|
Post by csubad on Dec 11, 2012 20:30:32 GMT -8
Hi Runner fans,
This is the CSUB AD. Much thanks to Runnerball for setting this up and CSUBVoice (our own Corey Costelloe) for telling me about this site.
We try to run a cutting edge, professional, and transparent operation at CSUB. If it is OK with you guys, we can keep this thread as a virtual Q and A with me. Feel free to ask me about CSUB or other athletics issues, and from time to time, I will try to respond within reason.
Also, in the new year, we will have another AD chat. Those have been quite popular. So has our radio show "Runner Rundown" which is on Saturdays at Noon on Kern 1180am (also can be downloaded on gorunners.com)
I hope this site grows as folks learn of it. It is an exciting time for the Roadrunners and a very "interesting" time in intercollegiate athletics for sure.
Stay classy Bakersfield,
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by RunnerBall on Dec 12, 2012 9:12:16 GMT -8
Thanks Jeff, and welcome to the board.
|
|
|
Post by cpslograd on Dec 12, 2012 19:54:28 GMT -8
Jeff thanks for posting. It's very cool of you and Corey to do this. I'm not a CSUB alum and I'm from Visalia, not Bakersfield, but I became familiar with the program and have really enjoyed watching what Dr. Mitchell and yourself have done with the program. CSUB has good coaches and players and it is a great place to take my boy to see basketball and baseball games. Keep up the good work.
If there is any volunteer help needed, please have Corey PM on the board, and I'll try to help out.
And keep pushing those coaches to recruit locally in the Valley as much as possible please. First CSUB game I ever listened to Carter hit a 3 at the buzzer to force overtime against Idaho. The fact that he is a Valley kid made me interested in following his career and is a big reason why I became a fan of the Roadrunners.
|
|
|
Post by csubad on Dec 12, 2012 23:01:47 GMT -8
Slo,
Appreciate the comments. Actually, your AD at your Alma Mater, Don O., is a good friend.
One of the things we have stressed as an overall department is to be as "user friendly" as possible. Being "accessible" certainly falls in line with that philosophy.
Agree with your recruiting comments. Actually Coach Barnes at a lunch engagement today alluded to an "inside-out" recruiting model where there is a simultaneous focus on the Valley and then best available nationally. Carter is a special case because he took a chance on Bakersfield when we were a D1 indy in the reclassification period. This town should give him a standing O on senior night for sure. Some other fall sports got great performances from local athletes (Shelton in W. soccer and Alvidrez in Volleyball to name a few).
Also, Corey told me there were some questions regarding WAC baseball moving forward (recent additions). I can give you our CSUB (Coach K and I) theory. Ideally, a 9 team/24 game conference slate of games is what we prefer. This allows for us to maximize our non-conference with the RPI in mind with a reasonable number (not overkill) of conference games. But it also allows for competetive equity in conference, in that, potentially eight series could be split 4 home and 4 away (this year's WAC is not equitable because half the league gets an extra home series). Also, a potential 9 team conference avoids the dreaded 4 game weekend series. Playing a team more than one series a year really does devalue the conference tournament in my mind. Of course, times are changing everyday in intercollegiate athletics so you have to the best decisions on the fly knowing what makes sense today may not tomorrow.
- Jeff
|
|
|
Post by spartypants on Dec 13, 2012 10:56:41 GMT -8
Wow, this is really great for you, RunnerBall. Congrats.
Jeff, thanks for posting. Really nice to see.
|
|
|
Post by redhawkrobert on Dec 15, 2012 19:55:24 GMT -8
Mr. Konya,
Congrats on your well deserved WAC invite, I am a big SU fan and run a similar board for Seattle. If you could please tell your SU counterpart about the Internet, I would be happy. During tonights Utah St vs Utah Valley game, the UVU AD stated the WAC is close to adding several more programs.
Are we looking at Division 2 schools or current D1 members? He made it clear that UTPA was not one of the schools he was referring to and that NJIT was not being considered.
Thanks for your time and good luck against La Verne tonight.
|
|
|
Post by csubad on Dec 16, 2012 12:49:50 GMT -8
RR-
Welcome to the CSUB board.
OK- you win the prize- I was wondering who would ask the first conference related question.
I need to preface these comments. I did not hear what was said during halftime of the UVU game so I have no context to comment on that specifically. But I want to take this opportunity to address the WAC from my personal take and experiences. Again, I will try to address some "popular myths" that have been recently discussed by those folks with an interest in the WAC, or current WAC institutions, but again remember I am only speaking for me personally (via my position at CSUB).
