As the July recruiting period concludes, let's take a look at all the things that go with evaluating high school prospects. We've already taken a look at recruiting sites, this is not what will be talking about. What we will talk about is how different schools evaluate talent throughout the year.
Casting a Large Net
Most schools function this way, especially early in the recruiting process. You want to be able to find as many prospects as you can and hope that certain one stick. Depending on the level some of this evaluation begins during the AAU or high school season of their junior year. If the school sees a intriguing prospect at a game, they'll add that prospect to their database and start the process.
You'll see D3 coaches at some of the bigger tournaments throughout the country and they are evaluating as many prospects as they can. Seeing as many teams as they can that are from their recruiting area.
Let's say there is 100 prospects on the school's recruiting list. The hope that you can get 25 (that might be high) to visit. 15 will probably apply and you might get three of those kids when school starts. You may look at those numbers and think that I'm absolutely nuts. Ask most D3 coaches and their lists start with much more than 100, especially when they have to bring in high numbers every year.
There are also many high level schools that will offer a lot of prospects in order to get their name involved in the process. There are times that those offers really don't mean anything especially when the coaches don't talk to the prospects (offers are through AAU coach).
Babysitting
You'll see this after legitimate scholarship offers are out. Coaches from D2 and D1 levels will basically follow a prospect around the area or country in order to now that the prospect is a priority. Some of the high level coaches have their own private plane, owned by school or booster(s), that they travel around in order to see prospects. Here's a little article about Kentucky basketball and another one about Alabama football.
I've seen numerous articles and tweets regarding the NSIC schools traveling to Vegas (I'll have another article on this place soon) to see prospects. For the most part, they are going there to "babysit" guys they have offered or have extremely high interest in. Like I've said before, I've never coached at the D2 level, I am not exactly sure this is a great investment for these programs unless they are starting to recruit out of state prospects. One thing is does do is it tells the prospects how important they are if they are spending half or more of their recruiting budget by heading to "City of Sin."
Conclusion
Every college program has a different idea on how to recruit. There isn't a right or wrong way to do it. The same as different offensive and defensive systems. The hope is that each program finds the best way for them to compete in recruiting and on the floor for their school.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Monday, July 28, 2014
The Shot Clock
Every year there is a debate in many states in regards to putting in a shot clock for high school basketball. This year, in the Hopkins vs. Shakopee Minnesota State Semifinal led more people to believe that a shot clock would be a good idea in Minnesota. I'm a firm believer that having a high school shot clock would be good for the game.
I grew up in New York and around the time I was 10 (might've been earlier), the state decided that a shot clock would be a good idea for high school basketball. The initial plan was to go with a :45 shot clock (the college game was also :45 at that time). After the college game moved it down to :35, then New York followed as well. So, I never played a high school game without a :35 shot clock.
Obviously, it was a little different playing with one compared to middle school ball but, you learn to adjust as a player and then a coach. If you didn't get anything in the first :20 then we would run a set around :15 in order to try and get a shot. As you moved to the varsity level, that timeline shifted a little more and we would try to get into our set around :12.
One thing I really liked with the shot clock is that the players and coaches are forced to make quick decisions on a consistent basis. Coaches have to become creative with their sets and the players are forced to make plays. I think this encourages better coaching because teams can't just rely on continuous offenses, like the flex, for extended periods of time.
I understand that the this will lead to some forced shots by some bad players but sometimes that happens in high school basketball. It will also widen the gap between the good and the bad teams because there will be more possessions (which hopefully forces all coaches to work with their youth programs more, which equals, better basketball).
Two bad teams square off and then shot clock forces bad players into a bunch of bad shots. That happens without a shot clock. I've seen a lot of really bad games at the high school level and it wouldn't matter if there was one or not. Maybe they would make more shots if they actually attempted more.
