Football school or basketball school?

[wilson]

These are both imo second-tier programs in both sports, punctuated by some obvious successes:

Utah: The Majerus years, with their pinnacle in the '98 national championship game (let's discuss that season no further) and the undefeated (?) football run a few years back, I think, more or less cancel each other out. Which one does the average UU (hey, that's kind of fun) student care more about today?

Rutgers: I think Schiano has a sea change afoot there and that it's skewed moderately but increasingly toward football...a few more years of this sort of success, and RU football is "second-tier" no more, but honestly, about ten years ago, to describe it as second-tier would have been generous. On the other hand, the basketball team has historically been pretty competitive, especially at the RAC, another underrated but very tough basketball arena.

[wilson]

IIRC, Oregon had some Final Fours, maybe in the '40s?

I was almost right...they won the first NCAA basketball championship, in 1939. But does that carry any weight in this discussion?

I like this thread.

[Indoor66]

Wyoming - NCAA BB in 1943, competes in Football (even had Pat Dye as coach before ECU and Auburn).

[Johnboy]

Um, yes. Their athletic program is excellent across the board, but fair or not, that John Wooden guy still has a good bit of currency.

The reason I thought of UCLA is that when Terry Donahue was their coach, I remember him being the highest paid state employee in California - more than the basketball coach (who may have been Jim Harrick, IIRC).

What about Stanford? Granted, their football team stinks right now, but Jim Harbaugh is working on that. There's tradition there too, with Rose Bowls and John Elway. Also, the basketball team's recent successes have been somewhat remarkable for that school (and have also taken a bit of a dip in the last couple of years).
Also Oregon: the football team clearly has the upper hand right now, but their basketball arena is widely known as one of the toughest places in the country to play (to be fair, so is their football stadium), and I'd argue that success in both sports is a fairly recent phenomenon for them (though IIRC, they had some Final Fours, maybe in the '40s?).

Still thinking...

Those are "good question" schools. I still think football with Stanford and Oregon, though. There are several schools with NCAA success in hoops that I still think are most likely football schools: Michigan, Ohio State, and Florida come to mind as examples. How about Michigan State or Oklahoma State? Those seem like football schools to me, but Ok St had one of basketball's legendary coaches in Hank Iba, and Michigan State has two NCAA titles including the Magic Johnson/Larry Bird classic in 1979.

[JasonEvans]

How about Michigan State or Oklahoma State? Those seem like football schools to me, but Ok St had one of basketball's legendary coaches in Hank Iba, and Michigan State has two NCAA titles including the Magic Johnson/Larry Bird classic in 1979.

Bingo-- these are the two most interesting cases to me. Especially Michigan State that has arguably been one of the top 5 or so basketball programs over the past couple decades. I'd love to hear from someone who really knows the school or lives in the area to hear where football or basketball gets them more jazzed up there in Lansing.

A few others--

What about NC State over the past decade?
Arkansas?
Illinois? Especially over the past decade.

--Jason "I think that if football gets good, every school is a football school except maybe the true basketball die-hards of Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and UNC" Evans

[Clipsfan]

California is definitely a football school, although during the Kidd era people paid a lot of attention to basketball. However, I've never had friends fly down to watch Cal basketball games, while they have come down to see football games. One of my co-workers wears a football jersey occasionally, but would never wear a basketball jersey.

I think that Jason is right, that school with good football programs end up becoming football schools. In my opinion, this is due to the timing of the seasons and the ability to attend games. As football season starts earlier, people get hyped up for that and stay with it as their teams are good. This doesn't always work if they are primarily basketball schools (KU friends of mine have been happy about football, but they'll be back on the basketball bandwagon soon enough), but it definitely helps push people towards football. Also, the ability of 100,000 people to see a football game vs. 5-20k to see a basketball game makes them bigger events. I also would guess that the money is bigger for football for most programs.

[mapei]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Florida. Gotta be a football school, I guess, but basketball has to be coming on very strong in popularity.

[mapei]

How about Syracuse?

[throatybeard]

Very interesting comments, especially BlueDawg, Jason, Clips.

