In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 760
Online now 877 Record: 6507 (2/14/2012)
The place for Irish fans to engage in hardcore discussion about Notre Dame athletics
Talk with Irish fans from around the globe about college football's most storied program
The spot for anything on your mind outside of Notre Dame athletics
The place for Notre Dame fans to trade and exchange tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I found this on "Rock's House" on the ND Nation board. From a basketball website, a poster found this:
In terms of financial commitment toward basketball, this year, Notre Dame ($4.4 million) ranked 13th of 15 Big East teams (ahead of Rutgers and South Florida.)
Next year, Notre Dame would be essentially be tied for 13th of 15 teams (ahead of NC State and $3,000 more than Clemson)
If Notre Dame bumped up to $7 million, there would only be 3-4 teams ahead of it in the ACC.
Louisville and Duke are both over $13 million with Syracuse around $7.5 million.
Now, money can't buy effort, which at times seemed lacking in the tourney game against Iowa State, and it's not the end-all, be-all toward success. I'm just posting this because it kind of speaks to how and why ND is sometimes just perceived as not as totally committed to the men's basketball program the way it is in football, whereas a Duke will spare no expense toward basketball.
Before the Iowa State game, we had some conversation along these very
lines as in "ND needs to say that our goal is to have a program like
Duke's." After the Iowa State game, I posted that while I think Brey needs
to do some soul searching, the main problem is the University's lack of
commitment to making ND men's basketball a serious contender, as
in "in the hunt for" conference championships and even, God forbid,
"in the hunt for a final four appearance." I was disappointed that Mike
Brey's post game comments were to the effect that he "has to find a
way to compete enough to get a NCAA bid" as opposed to "our goal
is to win the ACC title and challenge for the final four."
My contention is that the University has not made a commitment
to big time college basketball and that, more than Mike's seeming
inability to inspire our players to play with grit and intensity in the
NCAAs, such lack of commitment is the root problem. Since his arrival,
Mike has done wonders so that now, we are expected to get a bid.
Quite a contrast to our plight in the nineties and Mike deserves high,
very high marks for the job he has done.
But, alas, as you said in another thread, he seems to have reached
a plateau with his program that will only become worse as we move
forward in the ACC, with blue bloods Duke and Carolina always
present and the rest of a tradition rich basketball conference lurking
in the wings.
Now, comes your post and it speaks volumes.
This post was edited by hemy 13 months ago
In a word: No. There are very few NCAA basketball teams - and their sometimes loosely-affiliated academic programs - who require the same level of intellectual capacity as universities like Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, and yes, Notre Dame.
There are lots, and lots and lots of high school students who excel at sports and couldn't care less about going to class. I'm not debasing them personally, but folks are just built differently. Some want a degree from a prestigious university while playing big time college basketball (or football) and some just want to coast between high school graduation and draft day. And with the "one and done" rule in full effect (not likin' that rule, are ya' Kentucky?), many of those players don't have to take "real" classes, either. At South Bend, that won't fly.
Duke doesn't spend much on their football team, so is that why it's not considered a powerhouse? No. Let's be clear: everybody knows Duke is a basketball school; and everybody knows Notre Dame is a football school. Both have been considered legendary programs for decades. But on a yearly basis, very few people talk seriously about Duke winning the FBS National Championship, and very few (if any) entertain the notion that Notre Dame will win the NCAA Championship. But the reverse is usually true (except for the inconsistency of Notre Dame football prior to Brian Kelly's arrival). In basketball, Notre Dame is slightly more dangerous than Duke is in football; and that's not saying very much.
But there are lots of questions. What would more money actually purchase? Better facilities? HIgher coaching salaries? Better uniforms (yes, please)? More travel when recruiting? A larger recruiting staff? How, exactly, would the Notre Dame basketball program be improved through increased levels of spending?
Answer those questions. Prove to me, empirically, that more money equals more wins and I'll bite. At any rate, I'll continue to root for the Irish, whatever they spend. Just burn those uniforms ... please.
Bleeds, there is no way to provide empirical proof. If money alone was a guarantee to success, more schools would do it. However, if everyone did it, then you've diluted the sampling, and some will succeed and some will fail, just as they currently do. However, let me offer one example from Notre Dame's experience that suggests the possibility improvement can be tied to increased program expenditures. Until the late 60's, Notre Dame played in an antiquated and dilapidated field house, full of charm for fans, but completely lacking in appeal for recruits. The team was marginally and sporadically successful. When the commitment was made to build a new complex (then known as the Athletic and Convocation Center) with the promise of its opening game to be against UCLA with Lew Alcindor, as Kareem was known then, the program lured what might have been its strongest recruiting class in the past fifty years, perhaps rivaled only by the Tripucka-Jackson-Woolridge haul. The program prospered, and was soon able to attract a charismatic and ambitious young coach, Digger Phelps, who led the Irish to heights it has not since attained. However, no further investment was made, other programs surpassed the Irish in their commitment to basketball and the Big East emerged. Notre Dame has been stuck in that plateau ever since. Now, the landscape has changed. Is is still possible to provide that kind of program stimulus through financial investment? I believe it is. Notre Dame has a certain cachet which is going to be attractive to a broad range of basketball recruits, though certainly not those only using college as a way station on their way to the NBA. But, that cachet is not enough. I believe ND could make itself more attractive to recruits if they felt that the school was truly invested in winning. Right now, its fans aren't even convinced of that.
