The event featured sessions instructed by Naismith Hall of Fame coaches C. Vivian Stringer (Rutgers) and Jim Calhoun (Connecticut), along with Lawrence Frank, the NBA’s New Jersey Nets franchise winningest coach, Tom Izzo (Michigan State), who has led the Spartans to six NCAA Final Fours and the 2000 National Championship, and Jay Wright (Villanova), former Naismith College Coach of the Year.

CLINIC NOTES AVAILABLE HERE.

The notes include diagrams and cover topics such as:  UConn Shooting drills, Coach Stringer’s legendary “55 Press”, how to utilize Time-Outs, Player Development from Jay Wright and the forgotten X’s & O’s.

50 pages of really good stuff provided by Jim Ponchak.  Jim is a first year coach at Fairlawn High School in North Jersey.  Good notes Jim, thanks for sharing.

The UConn – Baylor game lived up to the hype!  This 24-Hour Tip-Off Marathon has been amazing.  I’ll have some more POD’s during the week… when I  get everything all written up, so much good stuff.

UConn ran their “3″ play for Maya repeatedly in the first half for many open elbow catch and shoot and one dribble pull-up opportunities for Maya.  Nice action.

Also helps if you have Maya Moore, but elbow jumpers are good shots to get for almost anyone.

Click diagram above or HERE for printable version.

I recently read Dan Tudor’s evaluation of Snail Mail vs. the world of Digital Media.  It’s safe to assume that everyone follows Dan and has visited his site, but the the record… check it out – it’s worth it.  Whether you agree or disagree with him, there is enough stuff there to at least make you think.

I wanted to take it a step further and add to his points.

With Fall recruiting nearly over (I am hearing many sighs of relief right now!) how are you going to follow it all up?  Email?  Facebook?  Hand written notes? Faxes? Twitter?   All of the above?

I’m an old-school recruiter.  I have always believed that a handwritten letter, though more cumbersome and time consuming, are of great value and worth the effort.  The physical act for the prospect of walking to the mailbox, removing all the letters, deciding on which one to open first, opening it, holding it, reading it and deciding what to do with it all stimulates an emotional experience for the reader.  All the technology, Social Media and networking options are vital, but not at the expense of writing someone a handwritten note on your school’s stationary.  It also doesn’t command the emotional attachment that a letter does.

Take for example this scenario.  How many of you have sent an email and had the meaning misinterpreted?  Everyone.  How many times has that happened with a hand written note?  Almost never.  Why?  Studies say there is something about the physical nature of paper, the actual look of the hand writing, how it feels in the person’s hand and smells that attaches itself emotionally to the reader and helps convey the message and meaning better than the computer, phone or PDA screen.

Over the past few years the evolution in the recruiting thought process has been: these kids mainly communicate through PDA’s, Social Media and networking, etc… I better get on it and on it fast.  You’re right.

There is no question about that.  Do it.  Get on the technology, understand it and use it.  If you don’t – you are behind.  Technology, such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook make interacting with recruits a lot easier and very effective.  Name one of your recruits without a PDA or cell phone.  Is there one?  Email has become secondary and in many cases obsolete.  I conducted an informal survey / test.  While at an event I had a third person send an email to a prospect in plain site of the two of us asking them to call the third person.  I watched.  Then I had the same person “Facebook” them and ask them to call.  10+ seconds later… the prospect called.  When asked why they called… because “You Facebooked me.”  When asked if they checked/got their email… they replied, “I never check email anymore.”   When asked if they got email on their PDA they responded, “sure.”  WOW!… Is email outdated already?  I don’t think so, but it’s not as effective as it once was.

Personally watching the prospect I witnessed it unfold before my eyes.  The prospect never budged on the email “buzz”, but immediately checked the Facebook hit.  In repeating this test over and over, the resounding result was the same.  Even more, mail has made a come back and replaced email in many situations.

I’d also beware of the Facebook trap in recruiting.  To many, me included, it’s a little creepy.  Friending 15 – 18 year old prospects for the adult recruiter is very touchy.  Especially in women’s basketball or any other women’s sport for that matter.  Personally, I’ve never gone the Facebook route for that reason.  I wouldn’t want recruiters Facebooking with my child (son or daughter), I’m not going to do it with some one elses.