Another issue is the cost behind installing the shot clock and then having competent shot clock operators. For a lot of schools there are a lot budget issues and doing this would cause more of a hassle. I would say installment is a one time fee ranging from $1500-$5000 with then $25 per game to the shot clock operator. That's a lot of money for some schools but if you go into a lot of gyms throughout the state of Minnesota you will notice that the shot clocks are already installed on top of the baskets, they just aren't in use.
At one point the PSAL (NYC's public school league) decided that only certain levels would be using the shot clock. For example, in Minnesota only 3A and 4A schools would be required to use them during games. Maybe a conference would be forward thinking enough to force schools to use them for conference games.
The last thing I want to bring up about the shot clock is how it is used on the international level. The shot clock is used at ALL levels international. We are the only country in the world that doesn't use it consistently through all ages. Even at lower age groups they use a :24 shot clock. It would make sense to have universal rules but we want to make our own rules in the US that truly don't have a rhyme or reason behind it (:30 shot clock for women and :35 for men).
Make the game universal.
I grew up in New York and around the time I was 10 (might've been earlier), the state decided that a shot clock would be a good idea for high school basketball. The initial plan was to go with a :45 shot clock (the college game was also :45 at that time). After the college game moved it down to :35, then New York followed as well. So, I never played a high school game without a :35 shot clock.
Obviously, it was a little different playing with one compared to middle school ball but, you learn to adjust as a player and then a coach. If you didn't get anything in the first :20 then we would run a set around :15 in order to try and get a shot. As you moved to the varsity level, that timeline shifted a little more and we would try to get into our set around :12.
One thing I really liked with the shot clock is that the players and coaches are forced to make quick decisions on a consistent basis. Coaches have to become creative with their sets and the players are forced to make plays. I think this encourages better coaching because teams can't just rely on continuous offenses, like the flex, for extended periods of time.
I understand that the this will lead to some forced shots by some bad players but sometimes that happens in high school basketball. It will also widen the gap between the good and the bad teams because there will be more possessions (which hopefully forces all coaches to work with their youth programs more, which equals, better basketball).
Two bad teams square off and then shot clock forces bad players into a bunch of bad shots. That happens without a shot clock. I've seen a lot of really bad games at the high school level and it wouldn't matter if there was one or not. Maybe they would make more shots if they actually attempted more.
Another issue is the cost behind installing the shot clock and then having competent shot clock operators. For a lot of schools there are a lot budget issues and doing this would cause more of a hassle. I would say installment is a one time fee ranging from $1500-$5000 with then $25 per game to the shot clock operator. That's a lot of money for some schools but if you go into a lot of gyms throughout the state of Minnesota you will notice that the shot clocks are already installed on top of the baskets, they just aren't in use.
At one point the PSAL (NYC's public school league) decided that only certain levels would be using the shot clock. For example, in Minnesota only 3A and 4A schools would be required to use them during games. Maybe a conference would be forward thinking enough to force schools to use them for conference games.
The last thing I want to bring up about the shot clock is how it is used on the international level. The shot clock is used at ALL levels international. We are the only country in the world that doesn't use it consistently through all ages. Even at lower age groups they use a :24 shot clock. It would make sense to have universal rules but we want to make our own rules in the US that truly don't have a rhyme or reason behind it (:30 shot clock for women and :35 for men).
Make the game universal.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Basketball Analytics
We live in a world of data and sports are no exception. The first introduction into sport analytics for most people was "Moneyball," which profiled the Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane and his approach for team success through innovative ways. Basketball analytics is a newer concept that more and more information is being put out there. From the NBA to high school basketball, stats are forcing coaches to adjust.
According to analytic data there are two different shots that are considered good shots for your team. Those two shots are 3's and lay-ups/dunks. 3's are considered a good because of the stat that gives you eFG%, which is effective field percentage. The formula is eFG% = (FGM + 0.5 x 3PTM) / FGA. So, in not math genius terms. Player A is 2-6 from 3 for 6 points. Player B is 3-6 from 3 for 6 points. Both point totals are the same thus having the same eFG which is 50%. In the NBA, the metric is slightly different because corner 3's are a little bit shorter than anywhere else on the floor, therefore that is considered a high percentage shot.
