ASU and UA second-tier programs...why?

[Nasser22]

I ask because I am almost completely ignorant on this topic. Is this just because of the lack of high school talent in Arizona compared to other states?

Looking at ASU, we have:

A great campus with plenty to do, in a town that is far from boring

A very strong home field advantage when our team shows any signs of life...as with any Arizona pro team

Good educational programs for those who care, but not such difficult entrance requirements for those who just want to play

An experienced coaching staff in all the major sports

We're in a conference that is often top 2 or 3 in ever sport with some off years in between

I can see why we will never be the USC of football or UCLA of basketball, but ASU has been to Rose Bowls and is always great in baseball. U of A built one of the greatest basketball programs, which shows what these schools are capable of... I'm just curious as to why we are on the same level as these Oregon and Washington schools.

 

[HooverDam]

Money. ASU has a younger graduate base, and most of them don't donate back to the school anyway. ASUs endowment is very low for a school its size, as is its alumni giving rate.

UA basketball under Lute was so good for so long that now its too important to ever likely fall off for a long period b/c it means so much to that town, they'll spend whatever they need to. ASU unfortunately hasn't had a sustained period of success like that in the 2 major sports since the 70s, so people are not inclined to pony up the big bucks.

Look at SDS, its falling apart and ASU is struggling to find the money just to make it safe. Forget the bells and whistles it needs like better seats, better concourse lighting, better and more restrooms, a shade structure around the upper lip, etc.

 

[Gaddabout]

Talent base. Arizona doesn't even produce NFL talent on equal *percentages*. This is from 2008 ... States that produce NFL talent ...

California
699

Texas
568

Florida
541

Georgia
281

Ohio
231

Louisiana
225

Pennsylvania
171

Virginia
165

Alabama
164

North Carolina
160

 

[Gaddabout]

Point being, if your sales pitch is weather and your primary recruiting base is in SoCal, that's a hard sell, but it's still an easier sell than pitching it in Texas or Florida.

Consider you have the "one day round trip" rule. If a player's parents can't drive to a game and back home in a reasonable day, you're too far away to spend a lot of resources trying to recruit that place. It's why I say people who want ASU to spend a lot of resources in Dallas and Houston do not understand recruiting. You can pull a gem or two out of there every now and then, but you will NEVER establish a strong base there.

Phoenix and it's relation to major metro areas:


Las Vegas: 300 miles, about 5 hours drive time
San Diego: 360 miles, about 5 hours drive time
Los Angeles: 400 miles, about 5.5 hours drive time

SLC: 650 miles, about 11 hours drive time
Denver: 835 miles, about 12 hours drive time
Sacramento: 630 miles, about 13.5 hours drive time
San Francisco: 650 miles, about 14 hours drive time
Dallas: 1,030 miles,
Houston: 1,160 miles
Seattle: 1,480 miles

 

[Nasser22]

Matt, so would you say that Hamilton is good for AZ even though we all complain about them recruiting? Hamilton and Brophy definitely have gotten us some national coverage.

Hoover, I just don't understand that? How does such a large school not have more boosters?

 

[HooverDam]

Hoover, I just don't understand that? How does such a large school not have more boosters?

A few factors. One, ASU hasn't had the good luck of any of their grads turn out to be a Phil Knight type. If some ASU grad cures cancer some day or invents some crazy new billion dollar product and they want to donate a lot to ASU, that'll help.

Consider also that ASU is still a fairly young school and even younger to being a school of much quality. A lot of those graduating ASU in the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc were getting good educations but not amazing ones. They weren't being hired based on their degrees to head major companies or anything.

Additionally, a lot of people go to ASU but don't feel connected to ASU. Its a problem the Valley has in general. We have very few civic leaders who take pride in the Valley and put their money into it (the Steeles, Herbergers, Fultons, Colangelo, etc are a few exceptions). Its perhaps because people come from other places and generally leave their hearts there.

ASU being a major commuter school really hurts. It being so big actually hurts it more than it helps in terms of people feeling connected to the school. Most everyone I know who goes to or went to ASU kinda hates it. They feel trapped in this giant Higher Education machine that chews them up and spits them out. They are lost in this huge sea of students and feel disconnected, its sadly a lot like a giant Community College in some ways.

 

[Nasser22]

I've definitely seen a lot of what you are talking about....only about 10% of our students cared enough to buy season tickets and that tells you something. It is sad to see.

 

[Gaddabout]

Matt, so would you say that Hamilton is good for AZ even though we all complain about them recruiting? Hamilton and Brophy definitely have gotten us some national coverage.

Hoover, I just don't understand that? How does such a large school not have more boosters?

A medical school would help, but I've promised myself to just leave that alone. Never going to happen.

Hamilton has been good to ASU, but so has Chapparal, Peoria, Tolleson, Mountain View. Those are good programs and good programs attract good athletes. There's just a general lack of overall football quality. Some of it has to do with the focus here. I say year-round baseball kills football. A lot of our best athletes end up playing baseball and skip college all together. In the south, if you're 6-4, you're going to be going to speed camp, lineman camp, additional weight training, and you're going to put on a lot of weight to play offensive line -- even if you can throw a fastball 90 MPH.

