Wright State beat Butler

[Muskie73]

Wright State leads Butler 69-64 with 2 seconds left.

[GuyFawkes38]

uggghhhh. That sucks.

They absolutely killed Detroit on Friday night. I think they are highly reliant on outside shooting.

[ThePowerOfX]

Butler sucks....they had their one run, now they are going to go back to being a mediocre Horizon league team, a slightly more successful George Mason....

[GuyFawkes38]

Butler sucks....they had their one run, now they are going to go back to being a mediocre Horizon league team, a slightly more successful George Mason....

yeah, that would be my concern about adding them to an already bloated A10.

I believe George Mason has a better attendance record.

[smileyy]

Butler is not good this year. Gordon Hayward was that superstar player who can make otherwise good-but-not-great players that much more than they are. I'm betting their in-conference efficiency margin remains mediocre. After 5 games, it was +0.07, but they were giving up more than a point-per-possession.

[xubrew]

yeah, that would be my concern about adding them to an already bloated A10.

I believe George Mason has a better attendance record.

george mason's attendance is nowhere close to butler's.

[GuyFawkes38]

george mason's attendance is nowhere close to butler's.

George Mason averaged 5,837 last year. Butler averaged 6,852 last year.

I thought George Mason's was higher. But I think Butler's subpar attendance figure is more striking for the type of season they had last year.

Butler did surprise people by making the Final Four. But I believe they were also a pre season top 15 team. Most top 15 teams have higher attendance figures. George Mason just had a 17-15 record last year.

I really have no idea how Butler can afford a million a year contract for Stevens.

[Xavgrad08]

According to some news articles Stevens has a very small buy out. I wonder how long he will coach there. There are going to be some good openings in the next couple years.
(NC. State, Gergia Tech, maybe Tennessee, maybe Uconn, etc. )

[AdamtheFlyer]

The difference between Butler and George Mason is that Butler has pretty much dominated the Horizon League for a decade. They made at least one Sweet 16 before their run to the title game. That's a good, stable program. They're down this year and still will win the HL regular season and tourney, and be right back in the dance.

Mason was a total flash in the pan.

Attendance is overrated. Butler is a smaller, Catholic school surrounded by generations of IU, Notre Dame and Purdue fans. Mason has nearly 3 times as many graduate students as Butler has undergrads. Undergrad enrollment is 19,000 to 4,400. Typically, public school grads remain closer to the alma mater after graduation, and when you factor in sheer numbers, it's almost not fair.

The actual market for Butler sports is pretty small. They grab a pretty large percentage of it.

[QueensbridgeMF]

The difference between Butler and George Mason is that Butler has pretty much dominated the Horizon League for a decade. They made at least one Sweet 16 before their run to the title game. That's a good, stable program. They're down this year and still will win the HL regular season and tourney, and be right back in the dance.

Mason was a total flash in the pan.

Attendance is overrated. Butler is a smaller, Catholic school surrounded by generations of IU, Notre Dame and Purdue fans. Mason has nearly 3 times as many graduate students as Butler has undergrads. Undergrad enrollment is 19,000 to 4,400. Typically, public school grads remain closer to the alma mater after graduation, and when you factor in sheer numbers, it's almost not fair.

The actual market for Butler sports is pretty small. They grab a pretty large percentage of it.

For once I agree with Adam. Butler is a much better program than Mason. DC is a better market but they don't make a big mark there

[smileyy]

(NC. State, Gergia Tech, maybe Tennessee, maybe Uconn, etc. )

Only two of those are good jobs -- UConn and Tennessee.

[xudash]

The difference between Butler and George Mason is that Butler has pretty much dominated the Horizon League for a decade. They made at least one Sweet 16 before their run to the title game. That's a good, stable program. They're down this year and still will win the HL regular season and tourney, and be right back in the dance.

Mason was a total flash in the pan.

Attendance is overrated. Butler is a smaller, Catholic school surrounded by generations of IU, Notre Dame and Purdue fans. Mason has nearly 3 times as many graduate students as Butler has undergrads. Undergrad enrollment is 19,000 to 4,400. Typically, public school grads remain closer to the alma mater after graduation, and when you factor in sheer numbers, it's almost not fair.

The actual market for Butler sports is pretty small. They grab a pretty large percentage of it.

Butler isn't Catholic.

And low attendance, regardless of reason - school size in this case - has no defense. You are either capable of finding a way to be big-time or not.