One of the known leaders in basketball analytics is Daryl Morey, the general manager for the Houston Rockets. He has come up with innovative ways to implement to what data suggests is the right way to play. His biggest experiment is the Rockets' D-League the Rio Grande Vipers. They are coached by Nevada Smith who is bound to be the old guy at the gym that gets a rebound and sprints out to the three point line to shoot a three (He actually would do that in the North Country coaches' noon time hoops.). Nevada is a former D3 player and coach (imagine that, back to the D3 love) that loves to play fast and shoot threes. Here is a great Grantland article on his team from this past season. If you don't want to read, here is a video example of the way they play.
The Portland Trailblazers are also another example of a team that has completely bought in to the analytics craze. They have coach and general manager that are on the same page, which is the key. Everyone needs to "buy in" in order for it to work. Here is an article regarding their approach from ESPN Insider. Trailblazers.
If you look at the college ranks, the only team that really uses analytics that I can think of is Grinnell and "their system." Their coach has created his own formula to order to win games. While, I'm not a huge fan of the way they do things (that's a whole different entry), he has created a buzz about the program and they've won more games than they have before. Here is a inside look at what they do.
Analytics at the high school and college level are a little different. Why? Zone defense. It forces teams to attempt mid-range shots which, according to analytic data, is a bad shot. Now, I know that certain coaches have their own metrics which could include getting 15 offensive boards, holding team to under 40%FG, etc. It's just really hard to get 15-22 year olds to be consistent enough to get the same results all the time.
I really like analytic data and I think over the course of time you can come up with some great data. My biggest issue is that none of the teams that I mentioned above have actually won a championship. Then the question becomes, why haven't they won more? I think the answer to that is analytic data doesn't always carry over in a one game series. That's why "the best team" doesn't always win the NCAA tournament or the State Basketball Tournament.
You would think that a seven game series like there is in the NBA and MLB would give you enough time for the analytic stuff to work but things are just a little different in the post-season. What it boils down to is, you have to put the ball in the basket or have guys cross the plate. In the playoffs, scouting is enhanced and adjustments have to be made. And it's tough to make adjustments to the way you have played for the whole season for a short period of time to get wins.
According to analytic data there are two different shots that are considered good shots for your team. Those two shots are 3's and lay-ups/dunks. 3's are considered a good because of the stat that gives you eFG%, which is effective field percentage. The formula is eFG% = (FGM + 0.5 x 3PTM) / FGA. So, in not math genius terms. Player A is 2-6 from 3 for 6 points. Player B is 3-6 from 3 for 6 points. Both point totals are the same thus having the same eFG which is 50%. In the NBA, the metric is slightly different because corner 3's are a little bit shorter than anywhere else on the floor, therefore that is considered a high percentage shot.
One of the known leaders in basketball analytics is Daryl Morey, the general manager for the Houston Rockets. He has come up with innovative ways to implement to what data suggests is the right way to play. His biggest experiment is the Rockets' D-League the Rio Grande Vipers. They are coached by Nevada Smith who is bound to be the old guy at the gym that gets a rebound and sprints out to the three point line to shoot a three (He actually would do that in the North Country coaches' noon time hoops.). Nevada is a former D3 player and coach (imagine that, back to the D3 love) that loves to play fast and shoot threes. Here is a great Grantland article on his team from this past season. If you don't want to read, here is a video example of the way they play.
The Portland Trailblazers are also another example of a team that has completely bought in to the analytics craze. They have coach and general manager that are on the same page, which is the key. Everyone needs to "buy in" in order for it to work. Here is an article regarding their approach from ESPN Insider. Trailblazers.