The other thing is this state is TOO SMALL to provide for two major FBS schools. If ASU were the only FBS program, they'd be like Wisconsin or some program like that that's always pretty decent. They showed a graphic last night about Arizona's makeup. They have 16 kids from Arizona, 16 from Texas, and the rest are from Cali. ASU is pretty much right along those lines and always have been in their better years. It's always scary to me when ASU has 20 or more locals. That's a bad sign, IMO.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

I wouldn't even consider ASU or UA second tier, more like third and fourth respectively. Second tier is reserved for programs that consistently win but are generally below championship level like Oregon, Georgia, Virginia Tech, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc.

The reasons these programs are what they are is for the reasons most have stated - money and recruiting base. If ASU/UA find a Lute Olson-type program changer in football and somehow convince said coach to hang around for less money (Lute turned down several high-profile gigs like Kentucky during his tenure) then this will change. Or of course if they find a huge cash cow booster with ties to athletics like Knight but the odds of the savior coach happening are much greater albeit small. Neither Dennis Erickson or Mike Stoops is that guy.

 

[Nasser22]

Well then hopefully we do have some graduates who eventually want to put more money in our programs. It is difficult when most of your alumni is middle-class. I know I would put in some money if I could, but realistically it won't be millions... The ASU law school has gotten a lot better though, maybe that will help us out...wishful thinking.

Thank you for your responses guys. I know it was a bit of an obvious question to ask, but you've helped me gain a little more of an understanding on why things are the way they are at the moment.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

Just remember that hot girls and good weather mean absolutely nothing. It's gotten so annoying when ASU and UA fans use these as reasons their athletic programs should be great.

Find a way to have amazing coaching (whether that's money or diligent search), improve local football talent, and get some luck along the way. Then you're there.

 

[HooverDam]

Mao agree with most of what you're posting but I think you're jumping the gun on calling Oregon a consistent program. Since 2000 they've been good due to Knight in large part, but for most of my life both Oregon schools were considered easy W's on the schedule.

Great point by Matt about AZ recruits being split between the two schools, something places like Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa (b/c even though ISU is in a BCS conference, they're awful), Illinois, Missouri, etc. don't have to deal with.

This upcoming year Arizona has 6 players that are 4 star or better. 3 of them are already committed to out of state schools disappointingly. Additionally there are 9 three star players, 3 committed to UA, 1 to ASU and 2 out of state. I think the talent base here is obviously improving, but keeping it home has been a major challenge for ASU.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

Mao agree with most of what you're posting but I think you're jumping the gun on calling Oregon a consistent program. Since 2000 they've been good due to Knight in large part, but for most of my life both Oregon schools were considered easy W's on the schedule.

Oregon won in the 90's as well, but yeah they became an upper-echelon program this decade. Not coincidentally around Nike's rise as a global conglomerate.

As long as Phil Knight hangs around they'll win in football. That program is his baby.

This upcoming year Arizona has 6 players that are 4 star or better. 3 of them are already committed to out of state schools disappointingly. Additionally there are 9 three star players, 3 committed to UA, 1 to ASU and 2 out of state. I think the talent base here is obviously improving, but keeping it home has been a major challenge for ASU.

Arizona doesn't recruit Maricopa county very well nor have they ever. Another thing to add when it comes to local recruiting is the absolute dismal state of our education in this state. High schools here don't have the budgets to create football powerhouses that can develop a bunch of players.

 

[Gaddabout]

Let's just add one more thing because I think most people think it, it seems pretty obvious, but I'm the only one dumb enough to write it: Football is a sport driven by African Americans. We can debate a lot of reasons why, but that's just the way it is. Almost 80 percent of the NFL consists of black players, and at the skill positions that number skews over 90 percent.

African Americans make up less than 5 percent of Arizona's population. Almost 19 percent of California's population is black, and the communities there are much, much stronger. Blacks tend to take the third seat behind anglos and Latinos in this community. It's barely recognized. Sadly, they're almost invisible.

Sorry. Didn't mean to digress. But if you look at this objectively, Arizona's basic demographic is simply not one made for American football.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

You certainly addressed the situation better than Paul Hornung.

 

[chickenhead]

Endowment aside, if we're talking about revenue from ticket and merchandise-buying fans, ASU in particular faces some incredible competition: four major sports franshise plus additional secondary ones, spring training, and another Pac-10 school and chief rival just down the interstate (with its most sizeable concentration of alumni in the Phoenix area). Southern California being right next door doesn't help, either. Plus Arizona doesn't yet have generations of alumni instilling the dream of playing for the state school.

This isn't to say that the school doesn't have alot going for it as well. But we're not going to see 100,000+ in attendance for a regular-season college football game like you do in Lincoln, for example.

 

[Gaddabout]

You certainly addressed the situation better than Paul Hornung.

I guess I would just add if I were African-American, I probably wouldn't want to live in Arizona, either.