If you are going to use Facebook I would discuss this in great detail amongst your staff and get on the same page with what everyone is comfortable with.  Decide on what and how it will be used.  Also, see if your department/university has a policy or concerns with the use of Facebook in recruiting.  Understand the NCAA bylaws governing it’s use.   First rule: speak to the prospect’s parents.  Make sure they are comfortable with it and want it to happen.  Don’t assume it is different for male prospects than female prospects.  That is the trap.

A recent study will give coaches who still love the look and feel of the good ‘ol fashioned recruiting letter some good news:

Mail outranks electronic media when it comes to some important areas.

Physical media, such as recruiting letters and other creative materials, caused more emotional processing in the brains of those tested.   The same physical media left a deeper footprint in the minds of the recipients.

The bottom line of the study, which you can read in full here, is that physical mail and media seems more “real” to the reader.  That’s an important fact to pay attention to because the areas of the brain that are engaged during this processing are some of the places that make the deepest impact when it comes to our emotional connection with the sender.

There are some really effective ideas that are NCAA compliant that you should consider when it comes to making the most out of your snail mail recruiting:

1. Pay attention to the stock and quality of the paper you use.  The study seems to indicate that the weight, brightness, and other quality factors are noticed by the reader.  For example, what if you wrote about wanting to talk to your recruit about an offer, and did so on a heavier card stock?  The look and feel of the paper you use helps to underscore the message you’re talking to them about.
2. Since paper registers deeper with our emotions, save your more emotional messages for the printed page. Things like your vision for your program, an official invitation to campus…the messages regarding the things you believe to be at the heart of the prospects decision.
3. Get creative with your envelope. Does an envelope need to be an envelope?  Get your compliance office to approve everything first, but think outside the box on this one.  When a prospect receives 20+ pieces a mail a day – what makes them decide which letter to pick up first.  First impressions matter, even more so with your envelope.

Any good, well structured recruiting communication system must contain all forms of electronic communication, hand written communication, phone calls and faxes and be well thought out and organized.

I believe it is dangerous to move totally away from hand written mail and solely into the digital age.  Balance, creativity, organization and consistency is the key.

It’s an easy lesson:  Do what is right, not what is easy.  After you lose a recruit, it is impossible to push the rewind button and do it all over adding in things you left out the first time.  You never know what it will be that helps put your program over the top for any given prospect.  It won’t be any one thing every time.  Stay omnipresent to cues your are getting back.  Diversify your recruiting portfolio and give yourself a broader foundation for potential success.

Today’s Play Of the Day comes from a slight variation of a drill I watched the other day at the University of Virginia Men’s Basketball workout.  I added some terminology I am used to, but the teaching principals and structure were the same.

Coach Bennett and his staff do such a fantastic job of teaching all the little, fundamental details.

Even with coaching at Virginia for four years and I am still amazed every time I walk into the John Paul Jones Arena… it’s simply fabulous.

This drill is a half court defensive drill, 4 on 3.

4 on 3 w/ Trailer

By Dana O’Neil  ESPN.com

The image of college basketball has taken a beating in recent years, with rumors, murmurs and innuendo about cheating spreading like wildfire. Cynics believe no one is trying to follow the NCAA rulebook and that the game has fallen victim to the begging hands of agents, runners and hangers-on looking to collect on the next NBA star.

Is it that bad? What are the real problems? And is the NCAA doing enough to fix those problems?

To get the answers, ESPN.com went to the sources. During the EYBL Peach Jam last week, we interviewed 20 high-profile head coaches, representing each of the six power conferences. With the promise of full anonymity, we asked them to tell the truth about their sport.

And they did.

What is your least favorite part of summer recruiting?

No one likes the constant travel, the bad basketball and the emphasis on individual skills instead of team play.

Coaches travel everywhere to watch high school kids in July, but can’t keep an eye on their own.

But of the coaches surveyed, many — eight of the 20 — cited the time away from campus and their own players as the biggest problem with the summertime.

“I have my team over for a barbecue before I leave in July,” one coach said. “Little do they know it’s a farewell, not a welcome barbecue.”

“You walk into a living room and promise a mother that you’ll be there for her son,” said another. “And as soon as they get on campus, you’re gone.”

“They’re all on campus and I’m on the road,” added another. “If they do something stupid, I’m going to get fired — but I can’t be there to see what they’re doing.”

Some other popular grievances:

“What don’t I like? All of it. I don’t think there should be summer recruiting, period. They want to clean it up? Get rid of it.”

