Goestenkors accepts Texas' offer

[RPS]

yes, wbb is the same as every other nonrevenue sport at duke in that nationally, nobody cares about them, only a tiny de minimus part of current students and alums care about them and they lose money. it's simply reality. if you can't recognize that, then i don't know what to say.

I think you're missing some significant points. Sports at major universities is not primarily about money, even for the so-called "revenue" sports. The primary purpose of intercollegiate sports is branding, marketing, publicity and recruiting. The object is (a) alums and the money they can give, and (b) prospective students. Alumni giving goes up when Duke teams do well and it isn't coincidental that Duke's rise up the rankings charts (e.g., US News) correlated with the growing success of men's hoops.

So far, I don't expect much disagreement. But WBB is a special case in comparison to other "non-revenue" sports. Firstly, the success of both men's and women's BB has given Duke a real and valuable basketball "franchise." Secondly, consistent exposure on ESPN gives WBB much more impact than other non-revenue sports. Thirdly, basketball is the leading women's sport at the collegiate level, giving it extra importance. Moreover, for a school which aspires to overall greatness along with diversity and equality, being perceived as not willing or able to keep its own top-flight coach in the highest profile women's sport sends a very negative message.

These problems aren't insurmountable. A great hire should minimize the damage and could conceivably be a long-term benefit (JA's track record in this area notwithstanding). But Duke had the clear #1 college hoops franchise overall. That status is in jeopardy now (and in a year the men's program is down a bit to boot). I don't think that's at all a good thing and should have been avoided if at all possible, even at the cost of some red ink (since the value of sports programs is intangible and exceedingly difficult to measure anyway).

it means that duke should not be paying $1MM a year for a coach in a nonrevenue sport. name one other coach at duke from a nonrevenue sports who makes within $500K of $1MM. if the soccer or tennis coach wanted $1MM a year, i would want him to take a hike as well.

If those sports had the exposure or the prominence of WBB you'd have a point.

market value for an acc wbb coach WITH a nc is about $300K -- not $1MM.

That's not the relevant market, especially for a school which aspires to be #1 overall.

[devildownunder]

Hi,

You wrote, "I think there is a good chance that wbball will post a year in the black sooner than men's hoops." I think you meant football not men's hoops. If that was the case, you can go back in the post and edit it, there is an edit feature. If it was what you meant, I am not sure I understand.

Going on the edit I made as what I thought you did mean. I thought I said somewhere in this thread that I would like football to be enough in the black to help out the rest of our sports more. I thought, perhaps I am mistaken, that it is actually in the black given the pooled ACC revenues, ie getting our butts kicked on tv in a full stadium in Miami actually makes money for the athletic department. If the team plays somewhere, win or lose does not seem to be the main issue, it is how filled is the stadium and if it is on tv so much the better. Furthermore, if VaTech, for example, goes to a great bowl game Duke gets part of that money, so there are pooled resources there too. Since the money making mechanism is already in place and important to the conference as a whole, I would think it is easier to tap into it. WBB is somewhat charting new territory given that only three or four programs in the whole nation, even those with full stadiums and often on tv, are in the black. It does not mean that in the future it will always be that way.

Bottom line. I woud like to see WBB get the best coach for the program. However, I want it to be fiscally responsible. Paying a million dollars, for example, for a coach, any coach, is not warranted yet. In football, given its possible revenue stream--just ask Cal and other schools that are back to having good teams from years of mediocrity--I would advocate paying whatever we can, even if it is over a million dollars for the best coach we can get and if he leaves after a few years, so what, he has hopefully moved the team forward. Then hire the next coach with the same ideals in mind, and so and so forth. I wrote a thread about how Duke seems to look at coaches as people who should be there for a career, I don't think that is the way to do it at all. Coach K is a special case. I think it is a bad idea to keep looking for the next Coach K, in terms of longevity at a program, because he is probably not out there anymore.

GO DUKE!

Kewlswim,

First, thanks for pionting out my mistake in the earlier post. My bad! That was a big gaffe that must have confused a lot of people. It's fixed now.

Second, after seeing the post from you that I have quoted and several from dukie8 I think the major difference in the points of view is priority. My priority is winning in the department's programs that I care most about (basketball - men's and women's, football would be nice but don't really care). By contrast, you and dukie8 seem to be more concerned about fiscal responsibility.

My question to you both, then, is how important is fiscal responsibility for the athletic program? How much would the nonrevenue programs suffer if duke did pour money into w-bball and it never became self-sustaining? If it operated at a small loss but were highly successful on the court would the prestige and alumni appeal eventually outweigh the losses and result in more funds for the more obscure sports? Does the athletic program as a whole need to make money to remain strong or is it pretty much accepted that it must be subsidized in some way?

I don't have answers to these questions and I don't know who around DBR does. I hope there is someone here who can speak intelligently on these topics; I'd like to hear what they'd have to say.

