I have come up with another way to frame this that doesn’t rely on historical context.
Say all of the conference members compete in a 40 yard dash.
Gonzaga gets a 10 yard head start.
St. Mary’s gets a 5 yard head start.
BYU has no head start but is given a running start.
And everyone else starts the race at the same time with no head start.
Who do you think is going to win? And how hard do you think it would be to change that if you keep letting the teams with the advantages make the rules?
I really do get what you’re saying. But a couple of counters:
I think we actually agree that there are ways in which Gonzaga’s presence does hold conference members back. We had those discussions before you joined the board. I think our only disagreements are (a) how much it should really change fans’ expectations of what SCU can reasonably achieve given its resources–I say rather little, you think more; and (b) the utility of lamenting the Zags’ presence. I don’t mean to knock some good ol’ complaining about the unchangeable–that’s what the board is for. But I do think that we need to have expectations for SCU’s program that take for granted that the Zags are not leaving. See disagreement (a), but I just don’t buy that SCU needs the Zags to leave to grow into an NIT team. In their best years recently, USF or Pepperdine looked like teams ready to really build to lasting success. To the extent that they have not, recruiting, transfers, and coaching have all played roles–the presence of the Zags does not seem to have been a factor in why say, USF finished tied for 2nd at one point under Walters and went to the NIT but hasn’t broken through that ceiling since.
And while there are examples of other teams taking advantage of a vacuum left behind when a great program jumps conferences, it just strikes me as both wishcasting (because again, the Zags aren’t leaving) and maybe cherry-picking a bit. Aren’t there many, many more examples of teams that are in the upper part of their low-major conferences but never make the leap? Valpo had some good years but faded. Wofford is a legitimately good basketball team, but they ain’t Butler even after a decade of success. Pacific was pretty dominant in the Big West (now UC Irvine). Pacific has only just gotten competitive in the WCC, and UC Irvine, while plenty good generally, is hardly an NCAA darling.
The 40-yard dash example depends on when you decide to start the race. Start it anywhere in the 50s through 70s, and everyone is thinking, “we’ll never be able to catch up to USF!” Start it in the early 2000s and Pepperdine looks like the up-and-coming WCC power, a few lucky strokes from Gonzaga notwithstanding. The Zags have been dominant since Olynyk, but that’s kind of a flash in the pan–do we really think that in a year where Duke can barely make the tourney, that Gonzaga is destined to be a near-perfect team forever? I don’t. They are the best team by far right now. But again, that’s not preordained. In 2011, it looked like we would be awarding Alabama football the national championship in perpetuity. Then other programs developed alongside the Crimson Tide. History doesn’t favor dynasties.
SCU has everything it needs to build a competitive program. That it hasn’t yet has maybe a little to do with Gonzaga sucking up a lot of oxygen in the conference (we agree there), but I think that’s a much more marginal issue than you seem to.
There’s a lot there. Really too much to tackle. I’ll pick what sticks out.
But the reason I picked the MWC is bc there are few examples of teams dominating conferences anywhere near the extent Gonzaga has the WCC over an extended period. The MWC has two, 3 depending on what you do with Valpo (they were only in the league 10 years). Valpo got a big head and moved to the valley when they weren’t ready. That’s why they faded. But Gonzaga isn’t just dominant, they are historically dominant.
Butler is an interesting story bc Collier actually composed a sort of roadmap for Butler to become competitive when he interviewed for the job. And for a long time it didn’t seem like he would get there. But when Xavier left, the opportunity was there. Then Collier moved to Nebraska, which was a colossal mistake. But Collier probably didn’t have much time left when the MWC defections gave him a lifeline.
“In their best years recently, USF or Pepperdine looked like teams ready to really build to lasting success.”
And then they didn’t. And with the top of the league as it is, that’s probably how it’ll be for everyone. Ups and downs. Some with more ups than downs, others the opposite. And only rarely if ever able to break into the top echelon.