“I’ll tell you another problem — 70 percent of the kids we’re sitting here watching should be in summer school. They shouldn’t be here.”

“What don’t I like about summer? Everything. The babysitting, the ass-kissing. Does that cover it?”

If you could change, add or delete one rule in the NCAA Manual, what would it be?

Like the endless rulebook, the suggestions here were endless. In fact, there were so many opinions that it was impossible to get any sort of consensus.

One coach even offered a sweeping renovation: “All of it. Get rid of the whole thing. There are so many stupid rules in that thing that you can’t enforce. We need to throw it away.”

The hottest topics?

• April recruiting: In 2009, the NCAA board accepted a proposal from the Basketball Issues Committee to prevent college coaches from evaluating prospects in April, unless the prospects are on a high school, prep school or junior college campus. The idea was to keep high school kids in school.

“That passed with 60 percent of the vote,” one coach said. “Where are all those people who were in favor of eliminating it?”

Apparently overruled, because no one seems happy that the spring evaluation period essentially has been eliminated.

“They stopped it because they didn’t want the kids out of school,” one coach said. “Well, they’re still having the events, so why can’t we go?”

“Give me April and time in July off the road so I can be with my players,” another said, combining the two biggest complaints. “Everyone likes to talk about the APR [Academic Progress Rate] and they want to hold us accountable for the APR. Well, let me be on campus in the summer when my guys are getting started. Let me make sure they get off on the right foot.”

• Phone calls: In an age of immediate technology, most everyone agreed that the limit on phone calls was laughable, though there was one dissenter who said, “To me, your brain is like this [making a fist] and with enough phone calls to a kid, you can mold that brain by twisting it and turning it with the information.”

That coach, however, was a lone wolf screaming in the wind.

“Everyone has caller ID; everyone has unlimited texting. If you don’t want to talk to me, hit ignore. I hit ignore all the time.”

“I get a kick out of the phone calls. Who gets caught with that anymore? It’s a joke. They’re out there catching the guy with the one phone. How about the guy with two and three bat phones?”

While recruiting, coaches better keep their eye on the court and steer clear of the players.

• The so-called bump rule: Back in the day, summer league games ended with an on-court receiving line, with coaches lined up to glad-hand and talk to the prospects and their coaches.

It got so ridiculous that the NCAA decided to make the summer an evaluation-only period. That means no talking at all, as in no hello in a crowded hallway.

“We have the NCAA gestapettes around here like World Cup officials,” one coach said, referring to the NCAA representatives — most of whom are women — who monitor the summer circuit. “You smile at a kid, they give you a yellow card. Do it twice, it’s a red card and you’re off the road.”

How many of your peers do you trust?

Let’s put it this way: There is more honor in politics. Here’s the breakdown:

• Eight said flat-out no, they do not trust their peers.

“No, not at all. Maybe some of it is hearsay, but I don’t trust them at all.”

• Five said they trust fewer than 10 of their colleagues.

“How many? Five,” one coach said. Five percent? “No, five total,” he said. “And those five are my assistants.”

• Three said they actually have faith in their fellow coaches and trust “most.”

“I’d say 95 percent. There have been very few times in my career where someone did something absolutely underhanded to me. It’s happened, but not a lot.”

• One said 50 percent with a caveat.

“Half, but maybe I’m overly optimistic.”

• One dodged the question.

“That’s a loaded question. I think at heart, coaches are in it for the right reason. But I also know that everyone is trying to gain an advantage.”

• One evaded it.

“I would say I respect everybody because I know how hard they work.”

• One gave an answer within a non-answer.

College coaches generally play nice in public, but apparently don’t trust each other much privately.

“Well, everybody talks about you. You do this long enough, someone is going to say something bad about you. Last year someone said I didn’t go to practice.”

The one thing everyone agreed on: The lack of trust is disheartening.

“I would send my kid to play for seven coaches,” another said, before going on to name them. Those names, however, could compromise his identity, so they won’t be revealed here.

“It’s sad,” another coach said. “I grew up in this game with an idea of what I thought it was or what I thought it should be. Now I see it’s not like that at all. You have low- to mid-major guys aspiring to move up who will do anything to get there and you have guys who, once they get used to a certain lifestyle, will do whatever it takes to keep it.”

“There’s less of a brotherhood here than there is in football and that bothers me,” another added. “We have more guys stabbing each other in the back or using you guys [the media] to go after their agenda. That’s a big problem.”

How many programs do you think are committing major violations? Secondary? And why does no one snitch?

Here’s the silver lining for college basketball: Virtually every coach thinks that the majority of Division I programs are not intentionally breaking major rules. Of the 20, only four said 25 percent or more of the programs were, in the words of one coach, “committing felonies.”

“I had a question about e-mailing a kid and I asked another coach,” someone explained. “He thought we could; I thought we couldn’t. We both called our compliance directors and got two different answers.”

So why, then, do most people think college basketball is like the Wild Wild West, full of outlaws and renegades?

Backstabbing.

“Here’s what I think happens a lot — a team loses a kid to someone else and all of a sudden that someone else is cheating. Every time North Carolina loses a kid, someone else is cheating. It’s like there’s so much arrogance with them; they can’t believe someone would rather go somewhere else, so the other team has to be cheating.”

“I had a question about e-mailing a kid and I asked another coach. He thought we could; I thought we couldn’t. We both called our compliance directors and got two different answers.

Those who have been around the game the longest will tell you cheating has been going on as long as the game has been played.

“In the old days, the coaches had bird dogs. A guy would walk in a gym and you knew, ‘OK, he’s working for Frank McGuire; he’s working for Al McGuire.’ But funny enough, there was almost an honor in the fact that it was so out in the open. Now you don’t know who the bad guys are.”

Indeed, most everyone agrees that the cheaters have become far more nuanced. Gone are the days of the bags of money; in their place are people inventing ways to circumvent the meaning of a rule.

“I know guys help a kid get into a school that’s not really a school. Is it breaking a rule? Technically, no. Is it on the up and up? Absolutely not. I don’t think guys are climbing in windows and changing grades, but they are massaging things to make it easier for kids.”

“One of my players [who left early for the draft] was working out with another top-five draft pick,” a coach said. “They got to talking and my kid said something about not having money or whatever on campus. The other kid said, ‘My coach set up expense accounts all over town for me. Yours didn’t?”’

So with so much information on teams, why doesn’t anyone snitch?

“If you snitch, you’re Abar Rouse [the former Baylor assistant who taped the phone conversation with then-coach Dave Bliss and has since been ostracized from coaching]. That’s why no one talks. Plus, how do you prove it? I know stuff. I know stuff that is 100 percent happening right now, but the NCAA wants proof. How can I prove it?”

Which league is the cleanest? The dirtiest?

Congratulations, Jim Delany. Your league wins in a landslide. Of the 20 coaches surveyed, 11 said the Big Ten was the cleanest in the country. Three others cited the land where time stood still, also known as the scholarship-less Ivy League. (Although even the Ancient Eight earned one disparaging nod: “The Ivy League,” one coach said before pausing to add, “I mean the Ivy League a couple of years ago, before all of that stuff at Harvard.”)

But coaches cited the Big Ten’s perceived willingness to police itself and rosters that “made sense,” in which players traditionally come from the footprint of the schools they choose to attend.

“Look at Michigan State,” one coach said. “They’re there every year. When you see the dips, then you wonder. What happened? What didn’t happen? But a guy like Tom Izzo, he’s there every year because you know what his program is about and so do his players. There’s a consistency and an integrity.”

The SEC has made an effort to clean itself up, but its perception among coaches is still not favorable.

As for the dirtiest, despite Mike Slive’s best efforts to clean up the image, the Southeastern Conference was perceived as the worst, with three coaches partnering the SEC with the Big East and another tossing in the Big 12 (one coach went league-by-league, counting up schools). All in all, the SEC was named by 14 of the coaches.

“Oh no, it’s not just a myth,” one coach said about the SEC. “It’s the truth.”

Others weren’t so sure, however.

“Everyone says the SEC, but that’s because of [the] football thing,” said one coach. “That’s the standard answer, but I’m not sure it’s true.”

Added another: “The perception is the SEC doesn’t have a good reputation. I don’t know if that’s legit or fair. I was on the other side 10 years ago. If a program starts getting better, starts getting kids, the question is always the same: What’s he doing? He’s gotta be doing something. And that adds to the perception.”

One longtime coach said the image is slowly getting repaired.

“I do think by hiring guys like Anthony Grant at Alabama, the SEC is on the right track to cleaning things up.”

If you could land a top-five player but had to break a major rule to do it — knowing there was a zero percent chance of getting caught — would you?

This interesting ethical/moral question brought out a lot of interesting answers.

Only one coach hinted that he would consider it, asking: “Where am I in my career? It’s a risk-reward. If you’re at the beginning of your career or at the end of your contract, you might take the risk.”

And one other admitted, “Now would I break a minor rule? A secondary? Yes, absolutely.”

Everyone else said absolutely no way they would take the devil trade (though, naturally, everyone agreed that someone else would and has).

But here’s where it gets interesting. Six coaches said they wouldn’t do it because they couldn’t look at themselves in the mirror or because they wouldn’t knowingly break a rule, regardless of the outcome.

Most everyone else?

The rationale went like this: “You can’t coach him,” one coach explained. “He’d always have something over you, so how do you make him practice hard? How do you make him go to class?”

Or they pointed to strict liability, which means a head coach can be fired for the transgression of an assistant, or new contractual clauses as deterrents.

“A lot of universities now have clauses where, if you’re found guilty of a major violation, you have to pay for any costs incurred from the investigation,” a coach said. “You start adding up lawyer costs and that will stop people.”

Are rules being broken here this week at Peach Jam?

The simple answer: Yes. The more complicated: Define “rules.”

Only two coaches thought something truly nefarious was happening on the Georgia/South Carolina border.

“I may bump into a coach at a hotel and say hello,” said one, “but I also know there are people who purposely stay in a hotel because a team is there. That’s shady.”

“Are there meetings going on in hotels right now? Absolutely. The deals and plans are being hatched.”

Everyone else thought it was of the minor violation type — i.e., saying hello to a recruit in the hallway or his parents in a restaurant.

However, the silly bump rule can get downright dirty if taken to the extreme. Most of the NCAA reps are women, and women can’t go into men’s rooms. There’s a real paranoia that some coaches are following prospects or their coaches or parents into the restrooms to broker deals.

“I don’t know. I’ve never won a recruit in the bathroom,” one coach said. “Maybe I need to pee more.”

How often during the recruitment of a player does someone — a coach, a parent, someone else — ask for something in return? How does it happen?

Here’s where it really gets ugly. This hasn’t happened to every coach (12 said they’ve faced it directly), but all 20 of them know it goes on.

While at tournaments, coaches attempt to evaluate but often run into people with their hands out.

“It happened to me this morning,” one coach said. “I had a guy try to hand me a résumé, get them a job.”

Sometimes it’s subtle; sometimes it’s overt, but the implication is understood — if you want to recruit my player/son, you’ll need to take care of me first.

“It will start off as, ‘You know, he’s had a part-time job and now that he’s going to college, I won’t have that income … what can you do to help me?”’ one coach said. “Or it’s, ‘I’ve never missed one of his games. How am I going to afford to travel to see him play now?”’

“I almost cringe when I have a job opening,” another coach said. “Here it comes. I used to get calls from other coaches. Now it’s AAU coaches, trying to place their guys.”

No one admitted to completing the transaction, yet all 20 said they lost a player because they chose not to complete the transaction.

“I think a lot of times they’re just floating it out there, see if you’ll bite,” another coach said. “But you know what? If you don’t, someone else might.”

What is the biggest problem facing college basketball?

Finally, 100 percent consensus: It’s agents and runners. Not only are they sullying the game, but they’re also changing the way players look at their college careers.

That’s no news flash. Agents have long been considered the boogeyman of college athletics. What’s interesting? How they’re doing business:

• Loans or lines of credit: “Say you’ve got a top-10 kid but you don’t have a lot of money,” one coach explained. “The agent will get a line of credit through his financial adviser for you in your name. When your kid goes pro, you pay it back.”

• Prepaid debit cards: Slightly different than a loan, these allow an agent to offer a constant stream of cash by giving a prospect or a prospect’s family member a card with a cash value that can be constantly stuffed with more money, not unlike an actual bank account. The kicker: As of now, the NCAA has no way of tracking the transaction.

“That’s the latest one I’ve heard,” said one coach.

• Tying in to a summer league program: Numerous coaches said that agents now have ties to specific summer league teams and that the people serving as coaches are actually already agents’ runners.

Another coach, who recently coached a top-five draft pick, said that every agent who came to sign his player offered the same thing: “If you sign with me, I’ll deliver you this guy and that guy. Every single one of them is tied to an AAU team. Every one. They cook the deal with the AAU coach. He gets the kid on campus and then cuts a cut.”