The question of whether it's worth it to spend top dollar on women's hoops is a slam-dunk for me. I'm a fan of the team and don't care what it costs as long as they win. But the question of whether it's smart of Duke athletics, as a whole, to spend that kind of money on w-bball is a different one. If it's true that Duke has to show restraint on women's bball for the sake of the entire athletic program (a notion I'm not sold on in any sense) then I can at least understand why others here support the move. However, if w-bball's balance sheet doesn't really matter to the success of the department as a whole then the fiscal side of things is probably just a rationalisation for the bashing of w-bball by people who can't stand it anyway.

That would be unfortunate.


Btw, for the record, I have no animosity toward football. the game was my first love in sports and I am still a huge fan. I simply have allengiances to other teams in that sport that pre-date any interest I had in Duke athletics. Plus, the pro game has always been more my focus. Go Redskins!

[dukie8]

I think you're missing some significant points. Sports at major universities is not primarily about money, even for the so-called "revenue" sports. The primary purpose of intercollegiate sports is branding, marketing, publicity and recruiting. The object is (a) alums and the money they can give, and (b) prospective students. Alumni giving goes up when Duke teams do well and it isn't coincidental that Duke's rise up the rankings charts (e.g., US News) correlated with the growing success of men's hoops.

i really beg to differ with what your own belief of what the purpose of an athletic department is at a university. here is the mission statement from duke's athletic department:

The University endeavors to provide a program of intercollegiate athletics from which participating students can derive all the benefits that participation in competitive sport confers. The goal of the intercollegiate program is the same as that of the University's academic programs: excellence. In this context, excellence includes commitment to the physical and emotional well-being, and social development of student-athletes as well as to the development of their sense of citizenship, dedication to sportsmanship and fair play, the development of individual and team skills, the exertion of best effort, the will to win, and general conduct that brings credit to the University and is a source of pride and enthusiasm for all members of the Duke community.

The measure of "excellence" when applied to intercollegiate athletics means also a level of performance that frequently will produce winning seasons and the realistic opportunity to compete for team or individual championships. It requires that students engaged in intercollegiate athletics be students first, that they be admitted according to this criterion, that they progress satisfactorily towards a degree, and that their attrition and graduation rates as student-athletes not be significantly different from those of non-athletes.

Duke's intercollegiate program shall be composed of nationally or regionally recognized sports that satisfy the following criteria: they meet the needs, interests, and abilities of male and female students; they provide adequate institutional collateral benefits; they reflect due regard for the athletic traditions of Duke University as well as future promise; they fall within Duke's abilities to provide appropriate facilities; they geographically allow Duke to schedule conveniently and competitively; and they fall within financial capabilities of Duke University to fund adequately.

The mission of the athletics program, ultimately, is that of Duke itself: "to engage the mind, to elevate the spirit, and stimulate the best effort of all who are associated with the University."

there is not a single word about branding, marketing, publicity or recruiting. it therefore is unfathomable that you actually believe that colleges across the country run enormous losses in their athletic departments by fielding a wide array of teams that all but a handful of people in this world care about. what is a school like williams doing fielding so many esoteric sports that do absolutely nothing in the endeavors? do you honestly believe that any non-golfer chooses duke over similar schools because the golf team is nationally ranked? if schools really only cared about what you think they care about re athletics, then they would get rid of every sport other than men's bb and football and pour every cent into making them as good as possible.

So far, I don't expect much disagreement. But WBB is a special case in comparison to other "non-revenue" sports. Firstly, the success of both men's and women's BB has given Duke a real and valuable basketball "franchise." Secondly, consistent exposure on ESPN gives WBB much more impact than other non-revenue sports. Thirdly, basketball is the leading women's sport at the collegiate level, giving it extra importance. Moreover, for a school which aspires to overall greatness along with diversity and equality, being perceived as not willing or able to keep its own top-flight coach in the highest profile women's sport sends a very negative message.

i would agree that the men's team has created a valuable basketball franchise but disagree that the women's team has done anything even remotely close to that. right off the bat, it loses $2MM a year. that's not "valuable." it also cannot sell out tiny cis for most of its games so it's safe to assume that a vast majority of the students aren't that interested in it (compare that to uconn or tenn). further, i have never heard of a single person who has attended duke because of wbb but i knew a lot of people when i was there who chose duke over its peer schools primarily because of the men's team. lastly, you may be able to try and make a very weak argument that somehow having a top women's team leads to more donations by alums (like the men's team does) but you would need to provide some hard numbers to prove that.

i'm not sure what you mean by calling wbb "the leading women's sport at the collegiate level." leading what? it definitely is the leading money loser. it isn't the leading sport by participation because it requires relatively few athletes. leading in attendance? it doesn't produce the most famous female athletes. other sports, like track and field, swimming, gymnastics and tennis produce much more famous female athletes than wbb. i'm not even sure what your point is by characterizing it as "the leading" sport. what is "the leading" men's sport? football? basketball? baseball? does it even matter?

These problems aren't insurmountable. A great hire should minimize the damage and could conceivably be a long-term benefit (JA's track record in this area notwithstanding). But Duke had the clear #1 college hoops franchise overall. That status is in jeopardy now (and in a year the men's program is down a bit to boot). I don't think that's at all a good thing and should have been avoided if at all possible, even at the cost of some red ink (since the value of sports programs is intangible and exceedingly difficult to measure anyway).

how is duke's wbb "the clear #1 college hoops franchise overall" when uconn has won multiple men's and women's ncs in the past 10 years and duke doesn't have a single women's nc? you can argue that it is one of the best or maybe even the best but you completely lose me when you proclaim it "the clear #1" one without any support.