Attendance isn't overrated, especially for non-BCS schools that need every possible dollar of revenue they can scratch together. Sorry Adam, but that was a truly ridiculous statement.

GF38 is spot on here: for the season they had last year, especially given the build up of solid seasons they enjoyed in the last decade leading up to that, the fan base should have been much more established, especially given the relatively large MSA of Indy.

Brew and I seem to go around and around about Butler. It isn't personal with me; it's business. The Butler program doesn't have the fan base elasticity to make it truly sustainable over the long haul.

And they are no lock this year for winning the putrid HL.

Now, as has been argued here, they may experience an attendance lift if they were able to join the A10. The question is whether or not they would be able and willing to cut the hefty check needed to make that happen, and then budget the move properly from there.

[xubrew]

George Mason averaged 5,837 last year. Butler averaged 6,852 last year.

I thought George Mason's was higher. But I think Butler's subpar attendance figure is more striking for the type of season they had last year.

Butler did surprise people by making the Final Four. But I believe they were also a pre season top 15 team. Most top 15 teams have higher attendance figures. George Mason just had a 17-15 record last year.

I really have no idea how Butler can afford a million a year contract for Stevens.

george mason has had more than 5k fans at exactly two games so far.

butler is outdrawing them big time.

that's no implication. it's a statement of fact. butler has better attendance than george mason.

[xubrew]

Brew and I seem to go around and around about Butler. It isn't personal with me; it's business. The Butler program doesn't have the fan base elasticity to make it truly sustainable over the long haul.


dash, we do go around and around, but within the context of this thread, a comparison was made between george mason and butler.

attendance is your biggest hang up with butler. george mason's attendance is WORSE.

all adam (who also roots for an atlantic ten team) was saying was that butler made more sense than george mason. he wasn't saying that we should include butler. all he was saying was that between the two, butler was the better pick.

he's right.

[xudash]

dash, we do go around and around, but within the context of this thread, a comparison was made between george mason and butler.

attendance is your biggest hang up with butler. george mason's attendance is WORSE.

all adam (who also roots for an atlantic ten team) was saying was that butler made more sense than george mason. he wasn't saying that we should include butler. all he was saying was that between the two, butler was the better pick.

he's right.

I agree. In the context of a question that strictly centers on "which is better for the A10: Butler or GM?" The answer is Butler.

Otherwise, Adam noted that Butler is Catholic. It isn't.

He also noted that attendance is overrated. I don't believe that for a moment, and I'll even correct my early response - it's important for every program, whether it is a member of a BCS league or not. In fact, it's about attendance and facility configuration, meaning the ability to do what we do so well: seat licensing, suit licensing, the luxury bar, concessions, etc.

[X-band '01]

Is it really surprising that George Mason doesn't have great attendance? They're always going to be #3 in the Beltway behind Georgetown and Maryland. It also helps them that GW is in a down cycle right now.

[AdamtheFlyer]

Acutally, my point was that raw attendance data has virtually no bearing on program quality or stability. It's insanely simplistic. Butler seeing no jump in attendance after their run doesn't tell you anything other than they were maximizing their market before last year. And yet they still win, and win in bunches. Butler is one of the best 15-20 programs in the nation over the past decade.

I was wrong about them being Catholic. Irrelevant to the discussion, but hammer that red herring all you want. What matters is their enrollment and alumni base. By and large, smaller schools = lower attendance. Put that smaller school in an area dominated by huge public school and private schools with powerhouse fanbases, it simply can't compete for eyeballs and butts in seats. Butler gets the most out of their market. To expect them to all of the sudden get 30% more fans overnight is ridiculous.

Now, if you're talking about Butler in the A10...it's ridiculous to have that discussion and not take the next step. Their recruiting would improve. The HL signed, I think, one top flight recruit this year, the son of a coach. The A10 had 6-8 kids that were legit top 125 caliber. They would get better players. TV and NCAA money would rise. Support from alums and donors would rise. Ticket prices/PSL prices would rise. ESPN exposure would easily triple. The money would be there. They would probably spend as much as non-football money as any athletic department in the league not named Dayton or Xavier. They would compete year in and year out, because they're a really good program. That's what really good programs do.

By the same logic, you're implying that Xavier would never be better than 6th or 7th in the Big East. Do you agree?

