Solutions...

Gem City · #1 01-31-2014, 12:02 PM

I do not question that UD's administration is made up of dedicated hard working individuals that truly have the desire to build a winning basketball program. Having said that, I think this program desperately needs to seek out the expertise of individuals that are outside the university administration and Dayton community.

The lack of results from the flag ship program over a long period of time speaks for itself. I realize we've had real success in programs outside of men's basketball but the flag ship program continues to fail even when compared to the university's own stated goals. You could blame it on one coach or one administrator but the fact remains that we've failed over a number of years with multiple head coaches and staffs. That leads one to believe that the problem with the flag ship program goes much deeper than one individual or one coaching hire. The solution isn't for Wabler and his staff to work harder or for Archie to work longer hours. The answer is to work smarter. Identify weaknesses and then put a program in place to address those issues.

I would attack the problem just like any corporation with an under performing product. The first step is identifying the short comings of the product. UD should start by bring in outside consultants to look at their operations top to bottom. I would want opinions from successful coaches and administrators at other programs and conferences. I would want TV and sports media opinions. I would want sports branding and marketing experts from the corporate level to successful professional and college programs. I would want to hear from strength and conditioning experts? Are our training and player development methods on par with our competitors? Are we utilizing technology correctly in film study, recruiting etc. Until you really analyze the problems, you're just spinning your wheels. No matter how you cut it, our "peers" are out performing us, now find out why?

I'm not an expert but I can tell you one area that UD is just dreadful at and that's building a brand. UD does a terrible job of building and marketing the UD brand.

Let me put it this way, I have a teenage son, who is just about the biggest sports geek on the planet. This is a kid that truly could live on just ESPN Sports Center everyday and be perfectly content. He is the target market for UD basketball. He is constantly telling me how dumb UD's logo looks. Our uniforms and shoes are ugly. Our basketball floor is stupid. Our commercials are gay. You can disagree all day long, but what does a teenage boy think is cool? He loves Cincinnati and Xavier's logos and uniforms. He thinks everything Oregon does is just awesome. The Seatle Seahawks colors are just bad a$$. He loves it when OSU, or Norte Dame do the alternative uniforms.

This is a generation that grew up with video games and slick marketing. We may not think these things matter but to a teenage basketball recruit they certainly do. "I've heard UC football players say, one of the reasons I picked UC was because I thought they had cool uniforms." Heck, we might hate them, but teenage boys don't. If you did a focus group of 18 to 35 year old male sports fans, you'd find that UD's brand appeal is nonexistent. That's your target market by the way. UD's current fan demographic is aging. You want to have 10K season ticket holders 20 years from now, you better start building a brand that appeals to a younger demographic.

Teenage kids don't want to wear the shirts the hats or the hoodies. That's just one area UD fails at and they could start by refreshing the imagine. Refresh the logo, darken the color pallet if needed. Start sporting some alternative kits from time to time. Repaint the floor and let kids wear florescent color shoes if needed. While you're at it either fix or replace the non-working scoreboards at the end of the court. It makes you look like a Mickey Mouse mid-major.

I know all of that is just cosmetic, but it's a symptom of the bigger problem. This administration looks at that UD logo and they don't see a problem. "Heck, we just updated it in 1994." You ask the average kid on campus who has the cooler logo; UC, Xavier or UD? Well, you wouldn't like the results.

jack72 · #2 01-31-2014, 12:24 PM

Awesome post Gem. In business outside people are used constantly, whether they are within the company or consultants. It is also part of the successful Japanese approach to kaizen. Do you think Toyota is sitting around today letting the same engineers that caused the heated seat problem and shutdown of selling six models find a solution? No way! They have swarmed that sucker with new eyes and a sense of urgency. A start for our AD would be to read Chasing the Rabbit.

flybye · #3 01-31-2014, 01:35 PM

Terrific Post..need new approach and the coach himself has to be a part of the brand!