I may not be pretty, but I'm fast.....
POTW 1/31/11 - 2/6/11
Two time Poster of The Week, 2011 and 2013.
So are you guys saying that an increase to 7 million a year would fund a new practice facility? If not, what else would the extra funds go to? I think the biggest issue the Irish have faced in the past several years is having a team of a bunch of quiet, nice guys. Most every successful team has two or three individuals who have a competitive fire that burns so intense in their belly that it consumes them when on the court. Other than chris quinn and ben hansburough(sp) and maybe one or two others.....I cant remember where others were made better because of this type of leadership. We need to recruit more grinders that wont except failure. Leaders who set the standard in effort and expections to win.
It's easy to joke about having Muffet McGraw as the head coach ... but you need the stallions, or in her case the mares.
You win with big-time players first — and one has to be recruited every year. Skylar Diggins, was a top-3 recruit, Kayla McBride a McDonald's All-American, Jewell Loyd the No. 4 ranked player (and No. 1 shooting guard), incoming freshman Taya Reimer is the the McDonald's Player of the Year, and incoming guard Lindsay Allen also is a McDonald's All-American.
Notre Dame men get one about 7 to 10 years. In the glory years of the 1970s, it landed a top-10 to 25 player every year: Adrian Dantley (1973), Duck Williams or Dave Batton (1974), Bill Laimbeer (1975), Rich Branning (1976), Tracy Jackson or Kelly Tripucka (1977), and interspersed them with top "sleepers" like Orlando Woolrdige or Bill Hanzlik.
As Frank Leahy used to say, "Prayers work better when your players are bigger, stronger and faster."
"AMEN" to that.
You stated: "In the glory years of the 1970s, ND landed a top-10 to 25 player
every year...." So, the question obviously becomes, can we ever achieve that
again? The issue, in my mind, is whether the university is willing to first, ask
the question and depending upon what the answer is, implement the changes
necessary to enable Mike Brey to "bring in such a player every year." Is the
answer more money?; a new practice facility?; a willingness to let Brey, a la
Duke, bring in an occasional player who otherwise might not be admitted to
Or, is the university content with the present plateau that Mike has
brought us to? Now, by that I in no way mean to demean Mike--without
his coaching, his personality, etc. we would not be NCAA Tournament regulars
but, would be more like we were in the '90s and like Depaul seems to be
today. No sir; Mike's done a fabulous job.
But, if in truth he has reached a plateau (which you suggested in
another thread and I think you're spot-on), and if the plateau, in
simplistic terms, can be expressed as "play well in the conference
during the regular season, create a magical 'ND moment' once in
a while, earn a NCAA bid, but fall flat on your face in conference
tournment and NCAA play each year", is that it?
If that's it, that's it. But, I suppose I'm hoping against hope that
the university, beginning with Jack Swarbrick, asks the question,
appreciates the answers and implements some plan to create
the culture where Mike Brey can lead us to greater heights.
Lou, it's a tough sell for ND right now, but only to the extent that we accept the status quo as a given. You know I don't. We resign ourselves that we can't be Duke, and then seemingly accept the present situation as the only alternative. If you take a look at college basketball right now, there really aren't the kind of big-time players that can change a program's momentum in an instant. Would ND be out of the hunt for Zeller or Creighton's McDermott or Gonzaga's Olynyk? Or how about Indiana's Oladpio, a DeMatha grad who was ranked around 40th best shooting guard. I have no idea whether any of these players would qualify nor if they would have any interest regardless how the ND program might be configured, but that's not my point. These are the kinds of players ND can recruit. Right now, Louisville is a deserving favorite in the Big Dance, though clearly it's up for grabs. Smith, Siva and Dieng are a great nucleus, but ultimately their success will hinge on how they perform as a team. Their tenacity reflects their coach. They play with a hunger I've only rarely seen at Notre Dame in the past dozen or so years. The closest I've seen is when Hansborough was on the scene. That's the kind of difference maker this program needs. I don't know how you identify them, or how you recruit them, but it would probably start by featuring a team that plays with a sense of urgency, reflective of its coach's style and personality. So, when you say we need "stallions," I would offer a tepid endorsement. Frankly, I'd prefer a team of no-names who give you forty minutes like each one was their last, and when you looked on the sidelines, you saw the measured intensity in the eyes of a man who could fuel that.
I'd like to see Shaka Smart on the sidelines to see how things would change.
3 time POTW;
Hopefully Mike and Jack will get together and keep the ball moving in the right direction.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports