Who sets the strategy these days?

[6sigma]

[Disclaimer: I'm quite old, quite clueless & overly analytical.]

In today's D1 athletics, who is setting the strategy for the athletics program within a university? Who is actually deciding whether a school becomes a "basketball, football or baseball" school? Who makes the decisions about "trade-offs" between academic funding & athletics? Who sets the appropriations for ESPN money coming into these schools? In other words, who is setting the strategy for a given sport at a given school?

With all the debate about what type of coach State needs - young/old, offensive/defensive-minded, SEC/elsewhere, head coach/coordinator, etc., etc. - who actually decides a school is "ready" to take a step up from its traditional place in the pack to a new level? What are the factors that differentiate perennial "top 15" programs from "top 15 every dozen years or so?"

Among discussion forums, big boosters, ADs, Presidents, alums...who gets to say, "we're ready to take a step up?" Is it a different mix of folks at every school? Who decides "well, we typically hire $4M coaches vs. $6.5M coaches?"

I'm genuinely curious & eager to learn more about this stuff. I know how choices like these get made in corporations, but it's unclear to me whether a university can actually drive to exceed its past or simply gets lucky every now & then.

Thanks. [back to lurking]

 

[Philly Dawg]

It doesn’t happen because somebody decides it happens. It’s as simple as which programs have a combination of money and recruiting territory.

 

[Bulldogg31]

It doesn’t happen because somebody decides it happens. It’s as simple as which programs have a combination of money and recruiting territory.

And coaching.

 

[T-TownDawgg]

Our strategy is approved by Murphy

 

[The Situation]

Most all good programs got started because they got lucky with a coach, won a little bit, and built a fanbase. The fanbase generally equals money, with a rare exception being like Oregon with Nike, which then creates a situation that's favorable to building a program that recruits are attracted to. Then, like Philly Dawg said, you need a good recruiting area that you can rely on to maintain said program enough to win and keep those fans. All of that together attracts good coaches.

It's a collective effort, but it's hard to say anybody really 'leads' it. I would say more than anything it's the President and AD, along with the influential boosters.