[GuyFawkes38]

Acutally, my point was that raw attendance data has virtually no bearing on program quality or stability. It's insanely simplistic. Butler seeing no jump in attendance after their run doesn't tell you anything other than they were maximizing their market before last year. And yet they still win, and win in bunches. Butler is one of the best 15-20 programs in the nation over the past decade.

I was wrong about them being Catholic. Irrelevant to the discussion, but hammer that red herring all you want. What matters is their enrollment and alumni base. By and large, smaller schools = lower attendance. Put that smaller school in an area dominated by huge public school and private schools with powerhouse fanbases, it simply can't compete for eyeballs and butts in seats. Butler gets the most out of their market. To expect them to all of the sudden get 30% more fans overnight is ridiculous.

Now, if you're talking about Butler in the A10...it's ridiculous to have that discussion and not take the next step. Their recruiting would improve. The HL signed, I think, one top flight recruit this year, the son of a coach. The A10 had 6-8 kids that were legit top 125 caliber. They would get better players. TV and NCAA money would rise. Support from alums and donors would rise. Ticket prices/PSL prices would rise. ESPN exposure would easily triple. The money would be there. They would probably spend as much as non-football money as any athletic department in the league not named Dayton or Xavier. They would compete year in and year out, because they're a really good program. That's what really good programs do.

By the same logic, you're implying that Xavier would never be better than 6th or 7th in the Big East. Do you agree?

Yes, Butler is a private school and if you grade them on that curve, I guess their attendance figures aren't that bad. But I think there's a reason why college basketball is dominated by large public schools and only a handful of private schools can compete.

Do you really think attendance is irrelevant? Do you think revenue is irrelevant? IMHO, in the long run, facilities really do matter.

On the Butler board after the X game, a Butler fan posted that he worried if the team struggled this year, attendance would drop below 5,000.

[xudash]

Acutally, my point was that raw attendance data has virtually no bearing on program quality or stability. It's insanely simplistic. Butler seeing no jump in attendance after their run doesn't tell you anything other than they were maximizing their market before last year. And yet they still win, and win in bunches. Butler is one of the best 15-20 programs in the nation over the past decade.

I was wrong about them being Catholic. Irrelevant to the discussion, but hammer that red herring all you want. What matters is their enrollment and alumni base. By and large, smaller schools = lower attendance. Put that smaller school in an area dominated by huge public school and private schools with powerhouse fanbases, it simply can't compete for eyeballs and butts in seats. Butler gets the most out of their market. To expect them to all of the sudden get 30% more fans overnight is ridiculous.

Now, if you're talking about Butler in the A10...it's ridiculous to have that discussion and not take the next step. Their recruiting would improve. The HL signed, I think, one top flight recruit this year, the son of a coach. The A10 had 6-8 kids that were legit top 125 caliber. They would get better players. TV and NCAA money would rise. Support from alums and donors would rise. Ticket prices/PSL prices would rise. ESPN exposure would easily triple. The money would be there. They would probably spend as much as non-football money as any athletic department in the league not named Dayton or Xavier. They would compete year in and year out, because they're a really good program. That's what really good programs do.

By the same logic, you're implying that Xavier would never be better than 6th or 7th in the Big East. Do you agree?

You essentially contradicted yourself.

Sustainable success requires investment.

Investment requires capital.

Capital for investment comes from, in this case, internally generated (program) income.

Internally generated income comes from revenue from all sources minus an OPEX (operating expense) base that is commensurate with running a high major program.

Revenue sources, at least in Xavier's case, primarily flow from the Cintas Center engine - seat licenses, suit licensing, the overall gate, concessions, etc. - television revenue, NCAA Tournament money, and monies flowing from the Learfield deal.

All that makes the Forbes ranking make sense. All that provides a platform for sustainable success; the funding is there for private jets for recruiting visits, chartered team flights, recruiting budget, facilities, Nike stuff, etc.

I'm focused on sustainability. Butler has had a great ride. There is no denying that. At present, they've created enough national buzz and visibility to keep it going within the HL. But you are aware of the fact that Butler is in a conference that "restricts" budgets by members to within a given range. Beyond that, they have virtually no room for error in that league, which they are beginning to witness this season. They could still win it all this year, but they better get moving.

Then you note that a change on their part to the A10 would pay off in the form of more revenue, exposure, etc. That transition would itself take funding, as I noted in my earlier post.

At any rate, attendance matters for the long-term fiscal well being of a program. It just does, because it's part of the revenue equation.