First, let's understand these are "unprecedented times" in Division I and the ground shifts almost daily. CSUB has been in the WAC formally since early October 2012, and so far, my perceptions of its leadership (conference, presidents, AD’s) are of the highest regard. I do not know what the environment was like in the past, but currently, I believe there is a trend to being proactive and aggressive rather than being reactionary and passive throughout the various WAC constituents.
As you know, there are short, intermediate and long range objectives for any organization, and for the WAC as we (CSUB) entered the short game, it was highlighted by a need to immediately grow the membership to be in compliance with NCAA definitions for a multi-sport league. Thus, there has been an emphasis to avoid an "exemption year"(for failure to have 7 active D1's) but also to plan for other collateral issues (i.e., sponsorship of certain men's sports). To this end, I perceive the WAC is now in a good spot for 2013-14 (and beyond), and to be honest the pendulum has turned, where we are now an attractive landing spot to other institutions in this shifting national re-alignment landscape. Moreover, the leadership is not sitting by idle, but has identified contingency plans like any self-interested organization would have. Primarily, these plans circle around the shifting D1 landscape and perhaps this is what was referenced in the telecast.
Second, to me, one cannot underestimate the intrinsic value of the WAC in terms of brand recognition for potential members and the fact that a new media deal can be struck moving forward. There are over 30 plus conferences in D1 and I bet less than a third have the name recognition of the WAC. My personal analogy is to real estate driven by location, location, location. If you buy a house at discount in a neighborhood that has a history of being solid and having longevity, the odds are the value of the house will rise quickly when compared to other real estate opportunities.
Finally, I briefly read some comments on other boards and I just want to make sure (and again, this is my own personal belief), be careful on painting “too broad a brush” on potential D2 institutions. Do not necessarily put the cart before the horse. To this end, the horse, chains, cart, everything have to be all lined up and ready to go. At minimum, for a successful D2 transition, an institution, has to evidence a vision and understanding of what it takes to be successful in D1, a financial scheme on campus that mirrors a D1 commitment and facilities that match a potential conference home. This has to be in place at the outset of any potential discussions. D1 is not an environment where you take a chance, and cultivate through time hoping that an institution can fulfill some sort of potential down the line. If you look at the last four D2 "transitionals" in our region (Grand Canyon, UNO, Incarnate Word and ACU), they all clearly satisfy these initial considerations and is why they each received their respective invite.
RR- I hope that helps. We are on the right track.
- Jeff
|
|
|
Post by redhawkrobert on Dec 16, 2012 14:00:37 GMT -8
Thanks for the reply Jeff. I look forward to seeing many SU vs CSUB games in the future. I too hope the WAC can land an attractive media rights deal and hopefully the WAC schools can make some money off it too. If the WAC can land some current D1 schools, I think the future will be extremely bright.
|
|
|
Post by cpslograd on Dec 30, 2012 9:33:25 GMT -8
Jeff, I see quite a few WAC basketball games are on regional cable sports channels this year. Any luck getting a regional network to pick up some CSUB home games next year? Are those deals made by the individual schools or the conference?
|
|
|
Post by csubad on Dec 31, 2012 9:41:00 GMT -8
SLO-
Happy 2013! Thanks for the question.
This is an exciting time for us to be entering the WAC, because from what I have been told, the Media rights can be re-negotiated for the league heading into next year. Those would be the primary rights.
Secondary rights stem from having a "bigger" deal in place. These rights can be regional (local Fox as an example) or local (like our current Birighthouse deal), especially if there is a national carrier serving as the primary (ESPN, CBS, NBC, etc).
So yes, tv means exposure and it is something we will identify for CSUB. It is actually one of the reasons why the Rabobank is important moving forward because the Icardo Center is not "hard-wired" to handle a television game. In effect, for us to broadcast out of the Icardo would require a third party "truck" to show up and run lines into the arena. The last time we "mocked" that situation, it almost overloaded the electrical system.
For the Icardo to be utilized as a "modern" arena, itwould require a six figure technological improvement to make the television enviornment "turn key." And then the question is where does that project rank compared to other department needs (tri-venue building for swim, softball and soccers, continued improvement to Hardt, academic center buildout, strength and conditioning upgrade, etc). You get the picture.