If Duke played in the WCC and Gonzaga didn’t, Duke would be in the tournament. For sure. So even if Gonzaga isn’t near perfect forever, they can still be plenty good enough to win or finish a strong 2nd in the WCC.
Alabama has played in the national title game 8 times in the last 11 years. They are probably the most consistently competitive at the top any college football program has been since 1900.
If you can tell me how SCU can match the media, recruiting, resources, etc. of Gonzaga and BYU, maybe I’ll change my mind. But until then, yeah I definitely do think it’s more than a marginal issue, and I think history elsewhere shows that.
Maybe you’re willing to wait another 20 years when Few retires (maybe), and hope they make the wrong hire?
If we are having these conversations and have been for some time, you can imagine people actually involved in athletics for conference members are too.
From the current moment, it may feel like SMC, BYU and GU have a massive head start in a hundred yard dash. There’s truth to the analogy. Program building, though, also resembles a marathon, or some longer-form endeavor.
What Patty is referencing, and what I think resonates deeply with a lot of the long-time fans here is that circa 1990, SCU had a pretty large head-start on Gonzaga and SMC, in terms of resource, prestige, location and facility (BYU was not around yet, for our purposes, but as you mention, they had a strong foundation). The manner in which Santa Clara has squandered that head start between 1990 and now is an absolute disaster. I think what we are all debating is- is it reversible, and if so, how?
Gonzaga and BYU leaving would make it more likely that SCU could get the autobid, by way of reduced competition. I think it is unlikely to come to pass, absent a massive re-alignment, in which case SCU could in all likelihood be on the outside looking in…
You mention the MVC, Horizon, etc. They are similar in some ways to the WCC, but none of their dominant teams ever won the NCAA title. It appears GU could very well do so. I wonder what that might mean for the stature of the WCC…
To me, the best case is that the WCC becomes a perennial 3 and occasional 4 bid league with 12 or 14 members (GCU and who knows who else… heck, give me Oral Roberts. Seattle, Denver, and other proposed teams all seem like dead weight).
I doubt GU and BYU go anywhere. So the best case is a higher profile for the WCC, and I think a GU National Title could help that… at least I hope.
What did it do for the PCAA when unlv did? Not a lot.
+1 to what Nashty said.
I’d even go as far as saying there’s a reasonable argument to be made that Gonzaga is the best thing that has happened to the conference in the last 25 years. It has elevated the profile, raised the conference RPI/NET/fill in your preferred ranking system, increased bids, helped with recruiting, and pushed a few schools with facilities. Personally I’d rather be part of a better conference than a one bid league. However, that assumes that you believe multiple bids are possible every year, and more than just BYU in addition to the Zags.
How much of our inability to make the tourney is due to Gonzaga’s presence? Very little, imo. We haven’t done better than 4th place in the last 15 or so years under Keating and Sendek. And I’m not saying this to bash Sendek or make a comparison because it’s obvious that there is some improvement. Still, we have a sub .500 record under both coaches in conference play. That’s not going to get us to the tourney regardless of Gonzaga being in the conference or not. Remove two losses, it’s still not sufficient. If anyone should be frustrated it’s St. Mary’s, but I think the Zags have helped their profile too. Sure, maybe we would have run the tourney once in the last 20 years without the Zags, but we haven’t put ourselves in that position to even really make that argument. This is about expectations and what seems reasonable for the program. Going back decades, there is no reason at all to believe we should be at a disadvantage or that we’re starting behind.
If you’re Oregon State or Washington State, you could argue it is impossible to make the tourney for similar reasons in the PAC 12, but they still have. Would they be better off in another league or having Oregon and Arizona leave? Virginia won a National championship despite Duke. It’s about coaching. The Zags built their program and most of us watched it happen over time. Not going to hate on them for that. It’s admirable and I’m hopeful we can trend that direction. I know that may be considered treasonous by some, but I would imagine many SCU fans see a future where we can close that gap and leverage the positives instead of waiting for the Zags to somehow implode.