Finally, I don't agree with your last statement. I would expect Xavier to compete well in the BE because it already has all the other program elements in place. We're already recruiting at that level now, but it could tick up a little from the next class.

"Acutally, my point was that raw attendance data has virtually no bearing on program quality or stability." -- Let 'em play in front of teammates, the pep band and security staff as they hang banner after banner on the walls.

[PMI]

Butler is not good this year. Gordon Hayward was that superstar player who can make otherwise good-but-not-great players that much more than they are. I'm betting their in-conference efficiency margin remains mediocre. After 5 games, it was +0.07, but they were giving up more than a point-per-possession.

I agree that Butler is not good this year, but I disagree with your second sentence to an extent, or at least what I think you're implying. Yes, Hayward was really good (particularly in the tournament) but you cannot deny how well that entire team played last year. Their team defense was outstanding and they had other big time contributers than Hayward. Mack was playing as well as almost any other guard in the NCAA and don't forget Matt Howard won conference player of the year over Hayward the year before. Those guys played really well last year. The drop-off to this season is no doubt in part due to the departure of Hayward, but there's no way it should be this drastic based on who they still have, considering how they played last year. They just don't have a team of guys playing out of their minds this year (they reached and probably exceeded their absolute potential last year), and instead have a team now that has not played to its potential.


Is it really surprising that George Mason doesn't have great attendance? They're always going to be #3 in the Beltway behind Georgetown and Maryland. It also helps them that GW is in a down cycle right now.

Not surprising since they don't have the same history or play in a major conference, but Mason SHOULD be able to outdraw Butler if for no other reason than it is the biggest state school in Virginia, a state with lots of colleges. It's got over 30,000 people. I know the Patriot Center has gotten over 10,000 people for concerts before, but you can fit more people in for that. Of course, Butler has been the much better program post 2006 so it's not a shock, but if Mason were a top 15 team all year with the nation's longest winning streak going, I think they would've exceeded Hinkle's attendance. At most schools, people like you WHILE you're winners.

[Cincypunk.org]

Dayton draws really well and they suck year in and year out.

[GuyFawkes38]

Dayton draws really well and they suck year in and year out.

But I do think Dayton has much better facilities than Butler. That really pays off in the long term.

They also have the revenue to fire Gregory and hire a new coach. But apparently, for some odd reason, they are not close to making that sort of a decision.

If we could drop a school like St. Bonna and add Butler, I think that'd be great. I just don't want to see the conference grow even larger. On paper, SLU and Charlotte looked like wonderful additions. In fact, they both looked much better than Butler looks now. But I'm not sure if it turned out well in retrospect. I think there's a temptation to constantly add members that must be resisted.

[Coogles]

I agree that Butler is not good this year, but I disagree with your second sentence to an extent, or at least what I think you're implying. Yes, Hayward was really good (particularly in the tournament) but you cannot deny how well that entire team played last year. Their team defense was outstanding and they had other big time contributers than Hayward. Mack was playing as well as almost any other guard in the NCAA and don't forget Matt Howard won conference player of the year over Hayward the year before. Those guys played really well last year. The drop-off to this season is no doubt in part due to the departure of Hayward, but there's no way it should be this drastic based on who they still have, considering how they played last year. They just don't have a team of guys playing out of their minds this year (they reached and probably exceeded their absolute potential last year), and instead have a team now that has not played to its potential.

People keep saying that Butler shouldn't be struggling as much as it is to replace what they lost, but it's really not hard to see why.

In the tournament last year, Butler essentially ran a 7 man rotation. The starters - Nored, Mack, Hayward, Veasley, Howard - plus Vanzant and Jukes off the bench. Now, 3 of those players are gone and Stevens has had to fill the gaps with role players since the only freshman to step up and contribute has been Khyle Marshall. The other two show potential, especially Chrishawn Hopkins, but they have yet to put it together in games.

Hahn was completely ineffective against the larger and more athletic teams faced in the NCAA tournament and barely got off the bench during those six games, but he's now playing 20 minutes a game this year and still can't guard anybody. Stigall, a RS sophomore who couldn't buy his way off the bench last year, is playing 15 minutes a game. A 15 minute role player like Vanzant is now playing over 25 minutes.

The only player to really step up and prove that he's completely worthy of filling a starter's role is Andrew Smith, but everyone else (except Matt Howard, who is playing the best basketball of his career) is still pretty much what they were last year, but they're being asked to take on more minutes and play a larger role.

Unsurprisingly, it isn't always working.