Now, is that a typo and it's supposed to read 82% of athletic departments instead of football programs, maybe, but that's quite the mistake. I might have to read that book to get a better look at things.

No, it's not a mistake.

Almost 0 schools have athletic departments that don't have to be subsidized at all (and the reported subsidies almost certainly understate the cost of subsidies...or at least don't take into account the full cost of operating an athletic department).

So, yes, contrary to the popular myth, very few football programs operate at a profit.

Did you just contradict yourself in the span of 2 sentences??

There is a difference between an AD running a profit and a football program running a profit. It's much easier for football and men's basketball to run in the black, almost no other sports (few exceptions like baseball, ice hockey and a few women's bball) are even close to break even. The point McPeachy is going at is that football subsidizes all the other sports, but by itself would run a profit. The point I found from that previous article is that even the football programs themselves are in the red, even without lending millions to swimming, tennis, golf, etc.

Perhaps this could be explained by creative accounting...

 

[seattlecowboy]

Whether football brings profit by itself or not does not make a school a football school or not. Every school makes more money with football than they do basketball but not every school is considered a football school. So trying to make that point is ridiculous.

Wyoming is far more a basketball school based on success than it is a football school if there has to be a designation for it although we aren't really either one.

To prove my point here is an article about a school everyone would definitely consider a basketball school and how they make more with football than they do basketball.

http://www.aseaofblue.com/2012/9/18...all-whos-worth-more-uk-basketball-or-football

 

[Wyo2dal]

They make more from football because of the conference they are in. It's not as much about the sport as the conference like always.

 

[seattlecowboy]

They make more from football because of the conference they are in. It's not as much about the sport as the conference like always.

All schools make more with football. Find me a school in FBS that makes more with basketball then .

 

[Wyo2dal]

They make more from football because of the conference they are in. It's not as much about the sport as the conference like always.

All schools make more with football. Find me a school in FBS that makes more with basketball then .

Like I said it has nothing to do with the sport and everything to do with the money the conference makes for each team.

I'd be willing to bet there are basketball teams in rich conferences that make more than we do in football.

Because of the conference not the sport.

 

[seattlecowboy]

They make more from football because of the conference they are in. It's not as much about the sport as the conference like always.

All schools make more with football. Find me a school in FBS that makes more with basketball then .

Like I said it has nothing to do with the sport and everything to do with the money the conference makes for each team.

I'd be willing to bet there are basketball teams in rich conferences that make more than we do in football.

Because of the conference not the sport.

Yeah I agree with you . Sorry I read your first post somewhat wrong .

My point though to this discussion is basically that every school makes more with their football team than they do with their basketball team. So if you only want to use that one criteria then every school is a football school. Most people who think in terms of a school being a basketball school or football school don't use that criteria though when deciding that. They look at how successful the school has been traditionally in that given sport. So that is why we see Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke as basketball schools and not football schools even though they make more with football. Also why we see Alabama, Notre Dame and Texas as football schools. Not because they make more with football which all of them do but because they have traditionally been better at that sport.

I'm not just talking to you Wyo2dal, I am just saying this in general to everyone in this discussion. Just my point of view on it. But yeah if we are only going by which brings in the most money then every single school is a football school and there are no basketball schools at all in that case.

 

[Wyo2dal]

They make more from football because of the conference they are in. It's not as much about the sport as the conference like always.

All schools make more with football. Find me a school in FBS that makes more with basketball then .

Like I said it has nothing to do with the sport and everything to do with the money the conference makes for each team.

I'd be willing to bet there are basketball teams in rich conferences that make more than we do in football.

Because of the conference not the sport.

Yeah I agree with you . Sorry I read your first post somewhat wrong .

My point though to this discussion is basically that every school makes more with their football team than they do with their basketball team. So if you only want to use that one criteria then every school is a football school. Most people who think in terms of a school being a basketball school or football school don't use that criteria though when deciding that. They look at how successful the school has been traditionally in that given sport. So that is why we see Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke as basketball schools and not football schools even though they make more with football. Also why we see Alabama, Notre Dame and Texas as football schools. Not because they make more with football which all of them do but because they have traditionally been better at that sport.