If you look at the college ranks, the only team that really uses analytics that I can think of is Grinnell and "their system." Their coach has created his own formula to order to win games. While, I'm not a huge fan of the way they do things (that's a whole different entry), he has created a buzz about the program and they've won more games than they have before. Here is a inside look at what they do.
Analytics at the high school and college level are a little different. Why? Zone defense. It forces teams to attempt mid-range shots which, according to analytic data, is a bad shot. Now, I know that certain coaches have their own metrics which could include getting 15 offensive boards, holding team to under 40%FG, etc. It's just really hard to get 15-22 year olds to be consistent enough to get the same results all the time.
I really like analytic data and I think over the course of time you can come up with some great data. My biggest issue is that none of the teams that I mentioned above have actually won a championship. Then the question becomes, why haven't they won more? I think the answer to that is analytic data doesn't always carry over in a one game series. That's why "the best team" doesn't always win the NCAA tournament or the State Basketball Tournament.
You would think that a seven game series like there is in the NBA and MLB would give you enough time for the analytic stuff to work but things are just a little different in the post-season. What it boils down to is, you have to put the ball in the basket or have guys cross the plate. In the playoffs, scouting is enhanced and adjustments have to be made. And it's tough to make adjustments to the way you have played for the whole season for a short period of time to get wins.
Friday, July 25, 2014
Recruiting Sites
We live in a world where there are recruiting sites for every single BCS school as well as a lot of sites for mid to low major schools. All of these sites provide information to the masses that want to know where the next big national and in state star are going to eventually go for school. Schools in the ACC, Big Ten, Big East, Big 12, and the Pac 12 all have several different sites for each school. These sites usually include scout.com, rivals.com, and the latest to get involved is 247sports.com.
If you read these sites on a consistent basis, you will notice that each site will tilt the article to make it look like "that school" is in the lead for a prospect. If there are quotes involved, there are always positive quotes regarding the school that the site is run through. So fans will get super excited when Jimmy Basketball really likes Coach ______ and likes their style of play. Kids and their families have become savvy enough to do this in order to please everyone.
Within the past couple of years the recruiting service industry has changed because of the unlimited contact that coaches can have with recruits. Before, coaches could only contact the prospect twice a week and could theoretically use the recruiting service to contact the kid more. That's called a "grey area" that a lot of coaches work in order to use everything possible to get the players they want.
Another way that colleges use the recruiting services is to help recruit other kids. How? Why? Coaches want other kids to see that "School A" is recruiting all these really good players and that could potentially draw more interest from recruits. Coaches are savvy enough to know that most kids and their families read these recruiting sites on a consistent basis. They also want to "be on the list" just like you see on TV while getting into an exclusive club.
Recruiting sites that technically don't have a tie to a certain school have their own biases as well. These sites don't have any ties to schools but they tend to have ties to some AAU and high school programs. They will write about a lot of different prospects from those particular AAU or high school programs because the people that run the site are good friends with the coaches from each program. This idea will not only apply to articles but ranking of prospects as well.
Very rarely are these recruiting sites actually run by former college coaches who truly understand how the recruiting process works. So, when you read the 2015 or 2016 rankings, you can't get too caught up in them. Coaches are looking for the best fit for their program and rankings really don't mean a thing. On top of that, what does the ranking actually mean? Is it, who is the best player now? Who will be the best college player? Rarely do the sites actually tell you this and a lot of the time, the sites are inconsistent in the ranking process.
Again, I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions regarding anything that I've talked about, please feel free to contact me at cwhop03@yahoo.com
If you read these sites on a consistent basis, you will notice that each site will tilt the article to make it look like "that school" is in the lead for a prospect. If there are quotes involved, there are always positive quotes regarding the school that the site is run through. So fans will get super excited when Jimmy Basketball really likes Coach ______ and likes their style of play. Kids and their families have become savvy enough to do this in order to please everyone.
Within the past couple of years the recruiting service industry has changed because of the unlimited contact that coaches can have with recruits. Before, coaches could only contact the prospect twice a week and could theoretically use the recruiting service to contact the kid more. That's called a "grey area" that a lot of coaches work in order to use everything possible to get the players they want.