Hope that helps. Wrote this from my phone so couldn't check for spelling. Don't judge too harsh.
|
|
|
Post by spartypants on Jan 2, 2013 11:40:37 GMT -8
Jeff - A couple topics that I hope you can touch on briefly: 1. Can you please discuss a little bit about the CSUB sports sponsoring strategy? By that I mean CSUB seems to sponsor a number of sports that are less commonplace (Men's swimming, wrestling, women's water polo, sand volleyball). Is this a deliberate strategy to offer greater chances of success? Is it demand driven by the student demographics at CSUB? Conference driven? Cost driven? 2. How does a D-1 sports program pencil out for a small school like CSUB, especially as an independent? There are a number of D-2 programs (CCAA schools) with student bodies 2-3X as large as CSUB that won't or can't move up. Pomona, for example, tells me that it doesn't pencil out to add football nor move to D-1 in other sports. 3. Do you foresee any other CSU schools moving to D-1? The WAC could certainly challenge the Big West with very few additions. Any chance you can strong-arm my Alma Mater, the CPP Broncos into moving up?
|
|
|
Post by csubad on Jan 2, 2013 20:05:15 GMT -8
Sparty-
Welcome back to the CSUB boards!
I can honestly say, no one has ever asked me about the sports strategy for what we offer. This assumes there is a strategy and it is not a random sequence of events. I think the various answers as to why CSUB sponsors some "nontraditional" sports are because of unique circumstances in each of the sports.
Basically, it falls into one of three categories as I see it: Historical that led to being entrenched in the community, Facility (and thus cost) driven and finally, the new CSUB leadership. Let's look at each one independently: Wrestling is a storied sport in Bakersfield within the community including at the youth and high school levels. In fact, it was our first D1 program and has had much success since inception with the likes of Stephen Neal being a Roadrunner and National Champ. The history is there and the community support has followed in a big way. I cannot overstate how impressed I am by the current wrestling supporters and their funding of this program. That is why I hope to see everyone at the "Old Gym' on Thursday night as the 'Runners battle Rutgers in a big tilt. Water Polo and Men's Swim I believe were added/kept/offered because we have a superior facility in the form of our pool. It makes sense to maximize its use with as many teams as can reasonably utilize the Hillman natatorium. By having these sports in a facility already D1 plus worthy, it allows money that would be earmarked for other facilities (i.e., to start another sport) to be utilized for other department ends. Finally, Sand volleyball is a gamble of mine (and the CSUB leadership) and if I am correct we can be ahead of the curve and dominant in this NCAA emerging sport. The Olympics showed the interest is there. If I am right, this will be a sport that will catch on nationally in Division I in short order. So by being one of the first to start the sport, we can lay a good foundation and be ahead of the curve moving forward as compared to future competition. For exmaple, we will have established the recruiting contacts and bridged those relationships. We will be able to host the pre-season tournaments and so forth. Plus, we have three volleyball coaches on staff so there is a cost savings mechanism already built in. The cost to erect sand volleyball courts is not too high compared to other projects, and we have received numerous inquiries from would-be players, so the interest in definitely there. And the NCAA offers a small monetary incentive to start certain emerging sports of which Sand VB is one.
Ok, next up is the question regarding the "pencil" or math of adding football or going Division I. And this question was asked with respect to the CSU schools that could ponder these considerations, and you had specific questions with respect to your Alma Mater, Cal Poly Pomona. There is no question that going Division I these days is a major investment for any institution. The rules have changed recently regarding the transition in terms of upfront dollars that you have to bring to the party and so it takes many more dollars (i.e., over $1,000,000) just to go through the application process. On top of that, you need a Conference invite, and thus you need to be ready to pay and fund Conference entry fees and annual commitments. In fact, I tell everyone that CSUB, and for that matter, Utah Valley, Seattle, Houston Baptist, among a few others were fortunate to activate at the time these institutions did in my opinion because the costs were more reasonable during the transition and thus, raised dollars could be invested directly into the programs for growth. As an example, I do not know where our rising baseball team would be had we had other sizeable financial considerations to work through during the transition from 2006-2010. Our raised monies at that time went to start and elevate that program and to increase opportunities for female student-athletes through additional scholarships and roster sports. Had CSUB remained in the CCAA to present day, I am not sure if we would be in a position to make a similar move like we did in 2006 without a comprehensive fundraising campaign with doubling or tripling the financial targets we had back then. And even if we hit those, we would be in the same relative place as we are today.