I'm not just talking to you Wyo2dal, I am just saying this in general to everyone in this discussion. Just my point of view on it. But yeah if we are only going by which brings in the most money then every single school is a football school and there are no basketball schools at all in that case.

There are a number of Basketball schools but we aren't one. Success on or off the field or court won't change that we'll never be a Basketball school unless we dump Football.

 

[seattlecowboy]

They make more from football because of the conference they are in. It's not as much about the sport as the conference like always.

All schools make more with football. Find me a school in FBS that makes more with basketball then .

Like I said it has nothing to do with the sport and everything to do with the money the conference makes for each team.

I'd be willing to bet there are basketball teams in rich conferences that make more than we do in football.

Because of the conference not the sport.

Yeah I agree with you . Sorry I read your first post somewhat wrong .

My point though to this discussion is basically that every school makes more with their football team than they do with their basketball team. So if you only want to use that one criteria then every school is a football school. Most people who think in terms of a school being a basketball school or football school don't use that criteria though when deciding that. They look at how successful the school has been traditionally in that given sport. So that is why we see Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke as basketball schools and not football schools even though they make more with football. Also why we see Alabama, Notre Dame and Texas as football schools. Not because they make more with football which all of them do but because they have traditionally been better at that sport.

I'm not just talking to you Wyo2dal, I am just saying this in general to everyone in this discussion. Just my point of view on it. But yeah if we are only going by which brings in the most money then every single school is a football school and there are no basketball schools at all in that case.

There are a number of Basketball schools but we aren't one. Success on or off the field or court won't change that we'll never be a Basketball school unless we dump Football.

We are definitely not a football school either.

 

[seattlecowboy]

This is how I see the teams in the MWC

Football Schools:

Boise St.

Basketball schools:

New Mexico
San Diego St.
UNLV


Everyone Else:
AFA neither
CSU neither
Fresno St. neither
Hawaii neither
Nevada neither
SJSU neither
Utah St. neither
Wyoming neither

 

[SnowyRange]

There are a number of Basketball schools but we aren't one. Success on or off the field or court won't change that we'll never be a Basketball school unless we dump Football.

I'm not so sure.

I've not met a non-Wyoming related soul in this country who has any interest in talking about about UW football. Not once. But when I travel and happen to meet serious sports fans, they often inquire about and give a nod to our basketball.

 

[Wyo2dal]

They make more from football because of the conference they are in. It's not as much about the sport as the conference like always.

All schools make more with football. Find me a school in FBS that makes more with basketball then .

Like I said it has nothing to do with the sport and everything to do with the money the conference makes for each team.

I'd be willing to bet there are basketball teams in rich conferences that make more than we do in football.

Because of the conference not the sport.

Yeah I agree with you . Sorry I read your first post somewhat wrong .

My point though to this discussion is basically that every school makes more with their football team than they do with their basketball team. So if you only want to use that one criteria then every school is a football school. Most people who think in terms of a school being a basketball school or football school don't use that criteria though when deciding that. They look at how successful the school has been traditionally in that given sport. So that is why we see Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke as basketball schools and not football schools even though they make more with football. Also why we see Alabama, Notre Dame and Texas as football schools. Not because they make more with football which all of them do but because they have traditionally been better at that sport.

I'm not just talking to you Wyo2dal, I am just saying this in general to everyone in this discussion. Just my point of view on it. But yeah if we are only going by which brings in the most money then every single school is a football school and there are no basketball schools at all in that case.

There are a number of Basketball schools but we aren't one. Success on or off the field or court won't change that we'll never be a Basketball school unless we dump Football.

We are definitely not a football school either.

Maybe you don't like that we are a Football School but fact is we are. Without Football we couldn't run Basketball and probably 75% of the athletics at the school.

 

[seattlecowboy]

They make more from football because of the conference they are in. It's not as much about the sport as the conference like always.

All schools make more with football. Find me a school in FBS that makes more with basketball then .

Like I said it has nothing to do with the sport and everything to do with the money the conference makes for each team.

I'd be willing to bet there are basketball teams in rich conferences that make more than we do in football.

Because of the conference not the sport.

Yeah I agree with you . Sorry I read your first post somewhat wrong .