BlueDawg says why can't a school be both. In almost any situation with a dichotomy, I'd instinctively agree with a refusal to categorize, but I find this one particularly sticky.

I wanted to see what folks would say before I came out with my opinion, which is basically a stronger version of what Jason said: to be a basketball school is, except in a very few cases, merely a result of a failure to be a football school.

UF could win the next 8 national championships and that would still be a FB school.

[Johnboy]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Florida. Gotta be a football school, I guess, but basketball has to be coming on very strong in popularity.

sigh.

I mentioned Florida.

I would agree with Jason and throaty that most schools become basketball schools because their football teams stink. Some exceptions would include UNC, which has had occasionally very good football teams, and UCLA, which has had excellent football teams, but one of the most successful basketball programs in history. At this point, it would take a lot of football success, and probably some basketball failure, to convert the likes of Kentucky, Duke, UNC, UCLA or Kansas to full-blown football schools.

[blazindw]

Bingo-- these are the two most interesting cases to me. Especially Michigan State that has arguably been one of the top 5 or so basketball programs over the past couple decades. I'd love to hear from someone who really knows the school or lives in the area to hear where football or basketball gets them more jazzed up there in Lansing.

Growing up in Michigan (as a Wolverines fan), I would have to say that right now, Michigan State is a basketball school. Back in the 80s (during the years of George Perles), State was a football school. But I would say overall, they get more jazzed up for hoops than football (with hockey always in the mix).

A few others--

What about NC State over the past decade?
Arkansas?
Illinois? Especially over the past decade.

NC State - NC State is an interesting one. They've been pretty solid at both the past decade. I would give the edge to basketball because of their history.
Arkansas - My dad's from Arkansas, and I have a lot of family there. They're always up for Arkansas basketball, not so much for football, although that has changed the past few years with the success of D-Mac-5.
Illinois - I would say they're more about basketball than football. They're always competing in the Big 10 in basketball, but I don't think they've been decent in football since Jeff George was there, minus one aberration of a year in the late 90s (IIRC).

[SilkyJ]

How about Syracuse?

Definitely Basketball

[mbd1mbd1]

I was at UVa for grad school from 2000-2003 and I think it was a football school then. But not by much.

And I grew up in Arkansas...for maybe 5 years in the early 90's basketball was bigger. Historically and currently, though, it's a football school. I think even in the last 5 years I've seen football get even bigger there.

[Indoor66]

Syracuse was, historically, a football school. The home of great fullbacks. Lately, basketball has outshone football, but to the Syracuse fans I know, football is always #1.

[Ramblin' Man]

That is because Cameron can only seat 9,314. These schools don't sell out their basketball stadiums like Duke does.

GT actually sold out every basketball game last year as well. Football games on the other hand, do not all sell out.

That being said, GT is definitely still a football school - evidence being that John Heisman was our football coach for 16 years (longest tenure at any other school was 5).

[houstondukie]

Football always dominates over basketball, unless we're talking about the traditional basketball powerhouses.

What about Florida? They won back to back in basketball, yet they are for sure a football school. Had they not won a football championship last year, they still would be a football school. If Donovon wins 3 in a row, I still think Florida is and always will be a football school.

[mapei]

Indiana = basketball (duh)
Georgetown = basketball (duh again)
Hopkins = lacrosse
Wake = basketball?

[captmojo]

where does Northwestern fall?

[throatybeard]

Wake's basketball.

NWern is FB, I think.

Syracuse is interesting.

I've read articles/essays from Arkansas fans that talk about the FB teams in hallowed tones. They were in the SWC, after all. They're a FB school.

[Wander]

Um... this discussion is, for lack of a better word, dumb.

First of all, there's more than two college sports last time I checked. John Hopkins is a lacrosse school. Cornell is a hockey school. Clemson is a football school, but baseball comes in second, before basketball.

There are definately schools that fall into the category of "football school" or "basketball school" - Duke being one of them. In fact, there are a lot of them, so I'm not against making the categories. But bending over backwards in trying to categorize schools that clearly don't fit any of the labels is stupid.