Football schools and basketball schools

[jakez4ut]

you know, being that this is the first year in a long time that we have something to be excited about in bball, and since in live in Charlotte, uh-hum, ACC hell, i was wondering what you guys think about the bball school vs. football school mentality of fans, admin, coaches, players etc....

My feelings are this:

there are schools out there where the line is definitely drawn in the sand...Duke, KY, Wake Forest, UNC, Indiana, KAnsas all bball schools, and then a whole host of others that fall as football schools, TN, OK, OSU, TX, Miami, FSU, LSU, UGA etc....and then there are some that the line is kind of muddled...Michigan, Michigan St., NC State, Virginia, etc....

can a basket ball school support a top tier, or even second tier football program? My first reaction is no. Taking schools form the first list, none of them have even had a sniff of success in football for quite some time, and you don't really see them trying to do anything to get much better than what they are...is it a lack of funds? support?

ON the other hand, though, big time football schools do have some precedents made where big time bball can be accomplished at the same time...FL, TX come to mind, and even OK falls there now as well...probably some others, but those stick out to me.

and you can start to see the makings of the same thing at TN, hopefully.

I think BP realized there is a ton of money to be spent, and since the admin is willing to fork over some to make the bball better, the two have made for a good start in that direction.....why is it not the same the other way around? take a UNC for example. All you ever hear is how nice the campus is, what kind of fan support there is, a huge alumni base, a wealthy alumni base, have great sales of team merchandise, etc, etc, etc,....why don't they have a better football program?

I don't know, but since we have a good sampling of folks from around the country, thought it could be an interesting discussion...

 

[VolBeef88]

Jake "example. All you ever hear is how nice the campus is, what kind of fan support there is, a huge alumni base, a wealthy alumni base, have great sales of team merchandise, etc, etc, etc,....why don't they have a better football program?"

Because we get there best football players of course!

 

[Arclight]

Coach Ray Mears had a good run at UT.

 

[McCat]

This is an excellent post that we have discussed ad nauseum on the Kentucky Boards.

I think that you can excel at both, but I do feel that it's much easier to establish a powerhouse basketball program at a perennial football powerhouse rather than vice-versa. Football program building takes so many more resources in coaching, $$$, impact players, facilities, etc. Look at Gonzaga. In 5 years they've built a top 10 program. In D-1 football, it would take twice that, imo.

In the end, it also takes an administration committed to building a powerhouse program, and a Football AD. Kentucky finally has that, and the jury is still out whether or not he can do it.

The last time that Kentucky was dominant in both sports, Rupp was the b-ball coach and Bryant was the f-ball coach. At the end of year sports banquet, so the legend goes, Rupp got a Cadillac, Bryant got a lighter. A month later, Bryant was in College Station, and we were doomed for football hell for half a century.

 

[jakez4ut]

i would tend to agree with you....much easier to build a bball program at a football school than vice versa....especially now a days.

and as a TN fan, i hope KY sticks to Bball, and remains a doormat in football....LOL!

 

[VolBeef88]

This is an excellent post that we have discussed ad nauseum on the Kentucky Boards.

I think that you can excel at both, but I do feel that it's much easier to establish a powerhouse basketball program at a perennial football powerhouse rather than vice-versa. Football program building takes so many more resources in coaching, $$$, impact players, facilities, etc. Look at Gonzaga. In 5 years they've built a top 10 program. In D-1 football, it would take twice that, imo.

In the end, it also takes an administration committed to building a powerhouse program, and a Football AD. Kentucky finally has that, and the jury is still out whether or not he can do it.

The last time that Kentucky was dominant in both sports, Rupp was the b-ball coach and Bryant was the f-ball coach. At the end of year sports banquet, so the legend goes, Rupp got a Cadillac, Bryant got a lighter. A month later, Bryant was in College Station, and we were doomed for football hell for half a century.

Hey catman, we get a lot of your best football players too! LOL

 

[hatvol96]

you know, being that this is the first year in a long time that we have something to be excited about in bball, and since in live in Charlotte, uh-hum, ACC hell, i was wondering what you guys think about the bball school vs. football school mentality of fans, admin, coaches, players etc....