Gem City · #4 01-31-2014, 01:47 PM

I also wonder are we evaluating potential talent correctly. I look at programs like Butler, Creighton and Gonzaga which have out performed UD by every measure and I see teams that can really shoot the ball. They always seem to have high IQ kids with fundamentals and pure shooting ability.

I guess I’m questioning the recruiting rankings. I think the ranking are fundamentally flawed with obvious bias built in. The recruiting rankings seem to heavily favor the athletic wing or guard. The kid that has freaky athletic ability that can jump high for highlight reel dunks. (ie. Chris Wright) Guys like Chris Johnson and Chris Wright will always be highly ranked by these recruiting services and these kids will be in high demand from the BCS programs on down. On the flip side, I think these ranking services under value players with sound fundamentals and dribbling skills, kids that are clutch from the foul line and shoot a high percentage jump shots. How do you measure basketball IQ in these recruiting rankings?

Let’s look at UD’s current roster. We have a ton of guys that can run and dunk but every last one of them has serious flaws. We’re terrible foul shooting team. We lack true ball handlers that can beat the press. Is there really a pure shooter on this roster? Do we have anyone with fundamentally sound post moves? How about high basketball IQ’s?

Maybe Dayton needs to take a Moneyball-for college basketball approach. If you go after a bunch of Chris Wright type of kids and you’re going to miss more often than you're going to land them because BSC schools and recruiting services put a high value on their skill sets. On top of that you end up with a roster full of kids that can’t hit a jumper and stink from the foul line. Ask yourself this, if you could add a guard and power forward to this roster, would you rather have Chris Wright and Marcus Johnson or Brian Roberts and Keith Waleskowski?

Well, what about the under valued skill sets? Maybe you go after the kids that are undervalued by the recruiting services. You’d have a better chance of landing them. You’d just have to come up with a system of identifying them. You’d have to do some work studying statistics like assists, foul shooting, number of foul shots, shooting percentage, assist to turnover margin, offensive rebounds etc. These are stats that are not coveted by the eyeball recruiting services. Maybe it’s time to think outside the box a bit.

ud2 · #5 01-31-2014, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Gem City

I also wonder are we evaluating potential talent correctly. I look at programs like Butler, Creighton and Gonzaga which have out performed UD by every measure and I see teams that can really shoot the ball. They always seem to have high IQ kids with fundamentals and pure shooting ability.

I guess I’m questioning the recruiting rankings. I think the ranking are fundamentally flawed with obvious bias built in. The recruiting rankings seem to heavily favor the athletic wing or guard. The kid that has freaky athletic ability that can jump high for highlight real dunks. (ie. Chris Wright) Guys like Chris Johnson and Chris Wright will always be highly ranked by these recruiting services and these kids will be in high demand from the BCS programs on down. On the flip side, I think these ranking services under value players with sound fundamentals and dribbling skills, kids that are clutch from the foul line and shoot a high percentage jump shots. How do you measure basketball IQ in these recruiting rankings?

Let’s look at UD’s current roster. We have a ton of guys that can run and dunk but every last one of them has serious flaws. We’re terrible foul shooting team. We lack true ball handlers that can beat the press. Is there really a pure shooter on this roster? Do we have anyone with fundamentally sound post moves? How about high basketball IQ’s?

Maybe Dayton needs to take a Moneyball-for college basketball approach. If you go after a bunch of Chris Wright type of kids and you’re going to miss more often than you're going to land them because BSC schools and recruiting services put a high value on their skill sets. On top of that you end up with a roster full of kids that can’t hit a jumper and stink from the foul line. Ask yourself this, if you could add a guard and power forward to this roster, would you rather have Chris Wright and Marcus Johnson or Brian Roberts and Keith Waleskowski?