That said, it could be done but it is going to take the general students to back the move in a big way. The key I believe is generating annual revenue streams independent of the state allocations in the CSU. You need a high functioning external arm of the shop (this must be in place- you cannot be catch up in this area because you cannot create passion, and passion is what drives external fundraising) and a student fee earmark to support the budget because Division I demands a level of funding that is quite a bit higher that other levels of competition. I would imagine funding football to be the same case with the need for these kinds of additional financial support added to the existing budget. I know that funding football at Division 2 probably equates to what would be needed financially to transition up to Division I based on what it took to fund a viable D2 program when I was the AD at Northeastern State (D2 program in intense MIAA). Also, a blueprint for such considerations was recently seen at Nebraska Omaha which made the shrewd decision to go Division I but it cost them the sponsorship of some visible and popular sports. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that finances played a critical role, and not just one time money, but annual financial considerations to the budget. As I write this, it is not an either/or situation (football or D1) but in this day and age, outside of an angel giver to the university, the funding requirements may pigeonhole an institution to make the call as to what is in its best interest to maximize the #1 marketing arm on any college campus, and that being the athletics department.
I would be happy to share my thoughts/information or otherwise with any institution that wanted to speak with me including your Alma Mater.
And as a side and I know I am biased, but if the WAC/Big West had a Big 10/ACC challenge series, I think the games/results would be very competitive.
What has been remarkable to witness is that while everyone understands how truly difficult it is to be a D1 Independent (and it is especially with scheduling considerations) CSUB has nearly a .600 winning percentage against the Big West in our first three years of active D1 membership with respect to Baseball, Men's Basketball and Men's Soccer. Some of our other sports have not fared quite as well due to the prowess of the Big West but it is why I maintain, just wait until we are on equal footing with everyone, within a Conference with an AQ.
This is why everyone should be excited who is a Roadrunner fan and why 2013 will be historic.
Thanks,
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by redhawkrobert on Jan 6, 2013 11:26:12 GMT -8
Hi Jeff, Good luck against Fullerton on Wednesday. I hope I get another question answered from you. My questions relate to next seasons basketball TV package. For years ESPN has televised WAC basketball. Whether is was on Big Monday or late Saturdays, the WAC could/can be found on the ESPN networks. Does the WAC still want to be on the ESPN networks? The reason why I would ask such a question is because of the downgrade in appearances. This year, ESPN & WAC say it is 11 appearances: www.wacsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=10100&ATCLID=2056847892 of those games were non-conference road games, 1 is a womens broadcast, and 5 are ESPN regional broadcasts, which are relegated to PPV, ESPN3, or regionally. So we have 3 true WAC games, with 1 being the Tournament Championship and all of those 3 are ESPNU. Does anyone really expect the appearances to go up? Can/is the WAC negotiating with other networks to get more exposure? I think putting on our games at 7PM Pacific Time could be a draw for the NBC or CBS Sports Networks. I think having the WAC Championship on ESPNU is a real slap in the face and think another network may respect the WAC a little more. Thanks for your time.
|
|
|
Post by csubad on Jan 7, 2013 10:46:39 GMT -8
RR-
Thanks for the well wishes. We have played a very difficult basketball schedule to start the year (on road against Cal, UNLV, SDSU, Colorado State, Wyoming, South Dakota State, etc) so I hope things will turn in 2013 when the schedule comes back to us a bit, especially as we are learning to play without some key cogs and getting better each game in doing so.
As far as the media deal, you are on the right track. Many WAC AD's are set to meet around the NCAA Convention in Dallas, TX later in the month and I believe these issues will be on the table so my direct comments on the subject are premature. But, I will say in this day and age, any media deal will need to focus on two items to be successful for the conference and thereby, each member institution. They are maximum "relevant" exposure and winning the perception battle.
So you are on the right track in your analysis from my standpoint. Check back with me in a few weeks for hopefully more details.
- Jeff
|
|
|
Post by joshadam84 on Jan 25, 2013 18:47:49 GMT -8
Mr. Konya,
I have to say this is really neat what you're doing on this board. I'll admit I'm not specifically a fan of CSUB (born and raised in Illinois and Indiana); however, I do follow many of the schools joining the WAC next year and have caught a few CSUB games on DirecTV this year. I've enjoyed the games I have been able to see.
I was just wondering if you may be able to provide some insight on the direction the WAC is going regarding conference expansion. Do you believe the plan will be to invite more D2 schools? And if so, how soon do you think an addition could occur? The only D1 school(s) available are NJIT and Centenary.. and neither appear to be logical options for the WAC with NJIT looking for a closer home and Centenary in their third year of transition to D3 -- unless they pull an UNO.
Also, any more information to share regarding a media deal? I have to admit it's nice being able to catch the occasional game on TV. I'm hoping the conference as a whole gains further television exposure. The media markets are definitely there!
I appreciate any information you could provide!
|
|
|
Post by csubad on Jan 26, 2013 9:50:15 GMT -8
Joshadam84-
You have Midwest roots. I was born in Michigan and grew up in upstate NY. What I am saying is we can all come together under the CSUB Roadrunners umbrella!
