Maybe I'm wrong but I can't help but feel our basketball team...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Political Hack

That sort of still proves the point that wins isn't the major driving factor season to season. with an average of +2 wins it would seem that the factors you mentioned and the recruiting classes are what put butts in seats... the +2 wins surely didn't. In short, I think it's somewhere in the middle. "Expectations" sell tickets though. Not wins. Wins will just keep them coming.

---

Of course it's expectations, but under the logic you seem to be using, wins can't ever drive attendance unless there was no lag at all between when the wins began and when the attendance rose. So you would have to know in advance your team was going to win and have that be the reason in order for you to agree that wins drove attendance.

If a rise in attendance correlates to a period of time shortly after an uptick in winning, that would seem to support the idea that wins increase attendance. The fans feel good about wins coming their way based on past wins, not current ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

Of course it's expectations, but under the logic you seem to be using, wins can't ever drive attendance unless there was no lag at all between when the wins began and when the attendance rose. So you would have to know in advance your team was going to win and have that be the reason in order for you to agree that wins drove attendance.

If a rise in attendance correlates to a period of time shortly after an uptick in winning, that would seem to support the idea that wins increase attendance. The fans feel good about wins coming their way based on past wins, not current ones.

---

I didn't say wins weren't part of the equation. I actually said the opposite. I just thinks wins alone will not drive attendance. We can win 20 a year but if we are playing a boring brand of basketball with no star power we won't be selling out the hump.

Malik will sell more tickets than a 20 win season will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgs

i disagree, the expectations come with the Ws from the previous season. colorado and nc st fans didn't know their teams would be good in 2011-2012 when they were playing nevada and unc-wilmington types in the non-conference portion of the season. by the time they got rolling later in the year, they had half a season of lackluster attendance under their belts, and they were into the conference season, where most every program sees a nice attendance boost. the following season with momentum and expectations derived from having a good season the previous year, they actually drew decent crowds to the non-conference games against nevada and unc-wilminton types, therefore they averaged more fans the following season because the crowds showed up for the crap games.

i don't know how you can try to twist those numbers into supporting your comment that stars drive attendance, not Ws when the Ws clearly led to expectations the following season which leads to bigger crowds. usually when a team is winning, the best players become stars for the program anyway. chicken or the egg. just because we signed sidney who at one point was the best HS player in his class and a 5* recruit, he didn't draw big crowds. the crowds dropped off big time because we were underachieving. if we had been winning, it would have been the Ws that brought the crowds in, not the opportunity to see sidney play. of course you can also argue that if sidney became the star he could have been, then we'd have been winning and the crowds would have been bigger, and that's true too. but i think the crowds come for the Ws. the casual fan with no ties to the program tunes in on TV for the stars.

---

well, big Sid would've actually had to play for him to draw a crowd. He was suspended for most of his career.

Again, Malik Newman would sell more early season tickets than beating Directional State College over and over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Political Hack

well, big Sid would've actually had to play for him to draw a crowd. He was suspended for most of his career.

Again, Malik Newman would sell more early season tickets than beating Directional State College over and over.

---

signing malik coming off a .500 season with minimal expectations (i.e. maybe challenging for a NIT bid his freshman season) might draw a few hundred extra fans to some early games, but if the team doesn't win, the extra butts won't be in the seats by mid way through the SEC schedule. now if we put together a NIT season and then sign malik, then yeah, expectations are going to be pretty high and the crowds will rise accordingly. but again, that's because we showed some promise, returned a nice core, and signed a 5* player. whereas bringing in a 5* player to a shit show isn't going to sell a significant more number of tickets until the Ws and improved play starts coming - no more 2 point Ws over jackson st.

i think you are confusing a slight boost in early ticket sales with what would bring a sustained rise in attendance over the full course of a season to the point where we might rank among the biggest gainers in attendance from 1 season to the next. i agree a 5* talent brings in a few more fans short term, but i think over a full season and carrying over season to season, you have to back up to flashy "stars" with Ws. coincidentally, if the team is winning, it's probably because the 5* player is playing like a star.

we're agreeing more or less. I think you have to win to keep butts in seats, but you've got to get the people in the seats first. Winning 20 games isn't exciting enough to sell. attendance was dropping terribly with Stans are we were a perennial 20-win team. I think there's a lot more than winning that goes into selling tickets and having star players that are exciting to watch is one of the main draws... especially for students.

you could also argue that VCU's style of play (press defense and fast break offense) sells tickets too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

Well I would certainly much rather have Pollard than Daniels and they basically play the same position. Also, we have one extra true PG right now. We have Ready and Bloodman and Jacoby Davis. You really only need 2 true PGs on a team. Would see to me one of either Bloodman or Davis is expendable.

---

Daniels is taking up Pollard's spot. I'd use Bloodman and Ndoye's spots for two others though. Like the 7'1 guy in Texas Juco leading the nation for the 2nd year in a row in blocks and a deadly 3-point shooter with the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Political Hack

Ray is doing things the right way... and he's a competent coach thus far. That's a pretty good mix.

If people think we'll return to the level of talent we had under Stans, they're kidding themselves. However, we won't have the egos and personality issues we had under him either. The problem with basketball these days is that highlights sell tickets. Good fundamental basketball teams that don't have star power don't sell seats until tourney time. Long term, I think attendance at the hump because of a lack of star power could be Ricky Ray's downfall despite being a good coach and being good for the program.