• Hiring parents as “consultants”: Shoe companies sponsor virtually every summer league team. The team wears the shoe company’s gear and plays in the shoe company’s sanctioned events.

“I’ve heard of shoe companies hiring parents at ridiculous salaries as their consultants,” one coach said. “Parents are making a big comeback. They look at their children as property or dollar signs, not children. They all see the big cashout.”

The big cashout, of course, is the NBA, the albatross hanging around many a coach’s neck. Hemmed in by the league’s age limit, many coaches are wondering what exactly they’re doing for a living.

“Parents are making a big comeback. They look at their children as property or dollar signs, not children.

“We don’t coach anymore,” one coach said. “This job isn’t about coaching. It’s about acquiring talent.”

“What’s happening at Kentucky, all these one-and-dones, that’s not good for our game,” another added.

Indeed, many coaches thought that the one-and-done rule has diminished the value of a college career — even a one-year college career. They point to players who are more concerned with their individual stats or who are so preoccupied with their future, they aren’t paying attention to their present.

“I told a kid recently, ‘If you say NBA one more time I’m walking out the door,”’ a coach said. “If you’re good enough, you’ll leave after one year or two years or three years. I’m here to talk to you about coming to college and playing for me. I had six kids leave early. The ones who were all-in went [top 10]; the ones who had one foot out the door went late.”

Do you have faith in the NCAA to monitor and control college basketball?

Sort of.

All but three coaches thought the NCAA was at least trying to get a handle on the problems of college basketball. The catch? No one thought it could succeed.

“They’re trying,” said one coach, echoing the sentiments of the majority. “But no matter what the rule, people are going to cheat and the problem is, the best of the best, you’re never going to catch them.”

The coaches interviewed didn’t seem to have a whole lot of confidence in the NCAA.

Coaches pointed to an unfair numbers advantage — more coaches than NCAA investigators — and a savvier coaching fraternity as the top problems.

And others thought the organization was little more than a bureaucratic hypocrisy.

“The NCAA is stealing money from television and they don’t want to kill the golden goose,” one said. “Look at the people on the NCAA committees. The guys who are doing things the right way, they aren’t on the NCAA committees. Why is that?”

There’s also an interesting gender dynamic at work. As noted earlier, almost all of the NCAA investigators are women and they are policing a man’s game. That doesn’t go unnoticed by the coaches, nor does it help the investigators get taken seriously all the time.

Along with the coach who called the women, “the gestapettes,” another said, “If the NCAA was serious, they’d hire someone who knew what they were doing, not these women out here trying to get a husband.”

Are you optimistic/pessimistic about the game?

Mixed bag here. Most coaches (15 of 20) thought the game was more scrutinized and regulated than it’s ever been and believe that the sport is on its way to redemption. Yet even they concede there are major problems with college basketball’s image and its actions.

“I think there are more good than bad out there,” one coach said. “But if you keep saying something, people believe it and we keep saying it. Things have been going on for 50 years and they’ll be going on 50 years from now, but we make it seem like it’s the worst it’s ever been now. I don’t think so. I don’t know if the game has ever been better or the competition has ever been better.”

Others, however, were far more pessimistic.

They see coaches perceived as rulebreakers being rehired — and the NCAA, in their opinion, is doing little to stop them.

“I sometimes wonder, ‘Can I survive in this profession without compromising who I am?”’ one said. “I’m not sure about that answer and it really disappoints me.”

Added another: “I know this: I’m glad I’m not 40 and just getting started in this business. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but I would say I’m a little more pessimistic about things than I was a few years ago. It just seems like we can’t stop it. The bad guys keep winning.”

Interesting… The Sporting News (Digital Edition) released today all the Men’s Division I basketball attendance figures for the 2009 – 10 season.  There is both the Top 100 individual schools as well as the conference by conference breakdown.

The page is linked below.

Division I Men’s 2009-10 Attendance

According to forms filed with the federal government, these schools reported the largest deficits for their women’s basketball programs in regard to the 2008-09 season:

School Deficit

1. Kansas $3,177,605

2. South Carolina $3,155,424

3. Arkansas $3,120,026

4. Texas A&M $2,996,821

5. Virginia $2,933,888

6. Auburn $2,874,009

7. Duke $2,836,386

8. Auburn $2,761,504

9. Oklahoma $2,677,885

10. Northwestern $2,652,529

11. Texas $2,639,111

12. Georgia Tech $2,479,525

The cost of Big 12 basketball

As this chart shows, one-third of the Big 12 schools lost money on basketball during the 2008-09 season, largely because of the massive deficits associated with their women’s teams. The revenues and expenses listed for each school were taken from forms filed with the federal government. The revenues listed for Baylor, a private school, may include subsidies from the university.