I broadly agree with Nashty, Pickman, and Patty here on what we should be expecting out of both the SCU and the WCC at large. SCU spends the third most on men’s basketball in the WCC. Yes, Gonzaga spends double and BYU spends 2 million more but out of the rest we lead the pack. That has not been the case at SCU until very recently. I guess, this is to say that there is a leash and understanding that we aren’t going to the dance year after year but expectations should heightened here and the WCC is not and should not be a 1 bid league ever again. Gonzaga and BYU aren’t leaving and we should at least plan to compete with them instead of moaning their existence in the league. You can clearly build at large teams on 5 million dollar budgets, that we haven’t is a legitimate topic of conversation. Finally, we’ve talked a lot about tiny leagues (Horizon, Missouri Valley, etc) acting as springboards in this thread. The WCC is past that point by a longshot and we have to play the cards we’re dealt. We’re in the Mountain West/A-10/American tier of conferences.
Financial data for 2020
| National Rank | School Name | Basketball Spending |
|---|---|---|
| 27 | Gonzaga | 10,500,000 |
| 69 | BYU | 7,450,000 |
| 102 | Santa Clara | 4,450,000 |
| 104 | St. Mary’s | 4,400,000 |
| 110 | LMU | 4,140,000 |
| 111 | USF | 4,070,000 |
| 113 | Pepperdine | 3,975,000 |
| 121 | Portland | 3,600,000 |
| 142 | Pacific | 3,180,000 |
| 145 | San Diego | 3,120,000 |
MWC for scale:
| 88 | UNLV | 5,795,483 |
|---|---|---|
| 89 | San Diego St. | 5,786,034 |
| 100 | Nevada | 4,706,010 |
| 103 | Colorado St. | 4,415,218 |
| 107 | Utah St. | 4,250,996 |
| 109 | New Mexico | 4,206,654 |
| 119 | Boise St. | 3,678,140 |
| 120 | Fresno St. | 3,642,878 |
| 131 | Wyoming | 3,329,650 |
| 227 | San Jose St. | 2,035,793 |
League by league averages:
link to check my numbers: Fun with Finances: Basketball Budgets — Three-Man-Weave
Oregon state wouldn’t have made the tournament in the wcc bc they wouldn’t have won the conference tournament. Perfect example.
Gonzaga didn’t make this a multi bid league. St Mary’s and byu and their cheating did. Byu has the strength to sustain it (and 21 year freshmen help). I am not sure smc does without access to their shady pipeline. But Gonzaga has really nothing to do with any of that.
The problem with going back decades is you can’t. No one has invented a time machine.
So to answer the question of when does the race start, the answer is now or it already has. You certainly cant go back and start the race from when steve nash was a freshman. That’s over. That chance is blown, and that reality long gone.
Yes, absolutely oregon state would be better off in a different league from oregon. Witness Texas A&M going to the SEC and getting out from under texas.
Virginia spent like 200 million dollars or something to give themselves a chance. No one was ever having that chance before that happened.
Gonzaga isnt going to implode anytime soon. So if you’re waiting for that you will be waiting a long time. It would be better for the rest of the league to help them find a league more suitable for them in this current reality, not the one that used to exist. There isnt going to be a 3rd conference power in the wcc. It’s just not going to happen. So until something changes, its gonzaga, then byu, then everyone else.
Lol the mwc was not a tiny league at all.
Yall get some kind of ego boost from the wcc getting better but it isnt like it has mattered for scu. I dont agree that the wcc is in that tier bc it’s not as competitive. It’s like saying san Francisco is competitive politically bc they have the speaker of the house.
If you dont think 2 million dollars matters, give me 2 million dollars and I’ll be happy to take it even though it doesn’t matter.
Your chart really just crystallizes what I’m talking about. Everyone is at something close to the same level except those 2.
I don’t think its unreasonable to look at a chart where it says SCU spends equivalent to Colorado State, (NIT Bid), Utah State (at large bid), Boise State (First Four Out), Nevada (Sweet 16 3 years ago) and ask whats holding us back from that level of basketball.
So 1 year you think makes up for 20 years of neglect?