Another way that colleges use the recruiting services is to help recruit other kids. How? Why? Coaches want other kids to see that "School A" is recruiting all these really good players and that could potentially draw more interest from recruits. Coaches are savvy enough to know that most kids and their families read these recruiting sites on a consistent basis. They also want to "be on the list" just like you see on TV while getting into an exclusive club.
Recruiting sites that technically don't have a tie to a certain school have their own biases as well. These sites don't have any ties to schools but they tend to have ties to some AAU and high school programs. They will write about a lot of different prospects from those particular AAU or high school programs because the people that run the site are good friends with the coaches from each program. This idea will not only apply to articles but ranking of prospects as well.
Very rarely are these recruiting sites actually run by former college coaches who truly understand how the recruiting process works. So, when you read the 2015 or 2016 rankings, you can't get too caught up in them. Coaches are looking for the best fit for their program and rankings really don't mean a thing. On top of that, what does the ranking actually mean? Is it, who is the best player now? Who will be the best college player? Rarely do the sites actually tell you this and a lot of the time, the sites are inconsistent in the ranking process.
Again, I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions regarding anything that I've talked about, please feel free to contact me at cwhop03@yahoo.com
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Showcases and "Elite" Camps
Over the course of the last ten years "showcases" have become commonplace in grassroots basketball. You use to be able to showcase yourself with your high school or AAU team but now you can essentially play in a one day camp that is supposed to give you exposure. The number one goal off each showcase is to make money. It's clearly not about the kids.
When I was in high school I went to a few showcases in order to "showcase" my talent to college coaches. I went to several "Metro Top 100" showcases run through The Hoop Group. The showcases were always challenging for me because I was a big goofy white guy that played point for my high school and AAU team. In the showcase setting, I was generally one of the taller guys on the team, so I would be stuck playing against bigs. It wasn't exactly an ideal setting to "showcase" my skills. There were many D2 and D3 coaches there that didn't think very highly of my performance or lack thereof.
I went to another showcase run by Keystone Invitational (I think Hoop Group took this over and renamed it). There I was able to play the point and the coaches actually coached us rather than just make substitutions that happened automatically anyway. I had numerous college coaches approach me after the camp and that's what makes it a great experience for players.
Over the past couple of years there have been a few showcases that have popped up in Minnesota. These showcases are nothing but money makers for the people running them. What each showcase does is not charge a few "highly known prospects" to make sure they can name drop on social media in order to get other kids there.
I've witnessed one camp as a college coach that literally had five college coaches there after the event said that they had commitments from 20+ college coaches there. Another recent event had a lot of big names there and yet very few college coaches. Even though the event was certified by the NCAA, kids and parents have to develop an understanding of how these showcases work.
And lastly, do you think that playing with a bunch of guys that you've never played with before is an ideal situation for you to be evaluated at?
And lastly, do you think that playing with a bunch of guys that you've never played with before is an ideal situation for you to be evaluated at?
"Elite" Camps
I will be extremely brief on these. The only "elite" camp you want to attend is one hosted by a college or university. When I say hosted, it's not a private entity, it's run by the coaches of that college. I believe that quite a few local D2's have their own elite camps and there are many D1's that have their own as well.
These camps are very beneficial because you are playing in a controlled setting in front of the coaches of that college. They generally don't charge a lot either because they want to make sure they can get their top recruits there. The coaching staff might make a little money but it's not nearly as significant as a showcase.
So, if you can, go to a school's elite camp rather than a showcase.
Monday, July 21, 2014
The D3 Numbers Game
I've talked to a few people about my blog and I've been told that I promote D3 like it's the best thing ever. I am biased to it because I played in it and coached in it. There is definitely some things wrong with D3 and I'll talk about it today.