Well, what about the under valued skill sets? Maybe you go after the kids that are undervalued by the recruiting services. You’d have a better chance of landing them. You’d just have to come up with a system of identifying them. You’d have to do some work studying statistics like assists, foul shooting, number of foul shots, shooting percentage, assist to turnover margin, offensive rebounds etc. These are stats that are not coveted by the eyeball recruiting services. Maybe it’s time to think outside the box a bit.

I could be wrong, but I think this might point to a problem regarding the coaching staff possibly being unable to develop the talent that UD has. It might not have anything to do with # of stars, skill sets, and a recruit being overlooked, and it might have everything to do with the coaching staff being unable to develop its players.

UDFlyer23 · #6 01-31-2014, 02:11 PM

These are both great posts, Gem. I am relatively young, 21 to be exact, and I couldn't agree more with your son on how he views the UD brand and just brand image in sports in general. Our image is awful, especially the color scheme and logo, and a change needs to be made. Obviously this may not help the problem at all but it can't hurt either. I really do believe that a change in branding will bring about some positives to the program, and like you said, you need to build for the future and my demographic is the future so it's time to start marketing towards the younger crowd.

I for one won't ever forget when UD wore the black uniforms in the NIT. Those were awesome and it had people talking also. Not saying we need to change our colors that drastically but you would be surprised what a new logo and some uniform changes can do. Let's face it, times are changing and in order to keep moving forward you have to adapt and right now the times call for an overhaul of the UD brand, it's time to start fresh and bring some positive vibes to the program, get people excited again.

TerryK_67 · #7 01-31-2014, 02:41 PM

Amazing how a losing streak points fingers in each and every direction....... I have been faithfully reading since the USC loss and have not seen "the problem" identified. Lots of shotgun blasts in every conceivable direction though! The ticket manager, the logo, COME ON!
GO FLYERS - Sat at 12:30 is the only thing important now!

Avid Flyer · #8 01-31-2014, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by TerryK_67

Amazing how a losing streak points fingers in each and every direction....... I have been faithfully reading since the USC loss and have not seen "the problem" identified. Lots of shotgun blasts in every conceivable direction though! The ticket manager, the logo, COME ON!
GO FLYERS - Sat at 12:30 is the only thing important now!

If you haven't seen the problem identified then that means you know what the problem is.....please do us all a favor and identify it and save ourselves a lot of headaches.

The Gem · #9 01-31-2014, 02:47 PM

I agree the logo and uniforms are terrible and UD doesn't build the brand well. This program needs transformational change. Changing the logo, uniforms, redoing the court won't make the players perform better, but it's an outward sign that the program is trying to make the necessary change.

shocka43 · #10 01-31-2014, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by TerryK_67

Amazing how a losing streak points fingers in each and every direction....... I have been faithfully reading since the USC loss and have not seen "the problem" identified. Lots of shotgun blasts in every conceivable direction though! The ticket manager, the logo, COME ON!
GO FLYERS - Sat at 12:30 is the only thing important now!

The UD brand has been a discussion for some time. Not just during this recent losing streak.

The point that Gem makes is a good one, and philosophically, makes sense about the "big picture".

The big picture is that those running the show, might believe that everything is fine, when actually, the lack of being aggressive in the way they operate is the root of the problem...and that is everything from hiring, staffing, branding, scheduling, etc...

UD has found a way to promote the Arena...UD hasn't found a way to promote the basketball program. They have found a way to win at the lesser competitive sports, and failed to be successful with the flagship program, and the one that is the toughest to succeed at.

Does anyone actually think that those in charge would be put on a pedestal if they haven't had success under them at other sports not men's basketball? If the other sports trended like men's basketball, they would have been unemployed long ago. They hang their hat on everything not UD men's basketball, the NCAA hosting, top 20 attendance, and an NIT Championship.

CE80 · #11 01-31-2014, 03:19 PM

UD the academic institution and UD basketball need to recognize what it is now and take steps to get where it wants to be. There are no big leaps. If anything it is baby steps.