---

Reminds me a lot of what was being said about Croom year two. The problem in this is they feel no sense of urgency to win quick because they are "cleaning up the program". In any business you only have x number of years to do that and you better damn well know that or you will be a fired ass. So the question is how long is x number of years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinningIsRelentless

Reminds me a lot of what was being said about Croom year two. The problem in this is they feel no sense of urgency to win quick because they are "cleaning up the program". In any business you only have x number of years to do that and you better damn well know that or you will be a fired ass. So the question is how long is x number of years?

---

yeah... that's an important point too. In basketball you can swing things tremendously with one class. I don't think you get 4-5 years like you do in football. I think you need to be winning in 3 years minimum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Political Hack

yeah... that's an important point too. In basketball you can swing things tremendously with one class. I don't think you get 4-5 years like you do in football. I think you need to be winning in 3 years minimum.

---

We were not good last year. We are not good this year. And I don't see how we will be much better next year with the 3 guys Ray has signed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Political Hack

we're agreeing more or less. I think you have to win to keep butts in seats, but you've got to get the people in the seats first. Winning 20 games isn't exciting enough to sell. attendance was dropping terribly with Stans are we were a perennial 20-win team. I think there's a lot more than winning that goes into selling tickets and having star players that are exciting to watch is one of the main draws... especially for students.

you could also argue that VCU's style of play (press defense and fast break offense) sells tickets too.

---

I think our problem was that winning 20 games and being on the ncaa bubble had gotten old to the fans who wanted to take the next step to being comfortably in the ncaa most years and making the second weekend of the tourney once a decade and a half. That and Stans' last few teams were completely unlikeable, not because of the lack of stars, but because they were selfish and undisciplined and obviously not maximizing their potential.

Ray has 4 years- and a decision will be made then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

Ray has 4 years- and a decision will be made then

---

This

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

Ray has 4 years- and a decision will be made then

---

This is how I feel as well. He has 2 free passes basically. Year 3, I expect him to be close -- and if he isn't, the seat needs to be hot in year 4.

I'm hoping it's a moot point -- and his actual coaching is encouraging to me. Recruiting is worrisome right now though... You can't miss on 2/3 of a class like he did on his first real one and have a bunch of nonqualifiers -- especially when they aren't even elite talents worthy of the risk.

Locking down Pollard or someone with similar talent for next year would go a long way toward easing my mind though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg61

Daniels is taking up Pollard's spot. I'd use Bloodman and Ndoye's spots for two others though. Like the 7'1 guy in Texas Juco leading the nation for the 2nd year in a row in blocks and a deadly 3-point shooter with the other.

---

I don't want to get rid of Ndoye. I think he's going to be really good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by engie

This is how I feel as well. He has 2 free passes basically. Year 3, I expect him to be close -- and if he isn't, the seat needs to be hot in year 4.

I'm hoping it's a moot point -- and his actual coaching is encouraging to me. Recruiting is worrisome right now though... You can't miss on 2/3 of a class like he did on his first real one and have a bunch of nonqualifiers -- especially when they aren't even elite talents worthy of the risk.

Locking down Pollard or someone with similar talent for next year would go a long way toward easing my mind though...

---

If he can get this team to the NIT somehow, then his path to improving the recruiting will be a lot easier. At that point when he talks to some of the better recruits he can at least point to the current team and tell them "if we can get into postseason with that group, imagine how much better we can be with you!". Sell that playing time.

On the scholarship issue, I don't necessarily see a problem with helping one of our players find another opportunity somewhere else, but if we start cutting half the team like Dawgs61 suggests, then that isn't going to make the recruiting pitch any easier - "hey come play for me, but if I find someone I like better I'm shipping your worthless ass to Schooba Tech"

speaking of attendance, I don't think the average "fan" / student knows one player from the other, how many "stars" he has, or anything else.. If they can win, they will fill the seats...

basketball is about players guys. always has been. always will be.

do people talk about the greatness of Jordan or the Bulls? Magic and Kareem or the lakers? bird or the celtics in the 80's? the Heat or Lebron?

Hell, even in college it's all about the superstars at Duke and UK. I can gauran-damn-tee you more people can name a team's best player than they can their W/L record.

Exactly, he does not feel a sense of urgency to win. Another coach who started at the same time Ray did was Haase. Haase just got his first big signature win in year two at UAB with their win against UNC. Shit, even UAB had a better hire then us. Very sad. And before you say that UAB has more talent blah blah blah. He inherited a bigger shit show from an even worse head coach in Mike Davis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Political Hack

basketball is about players guys. always has been. always will be.

do people talk about the greatness of Jordan or the Bulls? Magic and Kareem or the lakers? bird or the celtics in the 80's? the Heat or Lebron?

Hell, even in college it's all about the superstars at Duke and UK. I can gauran-damn-tee you more people can name a team's best player than they can their W/L record.

---

they talk about those players because they win. just because i can't spit out an exact W/L off the top of my head doesn't negate the fact that we talk about those guys because they win. no one went out of their way to watch tracy mcgrady or talks about the lost latter half of his career to injuries because he didn't win much before he got hurt. no one went out of their way to see dominique wilkins much because he never won anything. if you win, your best players become stars. just because you sign or draft a guy that's supposed to be a star, he's not going to be a star without the Ws. he might boost the fan interest for a month or 2, but if the play on the court and the Ws don't follow, then the fans see that he's not the star he was touted to be.