Goals of the program?

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:00 am

Last night on 1470 I heard Norm Wamer make some interesting comments about the goals of our athletic department versus the goals of UT's athletic department. Personally I don't think I agree with his comments, but I was curious if this could generate some discussion on here.

The discussion began because some UT fans (especially with the recent hot streak) really want to see Stan back in Toledo next year. Some of those fans say things like, "Look at BG, Dan's not on the hotseat yet...we should keep Stan!" Norm said that he thought that was not comparable because it was apples and oranges.

Norm said that he thinks UT wants to be the Yankees of the MAC. They feel they should be competing for and winning championships in every sport year in and year out. He feels that BG's athletic department is not the same. They expect to be respectable all the time, competing for titles some of the time, and to win a championship once in awhile. He points out that UT's facilities are far superior to BG's for both football and basketball as evidence that BG's athletic department is not trying to build as stout of a program as UT is.

Personally, I disagree with his statement that we only expect to compete for titles some of the time and win them occasionally. I expect BG (especially in football & basketball) to be among the best in the league every year. Certainly I can understand an occasional down year, but for the most part I think we can build our athletic department to be one of, if not the, best in the MAC. Are my expectations totally unreasonable? Is it really true that BG is only looking for respectability, not dominance, in most years?

If that's where are current administrators are setting the goal, I can honestly say I'm not happy with that fact, but I don't think it to be true either. Personally I've always felt BG should be one of the best athletic programs in the MAC, and I expect to be competing for the MAC title in both major sports more times than not. We've fallen short, but our football team has been at or near the top in the MAC for most of the past 5 years now. The basketball team was at or near the top throughout my HS & college days, but has since fallen off.

Is it possible that these past few years of football, and that 90's stretch of basketball were seen as the aberrations for an athletic department that has a goal of institutionalized mediocrity? Thoughts?

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:14 am

With the completion of the Sebo center, Bowling Green will have better training facilities than UT. Re basketabll, UT plays in a 30+ year old dump, BG plays in a 40+ year old dump....at least our dump has a personality.

I think Norm is a little out to lunch on this one....

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:14 am

I agree the UT thinks they basketball team should have the same role in the MAC competitive world as the football team (ie, road to title runs through Toledo), especially as one of two urban environments in the MAC.

cbjhack · Post by **cbjhack** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:35 am

Deep down I believe that the BG Athletic Department wants to be successful on the court/playing surface, and off (i.e. in the classroom and out of the jailhouse). It is a delicate balance that must be met in order for it to be successful.

As for the facility issue, I don't think that Savage Hall is any better than Anderson Arena, and I don't think that their Rec is any better than ours. The Glass Bowl is nice because it has turf, but I still think that playing on grass is better. I have never been in the Glass Bowl, so I can't compare atmospheres and student support. My sister went to UT, and went to a lot of football and basketball games, and I have never heard her complain about the atmosphere. The talk that UT wants to replace Savage is no different than BG wanting to build a new arena or convo for hockey and basketball.

I think that Alumni support is comparable, in fact I have heard that BG Alumni support our teams more than UT's.

One distinct difference between the two schools is location and level of community/corporate support. In this day of college sports, corporate support is huge. It often is the difference between being on TV and not, playing in Hawaii over Thanksgiving or playing in Tiffin. Other than Cooper Tire and possibly Marathon, the city of BG doesn't have a huge corporate atmosphere to draw from. I made the trip, along with the 5 other people in attendance for the BG-Miami football game in November and noticed the similarities between BG and Oxford. Living in Columbus I see the difference between OSU and BG every day I open the sports section or turn on the TV. On most nightly newscasts, UT lead's off the sports report, regardless of how well BG is doing. Simply put, the 28,000 or so in BG is dwarfed by the 100,000 plus in Toledo.

But one thing has to be asked. Is there a rift between Dakich and Krebs? Is Krebs still upset about the seven day vacation Dakich took to West Virginia a few years back. Does Dakich feel unwelcome because he was hired by Kreb's predecessor, while Meyer, Fry, and Paluch were hired by Krebs? It is often said, and I have stated it in other posts on this site, that coaches are only comfortable with who hired them. While I don't think that Kreb's is too upset with Dakich's mention for the Indiana job (which I don't think he will get), as it is the nature of college coaching. After all, was Doyt Perry upset when an upstart Bill Fitch left BG after one season to go somewhere more high profile to coach? Probably, but we all should be since that team was the last BG men's team to make it to the NCAA Tournament. But truth be told, that is the nature of mid-major college teams. Coaches want to follow the money trail. Very few stick around out of loyalty to their institution.

That being said, the only sure way to know the success of an athletic department is to check how many wins and losses and what attendance is like. If teams are winning, butts are in the seats, then you have success. No shiny new facility will ever be considered the cure all. Take a look at Duke. Ask UNC and OSU how "nice" it is to be in a new facility. Chances are, they probably wish they were like Duke and avoided building a new facility.

Germainfitch1 · Post by **Germainfitch1** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:59 am

Flipper wrote:With the completion of the Sebo center, Bowling Green will have better training facilities than UT. Re basketabll, UT plays in a 30+ year old dump, BG plays in a 40+ year old dump....at least our dump has a personality.

I think Norm is a little out to lunch on this one....

When is he not. He is next to worthless.

Germainfitch1 · Post by **Germainfitch1** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:01 pm

orangeandbrown wrote:I agree the UT thinks they basketball team should have the same role in the MAC competitive world as the football team (ie, road to title runs through Toledo), especially as one of two urban environments in the MAC.

What is the other Urban environment?

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:03 pm

(cr)Akron

Salsa · Post by **Salsa** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:09 pm

Buffalo.

Rightupinthere · Post by **Rightupinthere** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:15 pm

Oxford.

Oh, sorry that's METRO environment. Sorry for the error.

I believe he meant Akron because I believe UB isn't within with city limits. It's main campus is in a suburb (Amherst).

Germainfitch1 · Post by **Germainfitch1** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:19 pm

Salsa wrote:Buffalo.

I was thinking Buffalo as well. But I had forgot akron.

Tricky_Falcon · Post by **Tricky_Falcon** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:40 pm

I wouldn't say Toledo's astroturf is anything to brag about but I do think their stadium has a very nice Press box/club seating. That is something that could be another project after the SEBO.

Falcon Pete · Post by **Falcon Pete** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:47 pm

All comes back to fund raising. They have a better athletic development office and raise more money and that is why they are viewed as striving for championships.

How can anyone even think of a project after the Sebo Center when we can not even raise enough to finish it. The University will never go into business with athletics again if they can not deliver on the money fronted for the Sebo Center.

A change in that area needs to be made...otherwise the view that Toledo is ahead of BG facilities and dollar wise (specifically in football) will continue.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:49 pm

Tricky_Falcon wrote:I wouldn't say Toledo's astroturf is anything to brag about but I do think their stadium has a very nice Press box/club seating. That is something that could be another project after the SEBO.

Yeah, if Toledo didn't have that hotel on the home side of the field, the erector set on the opposite side would stick out alot more. Interestingly enough, they've got that huge-ass press box, but visiting student radio STILL has to do the game from the roof.

Tricky_Falcon · Post by **Tricky_Falcon** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:49 pm

I understand your point again they are good ones. I was just saying in the future...

Falcon Pete · Post by **Falcon Pete** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:52 pm

Tricky...I appreciate your thoughts and efforts based on seeing what you have beneath your pic of the Sebo Center.....BG needs more people working to support it like you!!!!