dutchcountry7

This is not correct and this source is what your whole premise is based on. These are lower bowl permanent seats. Do you think that the Arena has more upper deck seats than lower bowl seats? You really think an arena would be designed to put the majority of the fans in the upper deck? Do you honestly think that when you look at the arena pictures there are more seats in the upper deck than the lower bowl? For the basketball configuration there are expandable seats that pull out beyond the fixed permanent seats to expand the capacity. These are used in basketball and also used in ice hockey. It allows the arena to have a larger floor space for events like monster trucks or conventions. They also add floor seats for the basketball configuration making it have a greater seating capacity than ice hockey. The lower bowl is just shy of 8,000 capacity. You can request the Venue's promoter's packet if you don't believe me. You provided a lot of pictures of games and broke out your estimated attendance by section claiming that only about 70% of the seats were claimed in all of the lower bowl seats to try to say that Siena is lying about their numbers. Could you tell me what 70% of the actual lower bowl capacity which is a little shy of 8,000 would be? Seems to be right in line with their reported attendance figures for those games. Yes, you may have a game from time to time where the tickets sold result in a much higher attendance being reported than buts in the seats such as when there are snow storms. But Siena's figures are solid. They don't inflate their numbers. This is Siena's second best attended game last season when they hosted Iona. Yes, there were some empty seats around the arena in the lower bowl. But they also open sections of the upper decks to accommodate the increased capacity when needed, such as with this game. The reported attendance of 7,801 is consistent with the pictures. I am not really sure what your point in arguing all this is exactly... are you just trying to say that Siena doesn't have more fans that support their program than we do? Because that isn't debatable. They absolutely do.

Are you implying that their numbers are fabricated? That's not the case. The games you say are bad attendance are not bad in total numbers. They are just a low percentage of total capacity that makes them look bad. Similar to the Big Four games at Key Bank. They have solid attendance compared to Big Four home venues but look empty in comparison to the large arena. As you have said, MVP Arena in Albany is about the same size as Key Bank Arena. So use those comparisons as a baseline. This is the actual attendance of the game you say is good attendance for Siena. The Upper Section is open and the Arena is at 2/3 capacity. Compared to our 2016 Big Four game at Key Bank Arena here: The thing is that the attendance was actually strong in total numbers at Key Bank that day. The problem is the venue is massive. So while only about 1/3 of the capacity was filled, the number of people in attendance would have rivaled a sellout at Alumni Arena. For comparison, here is a game you said is bad attendance for Siena. This was their lowest attendance of the year (Army West Point): This game where the attendance was so poor, as you say, is still really strong attendance. One third of the arena is filled with fans in the end-zones and filled along the sidelines on the lower bowl. It is their worst attendance of the year and it would be a packed Alumni Arena. The game that you say is good attendance (UAlbany) would have filled two Alumni Arenas. While the game you said was poor attendance on a weeknight would have been a packed Alumni Arena. Siena's strong fan base is the reason the MAAC has held the conference tournament in Albany so many times in the last 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAAC_men's_basketball_tournament#List_of_finals Siena has a much stronger fan base than we do. And they do it without an on-campus arena.

These comments always annoy me. It's akin to saying "No one comes to our games because they have better things to do." Also, it is out of touch. St Bona doesn't have a well resourced program and solid fan base because of the Olean community. The majority of their season ticket holders live over an hour away from Olean and their biggest donors are nowhere near Olean. Their former AD even lived in East Aurora, just 25 miles from Alumni arena and 60 miles from SBU's campus. And this made sense due to so much time spent with the Buffalo arena alumni that support the program. St Bona gets big games in NYC for instance because they sell tickets. They have fans down there that come out. There is a basketball culture. That culture starts with the students. And those students become alums. If you need to be having national success to get people interested in your program you don't have a fan base you just have bandwagoners. Look at Siena, they are horrible. But they have a huge fan base. Imagine if they were actually any good. https://sienasaints.com/news/2022/10/27/mens-basketball-siena-basketball-leads-northeast-mid-majors-in-attendance-for-second-straight-time.aspx UB tries to sell to the community like they are a pro sports franchise but that won't work. It needs to be a grassroots educational community model.

Is it your position that a limited resource school should constantly churn coaches until they find one that is a winner performing at a significantly higher level than their conference would expect?

We have different expectations and a different budget to work with. I am not saying we bring Reggie back. I am simply saying that it is perfectly reasonable that he remains employed at CC.

2018–19 Canisius Golden Griffins men's basketball team - Wikipedia Yeah, this might have been a losing season, but I don't think CC was expecting much more from them in the OOC schedule. Finishing second in the MAAC was what mattered.