As a place of higher learning, it is not an elite academic university. It is a great alternative for students that want an alternative to larger state schools and can afford it. Incremental steps may move it up in the pecking order. UD is a tweener. Not small school and not a large school.

At this point the men's basketball program is behind academics. OP was the right guy to dig the program out of the hole that was dug. While on paper BG may have seemed to be the right coach to take the program up a notch but he was not a good enough Xs and Os guy to do it. Given BGs inability to raise the level made Archie the wrong hire. Now we are back to where when OP was hired.

A major school assistant is going to swing and miss on the high high level players. We end up players that for the most part weren't able to be an impact player at the big schools. We need to a hire a coach that will recruit those that are under the radar completely. Fundamentally solid players with a few projects tossed in. The coach has to coach. Get them to play team ball. Establish an identity for UD basketball. Gradually bring up the level of play. There are no shortcuts. It will take time. Vitally important to find someone that can take on that task.
Posted via Mobile Device

GoFlyer · #12 01-31-2014, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by flybye

Terrific Post..need new approach and the coach himself has to be a part of the brand!

Well if new "branding" results in anything like the new game intro
s, help me lord!

Gem City · #13 01-31-2014, 03:33 PM

Nobody is saying we are losing basketball games because of a freaking outdated logo. What I am saying is that stupid outdated logo is a very public symbol of just how slow UD seems to react to the changing landscape of college athletics

I think it’s safe to say we’re never out front setting the trends. On the contrary, we are constantly playing catch up trying to react to that changing landscape.

The last time this athletic department did anything to really get out front of the curve was to build UD Arena back in 1969. Since that time, we’ve just been reacting to what our peer institutions are doing.

How long did take for UD to join a conference? Is it fair to say that we held onto to our independent status too long? Did hurt the program? How about facility upgrades? Many of our conference partners have replaced and built new arenas and practice facilities. How long did it take UD to build an on campus practice facility or renovate our old Arena? Would UD have done anything if our “peers” had not made the investment first? How about things like charter flights or increasing recruiting budgets? Are we setting the trends or reacting to our peers?

Why did we start increasing funding for the non-revenue sports anyway? Would we have funded those sports if it wasn't for the Great Midwest cluster that left UD begging the A-10 for a home? Without being totally shunned by our Great Midwest "peers" for not being competitive in any sport, not just men's basketball, wouldn't UD would still be funding the majorty of their sports at a D-III level?

(By the way, the Arena is looking pretty tired again. The last renovation left a lot to be desired and it’s starting to look it’s age again.)

Why did we hire another young “up and coming” head coach anyway? Gee, that seems to be the hot trend in college basketball and well, it seems to work for VCU, Butler and Xavier. (UD: young thirty year old coach…check) Now, we’re just like Xavier and Butler, right?

Are we really making good decisions that make sense for UD or are we just trying to copy what more successful programs have done? Whatever you’re doing it’s not working.

Fundamental change is indeed needed!!!

Gem City · #14 01-31-2014, 03:42 PM

I also think the Archie hire has set us back to the OP years and the next coach will have a rebuilding job on his hands. Hopefully, the decline over the next few years will indeed lead to a fundamental top to bottom change of how UD does business.

jack72 · #15 01-31-2014, 03:48 PM

Good programs do it all in a progressive positive way.

The other point that needs to be understood is that UD sports are are built on a pyramid with men's BB at the top. If interest and attendance wane, the top rock falling will cause and avalanche down the pyramid. No longer will soccer and volleyball have the same resources as now.

ud2 · #16 01-31-2014, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by CE80

Now we are back to where when OP was hired.

Originally Posted by Gem City

I also think the Archie hire has set us back to the OP years and the next coach will have a rebuilding job on his hands.

No, I don't think UD is anywhere close to where they were when OP was hired. If Archie doesn't work out, then this will not be a huge rebuilding job.

Archie still has time to get this turned around, but there is understandably a lot of anxiety on this board.