Again I must preface this by saying that I am only providing my opinion on all of these questions- they are not official conference platforms or anything of the sort.
That disclaimer said, I think the 2013-14 line up of (CSUB, Seattle, NMSU, Idaho, Utah Valley, UTPA, Grand Canyon and Chicago State) is pretty set. It will be very competitive, and a lot of schools, including the Roadrunners, continue to ramp up their programs. Do not sleep on CSUB next year- we expect to win from Day 1. Now, there is a contingency that would add to that core 2013-14 mix but it is not imminent yet and that opportunity would likely be from the current Division I ranks.
This is the Jeff Konya opinion on your D2 question. But, it does not make sense to elevate more than one D2 program in any one year within a conference. If you add more than one, then you are going to have scheduling issues in playing enough Division I games in certain sports. For example, in basketball, depending on the numbers, you trade an opportunity to play an RPI advantage game for a game that does not have an effect on the RPI. And you must play 24 D1 games to qualify as a Division I institution in that sport.
So the potential solution to the issue is to stagger start times for the schools that would transition from D2 to D1 because as an example, Grand Canyon will be an RPI counter in 2014-15 should they play the mandated 24 and after their initial transition year (non counter year) is satisfied.
Hence, I would be surprised to see a D2 elevated for 2013-14. Down the road, the issue is more viable.
Regarding media, don't fret. There will be a WAC media solution for 2013-14. We still have some membership issues, as noted above, that make those discussions premature.
Hope that makes sense. I am not a morning person.
- Jeff
|
|
|
Post by joshadam84 on Jan 26, 2013 14:27:54 GMT -8
Mr. Konya
Thank you for your reply! What you said definitely makes sense. I never thought about the RPI factor and how that could influence an immediate invitation to a D2 school. Hopefully I'll be able to catch a few more Roadrunners games this year whether it be online or TV. I'll be looking forward to more media details coming down the road. I agree that next years season should be competitive and exciting to watch. Thanks again!
- Josh
|
|
|
Post by redhawkrobert on Jan 26, 2013 20:11:55 GMT -8
Jeff,
Another question. If you could please enlighten me on the Great West and CSUB. When the GWC was formed as an all-sports conference, did CSUB receive an invite? If yes, why did you guys turn it down? I was surprised that Seattle U allegedly turned down an invite as well.
I realize that the GWC was basically a scheduling alliance for newer/Independent D1 teams and not a "real" conference. Wouldn't scheduling been easier if CSUB had been in the GWC? I am really only talking basketball wise. Did being an Independent bring more high profile matchups, even if they were on the road?
Thanks for your time (again).
|
|
|
Post by csubad on Jan 26, 2013 22:28:36 GMT -8
RR-
We had several discussions with the Great West about joining. In fact, some of our teams did join as affiliates in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 years (track programs).
For CSUB, through most of our D1 experience, the Big West and WCC always had bye weeks built into their Conference schedule so as an Independent we could put an attractive schedule together with some regional flare. In retrospect, and if we had Michael J. Fox and Doc Brown, we might have wanted to go back in time and join for this year in basketball because those bye weeks in those conferences dried up due to recent expansions. Given that, and the fact our RPI jumped nearly 100 spots from 2010-11 to 2011-12, basketball scheduling on the men's side was very difficult for 2012-13. You can see that in our Strength of Schedule this year with high RPI opponents across the board home and away (Wyoming, SDSU, UNLV, Cal, Colorado State, South Dakota State, etc) and why we had to schedule several non D1 games to even complete a home schedule.
I will say had the Great West remained viable and the WAC oppotunity not materialized for us, those talks with the Great West would have likely intensified. But like many former Conference USA schools are coming together under the Big East banner, we see several of our friends and strong programs from the GW joining us in the WAC.
- Jeff
|
|
|
Post by spartypants on Jan 28, 2013 10:37:10 GMT -8
Doesn't look like I'll get my wish anytime soon:
Cal Poly Pomona @calpolypomona A: Ortiz: UC San Diego recently opted to stay Div. II
24 Jan Cal Poly Pomona @calpolypomona A: Athletic Director Swanson: Grass is not greener on the other side. Tough to make the move successfully.
24 Jan Cal Poly Pomona @calpolypomona A: Ortiz: Lots of money and lots of rules. Div. 1 not all it's cracked up to be. Also, our athletes are students first.
24 Jan Cal Poly Pomona @calpolypomona Q: With great basketball team, what would be required to get to NCAA Div. 1?
|
|