My feelings are this:

there are schools out there where the line is definitely drawn in the sand...Duke, KY, Wake Forest, UNC, Indiana, KAnsas all bball schools, and then a whole host of others that fall as football schools, TN, OK, OSU, TX, Miami, FSU, LSU, UGA etc....and then there are some that the line is kind of muddled...Michigan, Michigan St., NC State, Virginia, etc....

can a basket ball school support a top tier, or even second tier football program? My first reaction is no. Taking schools form the first list, none of them have even had a sniff of success in football for quite some time, and you don't really see them trying to do anything to get much better than what they are...is it a lack of funds? support?

ON the other hand, though, big time football schools do have some precedents made where big time bball can be accomplished at the same time...FL, TX come to mind, and even OK falls there now as well...probably some others, but those stick out to me.

and you can start to see the makings of the same thing at TN, hopefully.

I think BP realized there is a ton of money to be spent, and since the admin is willing to fork over some to make the bball better, the two have made for a good start in that direction.....why is it not the same the other way around? take a UNC for example. All you ever hear is how nice the campus is, what kind of fan support there is, a huge alumni base, a wealthy alumni base, have great sales of team merchandise, etc, etc, etc,....why don't they have a better football program?

I don't know, but since we have a good sampling of folks from around the country, thought it could be an interesting discussion...

On a smaller scale, Louisville has done a good job of balancing the sports. Also, Kansas and Indiana have both committed considerably more resources to their current coaches than they have in the past, so we'll see where they are in a couple of years. Kansas, due to the lack of quality players in their immediate area, might struggle no matter how many resources they commit to football.

 

[rwemyss]

Couldn't there be a fair argument for Oklahoma, UCLA, and Texas as schools that have top 25 potential in both sports from year to year? Obviously they haven't sustained both year after year... but I think you could make a pretty valid argument for it being a possibility.

 

[OrangeAndBlue]

Couldn't there be a fair argument for Oklahoma, UCLA, and Texas as schools that have top 25 potential in both sports from year to year? Obviously they haven't sustained both year after year... but I think you could make a pretty valid argument for it being a possibility.

Those teams may be good and ranked, but would you really even call them basketball schools or a mix of both? Well maybe UCLA. Florida's Bball team and FBall teams were both ranked in the Top 25, but even I admit that we're not even close to a being a basketball school :twocents:

 

[volinbham]

I think one sport will normally dominate but some of the schools mentioned here are relatively consistently good at both:

Michigan, OU, Texas, OSU, Michigan State (although football is a bit suspect of late), same for UCLA. These teams have been good at both for quite a while. New comers include Louisville (football catching up), Florida (B-ball catching up), Purdue (football somewhat catching up), etc.

That said, I see no reason why UT can't be in the above list going forward.

 

[rwemyss]

Michigan is definite! I can't believe I forgot them. They could be as much an argument for this as UCLA.

 

[hatvol96]

I think one sport will normally dominate but some of the schools mentioned here are relatively consistently good at both:

Michigan, OU, Texas, OSU, Michigan State (although football is a bit suspect of late), same for UCLA. These teams have been good at both for quite a while. New comers include Louisville (football catching up), Florida (B-ball catching up), Purdue (football somewhat catching up), etc.

That said, I see no reason why UT can't be in the above list going forward.

Have you seen Purdue's basketball team the last five years? The only thing keeping them out of the Big Ten basement is Penn State. They're terrible.

 

[NCGatorBait]

Traditionally I'd have to say OSU has had the most success in basketball and football. It's hard to sustain both sports year in and year out though...especially with the parity in both sports now.

 

[volinbham]

Have you seen Purdue's basketball team the last five years? The only thing keeping them out of the Big Ten basement is Penn State. They're terrible.

Yes - that's why I put them as a maybe. They were good for a long time and the football has improved. I was just thinking of schools that had been good in one of the sports for a long-time. In otherwords, taking more than a 5 year view. That said, I don't think they rank like a Michigan

For example, OU was down in bball and football for a while but is back to top 25 in both.