How is it that we seem to have such a strong booster network in basketball....

[hatfieldms]

but not nearly as strong in football? Is that more reality or perception, and if it is reality why is it?

Part of me says we have a better chance of winning a championship in basketball/baseball than in football, so part of it would make sense, but with football being the cash cow, and at the moment looking pretty bland, you would think they would want to help build that sport up to at least the max that we can.

 

[Darryl Steight]

The short version is, $2M goes a lot farther toward fielding a complete team in basketball than it does in football. It's a numbers game, so a few boosters with real money can make an impact in basketball. It takes a lot more people donating a lot more money in total in football.

Not to mention, we live in the toughest neighborhood in college football. Meaning, all our nearest competitor schools value football waaaaay more than other sports. Bama, LSU, Auburn, and OM all have for years put almost everything they have (which is considerably more than us) into football. I know LSU puts money into baseball, and Auburn boosters put money into Mater Head's cheating factory in basketball now, but that's peanuts compared to football. Add A&M, UGA, now UT and OU, and it's a tall order. We actually hold our own pretty well considering.

All of their football networks have been churning more than ours annually for decades.

Here's what always depresses me:
Bama and LSU have roughly 38k students. If a quarter graduate every year, that's 9500 new alumni each year in round numbers.
State has 22k students. So, we graduate roughly 5,500 annually. So, not only do they have more alumni (and thus more possible boosters) right now today, the gap gets wider every year. That's been happening for decades.

A&M has 73k students. UT has 52k. I won't even bother with that math.

I guess all I'm saying is, I agree that we have a much better chance in basketball or baseball. We're just in a tough spot when you look at numbers compared to our closest rivals.

 

[OopsICroomedmypants]

I have no idea, but I’d guess it’s partially due to only having a small number of basketball players VS a larger number of football players. Larger ROI for basketball.

 

[Dawgg]

Just throwing it out there as conjecture, but a football scholarship roster is 8X the size of a basketball scholarship roster, so seems like it's a little less unwieldy to get the resources for a decent basketball team.

 

[Drebin]

Just throwing it out there as conjecture, but a football scholarship roster is 8X the size of a basketball scholarship roster, so seems like it's a little less unwieldy to get the resources for a decent basketball team.

That, and I think some of the bigger donors at State prefer basketball anyway.

 

[LOTRGOTDAWGFAN]

but not nearly as strong in football? Is that more reality or perception, and if it is reality why is it?

Part of me says we have a better chance of winning a championship in basketball/baseball than in football, so part of it would make sense, but with football being the cash cow, and at the moment looking pretty bland, you would think they would want to help build that sport up to at least the max that we can.

well....... we've come pretty close to winning that natty in football, WBB, and MBB. so it can be done.

 

[Baddog11]

We actually hold our own pretty well considering.

we are one loss away from joining Nevada, Virginia, uconn & umass on the nations longest losing streak list. I wouldn’t call that “holding our own.”

 

[Darryl Steight]

we are one loss away from joining Nevada, Virginia, uconn & umass on the nations longest losing streak list. I wouldn’t call that “holding our own.”

I meant overall, as in 13 straight bowl games.

 

[blitz2Win]

Yea it’s a lot easier to turnaround basketball with Just the addition of 2-3 players can remake your whole team. Jans is obviously a good coach. the current football staff, not so much.

 

[PK Dawg]

That doesn’t really jive with our basketball program having sucked donkey dick for the better part of a decade compared to our football team being relatively competitive

 

[OG Goat Holder]

but with football being the cash cow

Basketball can be a cash cow too.

At MSU, we have a bad football culture, mediocre basketball culture, and a great baseball culture. Football has definitely gotten better over time, I think we can all agree on that. Baseball is what it is. Basketball is where we can, if done correctly, make a big leap. So we have two choices, as far as the money sports:

Option 1: Be decent in football, and try to really compete in basketball:
Option 2: Be above average in football and basketball equally;

Pros and cons to both. On one hand it may be advantageous to our fanbase to only come to 7 home football games per year, rather than 13 home basketball games (some of which are on weeknights). And God knows our fans can't be bothered during hunting season.

Perhaps one day we can be elite in both sports, but I think we all know that's not reality right now. I personally would like to see us maximize basketball, and just doing enough in football (get a niche coach in football, to make it interesting). And it's not that many more games in basketball. Student attendance also makes a bigger difference in basketball, and they are all within 10 minutes of the Hump. Then do like we've done this year, and play some neutral games and TV games during November/December when Hump attendance is typically low.

Just my thoughts. We've never really tried this all-in approach to basketball before. While the Hump may not be shiny, at least it's got a facelift, and our adjacent facilities are very good. We have all we need.

 

[Seinfeld]

but not nearly as strong in football? Is that more reality or perception, and if it is reality why is it?

Part of me says we have a better chance of winning a championship in basketball/baseball than in football, so part of it would make sense, but with football being the cash cow, and at the moment looking pretty bland, you would think they would want to help build that sport up to at least the max that we can.

Out of curiosity, is our basketball booster network truly that strong? Maybe it is, but between our dated facility, Jans being next to last in salary, and our recruiting being in the bottom third, I’m just wondering how strong it actually is

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Out of curiosity, is our basketball booster network truly that strong? Maybe it is, but between our dated facility, Jans being next to last in salary, and our recruiting being in the bottom third, I’m just wondering how strong it actually is

They haven't really had much to be excited about since Stansbury left, plus most of our booster muscle was headed to football the past decade or so. And maybe the boosters had a part of the Stansbury thing, but that's ancient history, perhaps Stricklin didn't stand up to them. The athletic department and our boosters have to all be pulling in the same direction. That's why a strategic mission statement/plan is so important for us. We can't just say, "We want to support our student athletes in all endeavors", that gets us nowhere and leads to a bunch of mediocrity.

