Men's Soccer: Sound Familiar?

[yorost]

-Also, not sure the soccer/volleyball thing will be too important... all things being equal among candidates, it might provide a general idea of the strength of a school's athletic department. I know your AD mentioned it, but volleyball can't possibly have any real bearing on expansion though, can it? Anymore than women's cross-country?

It could, if you're evaluating overall commitment by an athletic department all sports matter. No specific other sport might matter to the conference, just that they're finding schools that will care to support teams. Any time a school can make news from athletic success they get positive PR. I know Marquette volleyball and soccer have been in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel this year. No it doesn't count so much as a program relative to basketball, but you do want partners that are willing to try to be successful so that you can sustain success. The better conferences succeed across many sports, to forsake all in the name of basketball could be detrimental to the health of the new conference. Probably not in this case, though, we know their choices are so limited it won't make a huge difference who they pick. If some school had nothing good but basketball they might get hurt, but it doesn't look like that's the case.

[billyjack]

-Also, not sure the soccer/volleyball thing will be too important... all things being equal among candidates, it might provide a general idea of the strength of a school's athletic department. I know your AD mentioned it, but volleyball can't possibly have any real bearing on expansion though, can it? Anymore than women's cross-country?

It could, if you're evaluating overall commitment by an athletic department all sports matter. No specific other sport might matter to the conference, just that they're finding schools that will care to support teams. Any time a school can make news from athletic success they get positive PR. I know Marquette volleyball and soccer have been in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel this year. No it doesn't count so much as a program relative to basketball, but you do want partners that are willing to try to be successful so that you can sustain success. The better conferences succeed across many sports, to forsake all in the name of basketball could be detrimental to the health of the new conference. Probably not in this case, though, we know their choices are so limited it won't make a huge difference who they pick. If some school had nothing good but basketball they might get hurt, but it doesn't look like that's the case.

Right, I agree in the way you described it.

[QueRico]

While this is driven by men's basketball, the committment to the entire athletic department is part of the conversation.
For example, a Creighton would help offset the loss of a Notre Dame or a Louisville in non-revenue sports.

[Bluejay]

I know your AD mentioned it, but volleyball can't possibly have any real bearing on expansion though, can it? Anymore than women's cross-country?

I'd think that Volleyball would be much higher in the pecking order than cross country! Volleyball actually generates some revenues for some schools (although still looses money overall), while cross country generates zippo everywhere. Or stated differently, Volleyball doesn't lose as much money as cross country.

I like to classify college sports into three revenue categories: (1) Money makers (men's basketball and football); (2) Sports that attract spectators and could potentially break even or have minimal financial losses at some places (Women's basketball, volleyball, soccer, baseball); and (3) Sports that attract little to no spectators (Cross country, crew, golf, tennis).

I can't help but think that when Marquette's AD made his comments, he was specifically referring to Creighton. In addition to the soccer back-to-back final fours, the volleyball team also made the NCAA tournament and won its first round match. Creighton also had women's basketball and baseball make the NCAA tourney last year too.

Obviously, nothing is as important to men's basketball for this league, but successful programs in other areas can show a financially stable athletic department that is serious about investing in its programs. I thin finding schools that are willing to invest and show a history of investment is a key factor in determining long term viability.

[whiteandblue77]

I know your AD mentioned it, but volleyball can't possibly have any real bearing on expansion though, can it? Anymore than women's cross-country?

I'd think that Volleyball would be much higher in the pecking order than cross country! Volleyball actually generates some revenues for some schools (although still looses money overall), while cross country generates zippo everywhere. Or stated differently, Volleyball doesn't lose as much money as cross country.

I like to classify college sports into three revenue categories: (1) Money makers (men's basketball and football); (2) Sports that attract spectators and could potentially break even or have minimal financial losses at some places (Women's basketball, volleyball, soccer, baseball); and (3) Sports that attract little to no spectators (Cross country, crew, golf, tennis).

I can't help but think that when Marquette's AD made his comments, he was specifically referring to Creighton. In addition to the soccer back-to-back final fours, the volleyball team also made the NCAA tournament and won its first round match. Creighton also had women's basketball and baseball make the NCAA tourney last year too.

Obviously, nothing is as important to men's basketball for this league, but successful programs in other areas can show a financially stable athletic department that is serious about investing in its programs. I thin finding schools that are willing to invest and show a history of investment is a key factor in determining long term viability.

Well Said! Now can we stop talking olympics and start talking B-Ball??

[yorost]

What exactly forces you to read threads not about basketball?