If those sports had the exposure or the prominence of WBB you'd have a point.

the nonrevenue sports i listed have similar exposure and prominence of wbb, which is very little for all of them. however, some of the nonrevenue sports, like lax, have very wealthy and influential alums, and their value actually far exceeds that of wbb from an economic standpoint. one of the key reasons why lax was not abolished at duke was because brodhead realized that if duke ever did that it would pay for it severely with lost lax alum donations. if the lax mess had happened to, say the wrestling or track teams, it is not that much of a stretch to believe that brodhead would have completely axed the programs over it (much less powerful alums). show me some data on wbb alums who donate in size or other alums who earmark sizeable money to the wbb team and i will think otherwise. until then, these are just unsubstantiated claims that you are making.

[throatybeard]

Allow myself to quote myself:

Guys:

This thread is getting a little wild and wooly. Could we all simmer down a little, please. Thanks.

[RPS]

there is not a single word about branding, marketing, publicity or recruiting.

I wouldn't expect my (somewhat cynical) view to appear in a Mission Statement, but the purposes are real and even acknowledged. Take a look here, for example:

Duke, located in Durham, North Carolina, was a well-known regional school at the time but lacked national name recognition. Then its basketball team, under young coach Mike Krzyzewski, made it to the NCAA Final Four six times from 1986 to 1992, including two consecutive national titles. Suddenly the Duke name was all over the national media, and high school students everywhere took notice.

"We've looked at this, and there does seem to be a related pattern between the rise of the basketball program and increasing admissions in the late 1980s," says Duke director of admissions Christoph Guttentag. "It definitely increased our visibility. Now when we go to high schools in North Dakota or Nevada or wherever, the athletic reputation is part of what people know about us."

if schools really only cared about what you think they care about re athletics, then they would get rid of every sport other than men's bb and football and pour every cent into making them as good as possible.

Doing so would require that "plausible deniability" be lost. Many think that marketing a major university is unseemly somehow.

i would agree that the men's team has created a valuable basketball franchise but disagree that the women's team has done anything even remotely close to that.

I don't claim that they're close to the same level. But the idea that Duke is the basketball school has value and, in my view, a franchise worth having.

right off the bat, it loses $2MM a year. that's not "valuable."

That number in no way factors in the value of consistent and positive exposure in the national spotlight, most prominently via ESPN.

i knew a lot of people when i was there who chose duke over its peer schools primarily because of the men's team.

So even though it's not mentioned by the Mission Statement, recruiting is important after all?

lastly, you may be able to try and make a very weak argument that somehow having a top women's team leads to more donations by alums (like the men's team does) but you would need to provide some hard numbers to prove that.

That's very difficult to do because the value is largely intangible. However, McKinsey research suggests that strong, well-leveraged brands produce higher returns to shareholders than weaker, narrower brands. Business Week looks at global brand value annually (see here, for example). Taken together, this more than suggests that brands seriously impact business health and value. The analogy to universities seems obvious to me.

i'm not sure what you mean by calling wbb "the leading women's sport at the collegiate level." leading what?

It gets by far the most attention. When is the last time you saw your "other" women's college sports on SportsCenter or saw games/matches broadcast live on ESPN?

what is "the leading" men's sport? football? basketball? baseball?

Football or basketball. At Duke, it's obviously hoops.

does it even matter?

Based on the money spent and publicity generated, I'd say so.

how is duke's wbb "the clear #1 college hoops franchise overall" when uconn has won multiple men's and women's ncs in the past 10 years and duke doesn't have a single women's nc?

I was speaking of BB overall without distinguishing the men's and women's programs. My fan status comes into play, obviously, but the greater importance of the men's game, Duke's much more consistent performance on the men's side, and UConn's slippage on the women's side over the past few year's prompted my conclusion. I concede that one can make a decent case for UConn (as much as I hate the idea).

the nonrevenue sports i listed have similar exposure and prominence of wbb, which is very little for all of them.

Again, how many times have you seen a golf team match on ESPN? Highlights on SportsCenter? This can't be a serious claim.

[azazel]

Absurd reasoning. You cannot determine who is the best coach simply by counting championships in a vacuum. Coach G built her program into a perennial top-10 powerhouse and she did it from the ground up. Her teams are in the hunt for national honors every single year. None of the coaches to whom you refer have come close to doing that.

Sylvia Hatchell hasn't come close to doing that? I see...

[devildownunder]

Sylvia Hatchell hasn't come close to doing that? I see...

to say she hasn't come close may have been hyperbole but she hasn't done it either. In her 21 or 22 years at unc, her program has had two very distinct peaks: 93-94, which included a national championship and the last 3 or 4 years. Outside of those stretches, her teams have not been locks for top-10 status. Apart from the two very distinct great stretches, she has had good teams in her time in chapel hill but not great ones.