I promise you we have the guys in basketball to get us there, there is a good heartbeat among our loyal basketball people. They just need the AD, students and other casual fans to help them out and do their part. Why spend money if they don't think the commitment from others isn't there? Especially in this day and age where everyone can sit down in the same room and talk about money without the NCAA sniffing around.

 

[Darryl Steight]

They haven't really had much to be excited about since Stansbury left, plus most of our booster muscle was headed to football the past decade or so. And maybe the boosters had a part of the Stansbury thing, but that's ancient history, perhaps Stricklin didn't stand up to them. The athletic department and our boosters have to all be pulling in the same direction. That's why a strategic mission statement/plan is so important for us. We can't just say, "We want to support our student athletes in all endeavors", that gets us nowhere and leads to a bunch of mediocrity.

I promise you we have the guys in basketball to get us there, there is a good heartbeat among our loyal basketball people. They just need the AD, students and other casual fans to help them out and do their part. Why spend money if they don't think the commitment from others isn't there? Especially in this day and age where everyone can sit down in the same room and talk about money without the NCAA sniffing around.

Not to go into detail, but don't forget we had some of our largest basketball boosters jump ship, or at least sit on the sidelines, for the entire Rick Ray era. They slowly came back during the Howland era, although it was a painfully slow recovery on and off the court. Like you said, they wanted to see something positive, and we didn't really have that until last year when we hired Jans.

 

[Seinfeld]

That's why a strategic mission statement/plan is so important for us. We can't just say, "We want to support our student athletes in all endeavors", that gets us nowhere and leads to a bunch of mediocrity.

It’s interesting that you bring this up because I was just thinking earlier this week how it’s now been 9 months since Selmon took over as AD, and I’m not sure that I’ve seen or heard anything regarding the future of MSU sports.

To me, the absolute minimum expectation of a first year AD should be a 5-year vision statement within the first 12 months. Even if it’s just a statement that we’re sticking with the prior plan, fans and donors need something to know where we’re headed. It’s been way too quiet on that front for me

 

[DawgatAuburn]

The short version is, $2M goes a lot farther toward fielding a complete team in basketball than it does in football. It's a numbers game, so a few boosters with real money can make an impact in basketball. It takes a lot more people donating a lot more money in total in football.

Not to mention, we live in the toughest neighborhood in college football. Meaning, all our nearest competitor schools value football waaaaay more than other sports. Bama, LSU, Auburn, and OM all have for years put almost everything they have (which is considerably more than us) into football. I know LSU puts money into baseball, and Auburn boosters put money into Mater Head's cheating factory in basketball now, but that's peanuts compared to football. Add A&M, UGA, now UT and OU, and it's a tall order. We actually hold our own pretty well considering.

All of their football networks have been churning more than ours annually for decades.

Here's what always depresses me:
Bama and LSU have roughly 38k students. If a quarter graduate every year, that's 9500 new alumni each year in round numbers.
State has 22k students. So, we graduate roughly 5,500 annually. So, not only do they have more alumni (and thus more possible boosters) right now today, the gap gets wider every year. That's been happening for decades.

A&M has 73k students. UT has 52k. I won't even bother with that math.

I guess all I'm saying is, I agree that we have a much better chance in basketball or baseball. We're just in a tough spot when you look at numbers compared to our closest rivals.

Your point is valid, that they have more students and thus more alums. But it's a little high on projected graduation numbers.

For example, Bama graduated:
1,650 in Dec 2022 (https://news.ua.edu/2022/10/bring-out-the-cap-and-gown-graduation-is-dec-10/)
5,700 in May 2023 (https://www.tuscaloosanews.com/stor...university-of-alabama-graduation/70187286007/)
750 in August 2023 (https://news.ua.edu/2023/05/ua-to-hold-summer-commencement-aug-5/)
8,100ish not 9500.

Fear not though, Bama makes up for it in sidewalk fans and boosters, a number in which they are undoubtedly in the top five in America along with Notre Dame and LSU.

 

[StateCollege]

well....... we've come pretty close to winning that natty in football, WBB, and MBB. so it can be done.

We have not come pretty close to winning a national championship in football

 

[OG Goat Holder]

We have not come pretty close to winning a national championship in football

Agreed, not even close. Best talent in the modern era (last 25 years) was 1999, 2000, 2014 and 2018. We could see the mountaintop but were still miles away.

1996 basketball was much closer. I'd even say 2004 basketball was more of a national title caliber team than any of our football teams. And we all know about the women, shame we don't have a title there.

 

[Pilgrimdawg]

We have not come pretty close to winning a national championship in football

1941

 

[mcfly.sixpack]

Not to go into detail, but don't forget we had some of our largest basketball boosters jump ship, or at least sit on the sidelines, for the entire Rick Ray era. They slowly came back during the Howland era, although it was a painfully slow recovery on and off the court. Like you said, they wanted to see something positive, and we didn't really have that until last year when we hired Jans.

We had one major booster that wanted to retain Stans. It didn’t happen then we hired Ray. Said booster reached out to Ray, was frankly disrespected and was not involved during the Ray tenure. Fire Ray hire Howland. Booster became close to Howland and got back involved. Program brought out of the depths of hell. Unfortunately Howland didn’t work out like we wanted and Howland fired. Hire Jans. Booster still supporting program but bummed his friend fire but ok with Jans. Jans has a good first year. And hump gets funded.