Texas

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 1,918,013/ 14,770,278/ 16,688,291

Expenses: 4,557,124/ 7,891,661/ 12,448,785

Profit or loss -2,639,111/ 6,878,617/ 4,239,506

Texas A&M

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 1,049,951/ 8,984,818/ 10,034,769

Expenses: 4,046,772/ 6,219,442/ 10,266,214

Profit or loss: -2,996,821/ 2,765,376/ -231,445

Texas Tech

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 1,746,714/ 6,479,893/ 8,226,607

Expenses: 2,734,893/ 3,831,828/ 6,566,721

Profit or loss: -988,179/ 2,648,065/ 1,659,886

Baylor

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 4,082,782/ 4,595,742/ 8,678,524

Expenses: 4,082,782/ 4,595,742/ 8,678,524

Profit or loss: 0/ 0/ 0

Oklahoma

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 1,448,696/ 6,753,149/ 8,201,845

Expenses: 4,126,551/ 5,409,808/ 9,536,359

Profit or loss: -2,677,855/ 1,343,341/ -1,334,514

Oklahoma State

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 427,816/ 11,052,293/ 11,480,109

Expenses: 2,118,334/ 5,166,055/ 7,284,389

Profit or loss: -1,690,518/ 5,886,238/ 4,195,720

Colorado

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 389,436/ 3,993,889/ 4,383,325

Expenses: 2,710,495/ 3,951,423/ 6,661,918

Profit or loss: -2,321,059/ 42,466/ -2,278,593

Iowa State

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 1,541,423/ 6,197,669/ 7,739,092

Expenses: 2,996,712/ 4,296,701/ 7,293,413

Profit or loss: -1,455,289/ 1,900,968/ 445,679

Kansas

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 315,529/ 15,737,145/ 16,052,674

Expenses: 3,493,134/ 8,219,362/ 11,712,496

Profit or loss: -3,177,605/ 7,517,783/ 4,340,178

Kansas State

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 765,006/ 5,656,041/ 6,421,047

Expenses: 2,513,866/ 4,608,889/ 7,122,755

Profit or loss: -1,748,860/ 1,047,152/ -701,708

Missouri

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 354,849/8,857,828/9,212,677

Expenses: 2,028,463/4,528,720/6,557,183

Profit or loss: -1,673,614/4,329,108/2,655,494

Nebraska

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 695,026/6,297,232/6,992,258

Expenses: 2,247,575/3,961,218/6,208,793

Profit or loss: -1,552,549/2,336,014/783,465

UPDATED Men’s Bracket:  The Elite Eight

UK:  Street Fight in Syracuse

POSITION BREAKDOWN:  UK & K-State

Northern Iowa Run Comes to an End

NCAA Women’s Bracket UPDATE

DUKE: Pressence Felt

NCAA Tournament at a Glance

Tournament at a Glance

WBI Championship:  Memphis vs. App State

NIT, CBI, CollegeBasketballInsider.com

Memphis:  Eyeing 20-Win Season

]]> http://www.allbasketballreview.com/ncaa-mens-womens-basketball-tournament-update/feed 0 http://www.allbasketballreview.com/ncaa-womens-basketball-tournament-2 http://www.allbasketballreview.com/ncaa-womens-basketball-tournament-2#comments Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:42:11 +0000 Jeff http://www.allbasketballreview.com/?p=2812

Good updates, stories and links

NCAA Women’s Tournament at a GLANCE

University of Georgia PREVIEW

Saturday’s 4-Game Preview (ESPN)

ESPN NCAA Tournament Central

CBSSports.com NCAA Tournament Central

Good updates, links and stories.

SWEET DREAMS – Sweet 16 Update

Q & A with John Wall

EAST REGIONAL PREVIEW

WEST REGIONAL PREVIEW 1

WEST REGIONAL PREVIEW 2

NCAA TOURNAMENT AT A GLANCE

NIT

CBI, CollegeInsider.com & Men’s Coaching Changes