In the last six years he has finished 1st, 2nd, and 4th in the conference. That will keep you around at Canisus.

This is a very good way to get a talented team on the floor at a mid-major when you are a coach that isn't very good at coaching or player development. You bring in talent above the level of your conference and even when they underperform because they don't play well together you find success simply due to their talent they came in with. However, in the NIL era, even more so than before, you're going to have to be going after the guys that other programs passed on. Your offer is going to have to be their best offer to land a recruit. Which means you're going to end up with the legal issues and locker room drama that come with the type of players who found Arkansas State as their best option, despite their great talent, as many other programs passed on them. This could work out for BH if he finds success right away and is poached by a major conference program hopeful to get a fast riser on the cheap, but it could easily turn sideways quickly.

$100k is a lot of money for the athletic department... It takes a lot of effort to raise that much money for the program.

I have told you... I have never been employed by UB and have never spoken to Whitesell. I am not employed by CSA either. I have no direct connection to the basketball team other than being a fan.

You're really trying to figure me out, aren't you? ha ha

Curious: How successful do you think Hurley and Oats would have been at UB in the NIL and free transfer era? That's what prospective coaches are trying to asses.

Agreed. This is a big one. You take someone who is use to having resources and bring them to UB and they will be fighting with the admin and feeling frustrated which will kill their momentum (like the reports of Frankl Martin at UMass). However, you take a coach who is use to having no resources and bring them to UB and they will feel like they are at the big time and will have energy. The issue is finding those that are at the bottom tier programs due to their low ceiling on ability versus those that are there due to that simply being their opportunity thus far.

The fact he played at Emory is one of the benefits. D3 players who get into D1 coaching make it there because they have some attribute that allows them to succeed in spite of their athletic resume. Emory plays in the highly competitive UAA which is able to compete with the bottom of D1. The Emory program is highly respected and has become a very strong program thanks to Zimmerman who Austin Claunch played under. Zimmerman was on staff at Davidson for 11 years under the Bob McKillop system before taking over at Emory. He was highly respected by McKillop. In fact, when McKillop wanted his son Matt to get experience coaching outside of his shadow he reached out to Zimmerman and Matt McKillop joined the Emory staff. Matt McKillop has now taken over his father's program in the A10. That's a ringing endorsement of Zimmerman by Bob McKillop which lends me to believe Austin Claunch got some good coaching at Emory. Since being at Emory, he has been on staff in the A10, ACC, and Southland where he has succeeded as a young head coach. It's an interesting prospect for sure.

They have played a pretty tough OOC schedule which means more losses too. This stat is one that catches my eye... In the 43 years Nicholls State has had a D1 program... they have claimed only five regular season conference championships. Two of those have been in the last three years thanks to the young coach.

Or... if you simply want the short version... The proof is in the pudding. If the resources and commitment is so great, why would coaches be turning the jobs down due to resources and commitment?

The EADA report is a governmental report that was created by politicians and bureaucrats that have no understanding of educational or athletic financial reporting. As a result, this publicly available dataset is largely considered worthless when comparing different schools to one another. A major reason for this is the lack of established reporting procedures that create uniform reporting to address the various different ways in which institutions operate and how their internal accounting functions are handled. For instance, if you pull the University of Oklahoma's data you will see that their golf program generated $502,715 in revenue last year. Of course, this is curious since their program doesn't charge admission to contests or have any athletically related revenue for the program. So how did this number end up in the EADA report? Well, that is the amount of money that the University transferred to the golf program to cover it's operating shortfall. We don't think of that as revenue, but due to the organizational structure and internal accounting processes utilized at the University of Oklahoma it is technical golf revenue. A common issue is surrounding the accounting of facility costs. Some schools use internal accounting to account for program utilization of facilities. For instance, a basketball program may be "charged" against their budget each time they use their basketball arena for a game or practice. Or they may be charged a flat fee annually from the athletic department budget and applied to the basketball team (split evenly between the genders) to cover debt service on their game or practice facility. This is not really a true expense when you compare the school to others but is simply used for internal accounting to account for a facility that is used by all kinds of campus programs. It can be a useful way to ration usage and give priority to different programs. So while some basketball (or volleyball, or wrestling, or whatever) programs have tens of thousands of dollars (or even hundreds of thousands of dollars) included in their operating budgets to cover these internal facility rental fees other programs don't have these costs as their facility costs fall under institutional or athletic department costs that are not accounted for within the basketball program's accounting. Due to these different accounting processes and broad categorization used in EADA reporting these figures can be deceptively off by millions from what you'd expect them to be for a specific school. As a result of these various issues, the NCAA doesn't use the EADA reports. The NCAA has their own financial reporting guidelines for the NCAA's annual financial statements that are the golden standard in intercollegiate athletic financial reporting. These have finely tuned reporting standards that ensure uniformity between academic institutions which allows for an accurate comparison. The issue here is that these records are not public records. They are provided to the NCAA only for internal reporting and program/policy review. Very few schools make these reports public which makes it difficult to actually compare institutions. If you'd like to compare two such reports, I have included both reports for the University of Kansas (2021-2022). Their state laws require their NCAA Financial Report to be made public in addition to the EADA report. EADA Report (the numbers you linked to which are not informative): https://kuathletics.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-EADA-Survey.pdf NCAA Financial Statement: https://kuathletics.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/21-22-NCAA-Report.pdf

