Wichita State Wins MVC All-Sports Trophy...

[Guest]

http://www.mvc-sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=7600&ATCLID=3740289

[NSBF]

no surprise, never really is....the schools that are private and don't have the luxury of dipping into taxpayers pockets in various ways to subsidize their sports, can't field as many teams, and can't pump the money into the sport and the recruiting budget to be as competitive in all the sports.
They go for quality instead of quantity and the results confirm success with more of the private kids making the pros and excelling academically.
In the end, we are proud of our institution's performances in the sports we do field and in their academic achievements, which far surpass those of the schools that finish above Bradley in the rather meaningless "all sports trophy".
Does such an actual "trophy" truly exist or is it only on paper?

First here is the breakdown of all schools and the sports (minus football) that the MVC sponsors. I know WSU has a bowling team, not sure that's really a sport but whatever.

Illinois St. (17)
UNI, SIU (16)
Indiana St., Wichita St. (15)
Bradley, Drake(14)
MSU, Creighton, Evansville (13)

Of the schools listed, both Illinois State and SIU are public schools in a state that doesn't allow funds for athletics. Yeah, yeah, I know you linked an article a few days ago about public financing, but if those buildings are being used primarily for educational purposes like ISU's fieldhouse which houses classroom space, then technically that portion of the building is subject to the campus building funds for improvement by the State of Illinois.

UNI is dropping baseball due to funding issues, Missouri St. in recent years dropped two highly successful tennis programs due to funding constraints.

Illinois State dropped wrestling about 10-15 years ago for Title IX.
Indiana State's fan would rather they drop football than continue to pretend that they're playing it at the FCS level.

How one can disparage the success of other schools sports programs as picking "quantity" over "quality" is absurd at best. Most public schools non-revenue sports are typically a drain on the financially solvent revenue producing sports. I would guess that if every school could throw all their money into one sport such as basketball and get rid of the others it would mean that everyone would have one or two successful programs and the others would falter? Faulty logic at best.

I would rather look at why a school like Creighton which has success in Soccer, Basketball, Baseball, Softball stink at every other sport. Is it that they don't commit the resources? They don't invest in those facilities to attract better recruits? Or is it that at CU, BU or other schools some athletic programs are the "haves" and others the "have nots"?

It's my best example so don't flog me for mentioning them, but ISU has upgraded their outdoor tennis courts, purchased an indoor off-campus tennis facility, upgrade their baseball, softball, basketall, football (turf & Kaufmann bldg.), Track (new surface about 10 years ago), Redbird Arena (new locker rooms, scoreboard, weight facility, offices, etc,).

So are we to believe that they did what BU, CU or other private schools can't because the STATE paid for it? If they did get some money from the State, what estimate would you say they got? 10%, 50%, 75% of the money? Why isn't SIU, EIU, NIU, UIUC and every other State school lining up for their lion's share?

The article stated that ISU finished in the top 5 of 16 of 17 sports they sponsor, the highest percentage in MVC history. Seems that finishing higher should be the goal, not bringing down other schools for doing what BU can't.

I guess I'm just inclined to say that other schools have a community and campus that support more than basketball and soccer, and that they're just better all-around. Nothing more, nothing less.

[SFP]

T I see your point and for most private schools you are correct but the school that wins the overall NCAA All-Sports Trophy year in and year out is Stanford. It does take money to field competitive teams and when schools, regardless of being private or public, do not have a large endowment that supports these type of activities, their ability to compete will compromised, unless they also modify how they are spending their resources.

[DoubleJayAlum]

I guess I'm just inclined to say that other schools have a community and campus that support more than basketball and soccer, and that they're just better all-around. Nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe its just that those other schools have substantially larger enrollments, so that for sports where there isn't much in the way of recruiting budgets, teams can be filled from those in the general student body.