My point though to this discussion is basically that every school makes more with their football team than they do with their basketball team. So if you only want to use that one criteria then every school is a football school. Most people who think in terms of a school being a basketball school or football school don't use that criteria though when deciding that. They look at how successful the school has been traditionally in that given sport. So that is why we see Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke as basketball schools and not football schools even though they make more with football. Also why we see Alabama, Notre Dame and Texas as football schools. Not because they make more with football which all of them do but because they have traditionally been better at that sport.

I'm not just talking to you Wyo2dal, I am just saying this in general to everyone in this discussion. Just my point of view on it. But yeah if we are only going by which brings in the most money then every single school is a football school and there are no basketball schools at all in that case.

There are a number of Basketball schools but we aren't one. Success on or off the field or court won't change that we'll never be a Basketball school unless we dump Football.

We are definitely not a football school either.

Maybe you don't like that we are a Football School but fact is we are. Without Football we couldn't run Basketball and probably 75% of the athletics at the school.

I could care less if we are a basketball school or a football school but you have obviously missed the whole point i was making.

When people consider a school a basketball school or football school it isn't based off of how much money the sport brings in. It is based on how successful the program has been.

If you go around the country and asked people is Kentucky or Duke or North Carolina a basketball school or a football school everyone would say those are all basketball schools. Their football programs bring in more money than their basketball programs do but they are still considered basketball schools.

Wyoming's football record over the last 15 years is 66 wins and 113 losses. And Wyoming's all time football record is 508 wins and 548 losses for a win percentage of 48%. That is a the record of a football school? :lol:

Now if you want to only use the money criteria then Kentucky, North Carolina and Duke are all football schools then because their football programs bring in more money. So there are no basketball programs using that as the criteria but we know that isn't the case.

Guess it depends on what criteria you want to use.

 

[SnowyRange]

Maybe you don't like that we are a Football School but fact is we are. Without Football we couldn't run Basketball and probably 75% of the athletics at the school.

Honestly, where you'd get the idea that UW football turns a profit?

Only a handful of football programs make money for their athletic department.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

Maybe you don't like that we are a Football School but fact is we are. Without Football we couldn't run Basketball and probably 75% of the athletics at the school.

I would say this is completely false. Take away the football revenue and I think basketball would still be able to function at at least a break even capacity. Now the other sports, I might agree with you there, but basketball, no way.

 

[Wyo2dal]

Maybe you don't like that we are a Football School but fact is we are. Without Football we couldn't run Basketball and probably 75% of the athletics at the school.

Honestly, where you'd get the idea that UW football turns a profit?

Only a handful of football programs make money for their athletic department.

Who said anything about a profit?

I said Football pays for most of the sports programs at UW.

 

[BeaverPoke]

Lol at anyone even considering that Wyo is a football school. What? How? Huh?

 

[J-Rod]

North Carolina's football program's overall budget is nearly twice as much as their basketball program. Does that mean they're a football school?

 

[hithere]

I've not met a non-Wyoming related soul in this country who has any interest in talking about about UW football. Not once.

I have. Quite a few. Honestly.

When Tom Burman's big time hire, Dave Christensen (the current offensive line coach at Texas A&M) had a temper tantrum and made viewers of his infamous youtube video cringe like they were passing a quarter size kidney stone, many many people wanted to talk about Wyoming with me.

I remember conversing about how yes, he was an asshole, but he was OUR asshole. My position was and still is that Troy Calhoun is six feet of stacked bullshit and should have been dry humped to death by our big dumbfuck of a coach. But then the team kept losing games and giving up in the last half of second quarters and then again in the majority of the thirds and fourths and the only interesting thing coming out of the state at the time was Liz Cheney running for office. Most people who saw me with my Cowboys shirt or hat skipped the Wyoming banter and just asked why I wasn't wearing any pants. Apathy again.

Also, after Larry called Kobe Bryant a rapist on twitter, someone asked me if Wyoming's football program was even D1.

We're definitely on the right track though. Just takes patience and new buildings every year. Right? Running an Athletics Department is HARD.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

North Carolina's football program's overall budget is nearly twice as much as their basketball program. Does that mean they're a football school?

Considering the football team has roughly 100 athletes and 20 coaches while the basketball team has only about 15 athletes and 7 coaches I would say that analyzing the budgets would HIGHLY indicate it is a basketball school.