No but yes... The reason that's not an issue... Coaches know UB has been successful. They know Hurley and Oats used it as a stepping stone and had success. The MAC is a solid conference which allows for recruiting. So it's a middle of the road conference and program--like a VCU--which can build a reputation as being a strong program and a spring board for coaches wanting to make the jump to lucrative P6 contracts. Much easier to be hired from a mid-tier conference/program than a bottom tier. When they see that Whitesell was fired when he was successful (by MAC standards) at least on paper, that signals to prospective coaches that UB is serious about wanting to win and really makes the program an exciting prospect for ambitious coaches. They want to be at a program where the program wants to win and tries to make it happen. As a result, Whitesell being fired is not an issue. However, when these coaches meet with the Admin and talk about the vision and what they need to succeed they realize that UB is not infact serious about winning and not going to give them what they need to be successful. As a result, they are left thinking... this is going to be a hard job and not only that but UB has high expectations. They just fired a coach that was doing a pretty decent job. If they aren't going to commit to giving me what I think I need to be successful then this could really stunt my career progression.

They were given candidates that would take the job. These aren't desperate people just looking for a job. They need to sell UB on why they are a good fit but UB also needs to sell the candidates on why UB will be a good place for their career. This is like dating. You can't blame the match maker here.

Not at all. This falls on the Admin. You hire a search firm to be able to communicate prospective coaches outside of SUNY's FOIL requirements. You use the search firm to cast a wider net. Qualified candidates have been brought to UB. They are looking for compensation in the range of what UB told the firm would be the target range. Candidates have had an interest in working for UB. The issue is UB closing the deal. This is on the admin for not understanding the market better.

Unfortunately, agents and coaches will sometimes "leak" that they are interviewing for jobs that they aren't actually involved with as a way to try to make it seem like other programs are after them. This can help to motivate a school to offer them.

It didn't devalue the position. It strengthened the position. Which is why there have been really good candidates interested. There is something else that is causing issues with closing the deal with good candidates.

Ha ha. Thanks for the complements but I am not connected to Whitesell. When I posted that the program was in good hands it was January 8, 2020. That's the comment you quoted. We had started the MAC season 0-2 and you and others like you were talking about the sky falling. We finished 11-7 in the MAC and 148 in KenPom. It wasn't a horrible season. It was disappointing to lose first round as the 5 seed but it was not a horrible season. So maybe the next season was all doom and gloom? Well, covid did shorten the season... But I wouldn't call finishing 2nd in the MAC, Runner-up in the MAC tournament, and playing in the NIT a bad season. Sure, I wanted to beat Colorado State in the NIT too... but losing by two to a bubble team that makes the NIT semi-finals isn't a poor performance. Finishing 77 in KenPom is pretty good. And the following year? More doom and gloom? Well, I wouldn't call 19-11 (13-6 MAC) a poor season even if it felt that way since the team was good enough to win the MAC tournament (lost by two to eventual champion always hurts). The program was stable and in good hands. Was it time for a change? Absolutely. But Whitesell was the right hire to make when he was hired. And the program was absolutely in good hands in Jan 2020.

The program was in good hands. This year's team didn't perform (as well as happened multiple other times over the previous few years) and it was time to make a change. The program wasn't ran into the ground. No matter what you want to argue.

Whitesell was the correct hire. You're using Kent State as your proof? You mean you're using an example from 20 years ago, before the transfer portal was created and using that as proof that players wouldn't have left a team after the transfer portal was created making it much easier for players to transfer? You know the players said they wanted Whitesell as their coach, right? Buffalo didn't have an Honorable Mention All-American (Antonio Gates) that couldn't transfer (since Kent State was his fourth school) which was the key to Kent State being a top-100 program the season after Stan Heath left Kent State. That is a pretty significant key to their program not falling off... Of course, you continue to claim I must work for the school since I agree that it was the right call. And as I have always told you, I don't work for the school. Whitesell was the correct hire. It created stability within the program. That's what mid-majors need to build long term success.