Perhaps its also an issue involving student financing/scholarships. Because there is not always a lot of scholarship money to be awarded in non-revenue sports, the remaining tuition bills at private schools are much higher than those at state schools (for in-state students). For example, a 1/3 scholarship at a state school means that the parents/student would have very little left to pay as opposed to a tuition bill of 20K at a private school after a similar award of a 1/3 scholarship...

[leebiddlecome]

I know the state schools lean on the whole "no state dollars are used for athletics". Great. But they are used for a new chemistry building. Or a parking structure. Or a new agriculture lab, etc.

Its basic math.

A private school has X amount of private dollars. That is for the chemistry, parking, and ag buildings ALONG with athletics.

A public school has X amount of private dollars. Of course, since state money helps pay for everything else on campus wouldn't that leave you with alot left over for athletics?

[Da Coach]

At state schools, they spend tax money on lavish "student recreation centers". I have seen those facilities at Illinois and Indiana, and as nice as the markin center is, the facilities at Illinois and Indiana puts the Markin Center to shame. They were built mainly with tax dollars, and to a lesser degree, student fees (which are made possible because every student is subsidized greatly by taxpayer money to cover their tuition and costs).

Yet it is those same athletic and recreation facilities that the teams block off parts of them and use them exclusively for the athletes, and promote them heavily in their recruiting.

[isufan]

Indiana State is dropping men's and women's tennis and will be at 14 sports in 09-10

First here is the breakdown of all schools and the sports (minus football) that the MVC sponsors. I know WSU has a bowling team, not sure that's really a sport but whatever.

Illinois St. (17)
UNI, SIU (16)
Indiana St., Wichita St. (15)
Bradley, Drake(14)
MSU, Creighton, Evansville (13)

Of the schools listed, both Illinois State and SIU are public schools in a state that doesn't allow funds for athletics. Yeah, yeah, I know you linked an article a few days ago about public financing, but if those buildings are being used primarily for educational purposes like ISU's fieldhouse which houses classroom space, then technically that portion of the building is subject to the campus building funds for improvement by the State of Illinois.

UNI is dropping baseball due to funding issues, Missouri St. in recent years dropped two highly successful tennis programs due to funding constraints.

Illinois State dropped wrestling about 10-15 years ago for Title IX.
Indiana State's fan would rather they drop football than continue to pretend that they're playing it at the FCS level.

How one can disparage the success of other schools sports programs as picking "quantity" over "quality" is absurd at best. Most public schools non-revenue sports are typically a drain on the financially solvent revenue producing sports. I would guess that if every school could throw all their money into one sport such as basketball and get rid of the others it would mean that everyone would have one or two successful programs and the others would falter? Faulty logic at best.

I would rather look at why a school like Creighton which has success in Soccer, Basketball, Baseball, Softball stink at every other sport. Is it that they don't commit the resources? They don't invest in those facilities to attract better recruits? Or is it that at CU, BU or other schools some athletic programs are the "haves" and others the "have nots"?

It's my best example so don't flog me for mentioning them, but ISU has upgraded their outdoor tennis courts, purchased an indoor off-campus tennis facility, upgrade their baseball, softball, basketall, football (turf & Kaufmann bldg.), Track (new surface about 10 years ago), Redbird Arena (new locker rooms, scoreboard, weight facility, offices, etc,).

So are we to believe that they did what BU, CU or other private schools can't because the STATE paid for it? If they did get some money from the State, what estimate would you say they got? 10%, 50%, 75% of the money? Why isn't SIU, EIU, NIU, UIUC and every other State school lining up for their lion's share?

The article stated that ISU finished in the top 5 of 16 of 17 sports they sponsor, the highest percentage in MVC history. Seems that finishing higher should be the goal, not bringing down other schools for doing what BU can't.

I guess I'm just inclined to say that other schools have a community and campus that support more than basketball and soccer, and that they're just better all-around. Nothing more, nothing less.

[it's boogie time]

Has Bradley ever finished in the top half of the conference in the last decade or two? How does BU compare against Creighton, Evansville and Drake?

[bigdaddystuck]

Congrats to WSU on this achievement!