Not to mention those are all state schools. I imagine it helps when you can ding the taxpayers for things when you need them.
Also, just awareness and brand recognition. The only reason scu has any at all is steve nash, and that does still matter even though it was forever ago, but it matters less than it should have say 3-10 years after he went to the nba.
And like it or not, the mtn west has a better perception than wcc aside from the top 2.
If we look at spending starting in 2016, Santa Clara was spending the 4th most in the WCC, equivalent to many of the Mountain West Programs that have earned at large bids over the past 5 years.
2016
Santa Clara - 3.9 Million
New Mexico - 4.1 M
UNR -3.4 M
Utah State - 3.2 M
Colorado St -4.5 m
data source: How much money does your college basketball team spend on its program? - Mid-Major Madness
I agree! We’re not relevant! Not winning doesn’t solve that issue. Going to the Big West definitely doesn’t solve that issue. Pushing Gonzaga to leave the WCC to go to the Pac 12 doesn’t solve that issue. Only winning solves that issue. We’re clearly investing more. That logically portends that we should be expecting some sort of return.
Rednwhite-IDK if you’ve resurrected under a new name, but thanks for the numbers and your comments. I’m forever pollyannish about the Broncos, particularly when they’re not playing. But I think they’re moving in the right direction. Next year will be very interesting to see the first fruits of the new facility and the impact of Stewart and Knapper. ( I hope Stewart stays committed…seems like the best grab for SCU since Brian Jones, who would have been an NBA level talent if he hadn’t got cheap-shotted by a Warrior bench rider a couple of decades ago). Does anyone know whether Caruso is gone? Also board admin, thanks much for this new platform!
Lol getting rid of Gonzaga would definitely help that issue. I feel like I have made that pretty clear.
The mwc has football and so every other program drafts off the brand recognition boost from that as well. Thet doesn’t come out on a basketball budget. There are also items paid for out of athletic department funds that benefit basketball as well as other programs at bigger schools.
As usual, 1 attribute is pretty insufficient for telling the story.
Thanks bootjack! I was around on the old (2 websites ago…) board as a student and kind of drifted away when i left the area. I agree! That old optimism (decent recruiting/new facility) is whats pushing me to be more active.
Howie, yeah UNLV’s national relevance in checks notes football is what is driving the MWC’s national reputation in basketball. Not to go all Rumsfield on us but how much football impacts basketball outcomes is a known unknown. Neither of us can prove the total impact. You think its a big part and I am much more skeptical.
My takeaway from the spending stats is that our results per dollar is pretty dang bad.
Like many are hinting, there seems to be reason to be optimistic for the future, I suppose.
I have a hard time drawing too much out of a year like this, or being too critical, given the myriad of issues faced. But if the Broncos are .500 or so next year, I don’t think there will be much optimism remaining…
TreyWertzisaDougNoobHowie, it seems that you are stuck on the anti-Zags train and have understated their effect and achievements as a result. You argued years back they’d get booted early and they made the national championship game that year. You hated on St. Mary’s and they had a nice run. It’s weird not to acknowledge their achievements since the record is a fact. What you seem to have clearly acknowledged though is that Few is primarily responsible for the turnaround. So, where is coaching in all of this argument about expectations for the league and teams, including ours? Virginia stunk before Tony Bennett. Ten years under .500 in conference except for one in the early 2000s. Ten years of solid conference record since. That has very little if anything to do with the competition. It has to do with the coaching and commitment to hoops. That’s all anyone here seems to be saying. The resources have increased. I think any fan should be happy with that. In all fairness, the basketball culture here seems to have completed eroded after a decade of neglect, which is sad for any of us as fans. You included, I think. That will turn around with winning. That can happen with or without Gonzaga.
Maybe not unlv, but the mountain west in general and some of those schools in specific? 100% it does.
We were. 600 this year, weren’t we? Under the most adverse conditions any program has faced in a long time. For the wcc, probably since Loyola and gathers (not comparing, just saying that’s the most recent worse thing).