When you look at a lot of D3 basketball rosters at private schools you will see HUGE numbers. And when you see these massive rosters, you will see large amounts of freshmen (not first year's, that's a stupid concept) and sophomores and a lot less juniors and seniors. The reason you see this, like many other things, is because of money.
Tuition money is huge for a lot of these private schools to survive. The more incoming players coming in, the more money the school has. So, when you see a large number recruiting class it is usually based off the Admission office of the school pushing to bring in more athletes to the school. Sometimes this leads to the college having a junior varsity team in order for these athletes to have a place to play and to still be on the roster.
Here is the simple economics of a school that brings in large amounts of basketball players (other sports are pushed to do the same thing as well) to their school. Let's say there is 15 incoming basketball players. Tuition is $25,000 (I'm not including room and board). That's $375,000 in tuition alone for incoming basketball players. After their freshmen year a five guys see the writing on the wall and decided to transfer out. That's $125,000 out the door but still $250,000 going towards the school. Five more guys decide to give up basketball after their sophomore year but like the school a lot and decide to stay. So, by the time this group becomes seniors only five of the fifteen are still on the basketball roster but their tuition brought in $1,125,000 to the school.
Now, not every athlete is going to have to pay a full $25,000 in tuition to the school based off of academic scholarships and financial aid but you get the point. Even if this group brings in $900,000, that's $900,000 that the school didn't have in the first place.
Imagine if this is done for ten years, that's roughly $9,000,000-$10,000,000 to the school. Then you add in bringing in big numbers for football, soccer, and track & field. That is why athletics should be an integral part of any D3 private school.
There are some D3 schools that recruit huge numbers because of a coaching change, hope for a culture change, and/or to fill a JV roster. The Admissions office is never unhappy with the coaching staff when these large numbers happen. Wins and losses are important but the bottom line is the most important thing for a majority of D3 schools.
Be in the black not in the red.
When you look at a lot of D3 basketball rosters at private schools you will see HUGE numbers. And when you see these massive rosters, you will see large amounts of freshmen (not first year's, that's a stupid concept) and sophomores and a lot less juniors and seniors. The reason you see this, like many other things, is because of money.
Tuition money is huge for a lot of these private schools to survive. The more incoming players coming in, the more money the school has. So, when you see a large number recruiting class it is usually based off the Admission office of the school pushing to bring in more athletes to the school. Sometimes this leads to the college having a junior varsity team in order for these athletes to have a place to play and to still be on the roster.
Here is the simple economics of a school that brings in large amounts of basketball players (other sports are pushed to do the same thing as well) to their school. Let's say there is 15 incoming basketball players. Tuition is $25,000 (I'm not including room and board). That's $375,000 in tuition alone for incoming basketball players. After their freshmen year a five guys see the writing on the wall and decided to transfer out. That's $125,000 out the door but still $250,000 going towards the school. Five more guys decide to give up basketball after their sophomore year but like the school a lot and decide to stay. So, by the time this group becomes seniors only five of the fifteen are still on the basketball roster but their tuition brought in $1,125,000 to the school.
Now, not every athlete is going to have to pay a full $25,000 in tuition to the school based off of academic scholarships and financial aid but you get the point. Even if this group brings in $900,000, that's $900,000 that the school didn't have in the first place.
Imagine if this is done for ten years, that's roughly $9,000,000-$10,000,000 to the school. Then you add in bringing in big numbers for football, soccer, and track & field. That is why athletics should be an integral part of any D3 private school.
There are some D3 schools that recruit huge numbers because of a coaching change, hope for a culture change, and/or to fill a JV roster. The Admissions office is never unhappy with the coaching staff when these large numbers happen. Wins and losses are important but the bottom line is the most important thing for a majority of D3 schools.
Be in the black not in the red.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
AAU Tournament Economics
I've gone to several AAU tournaments this spring and summer as a high school coach and have become extremely disappointed in how things are run. I always hear, "It's about the kids." Well, it's not. Someone is making a lot of money and they are lying when they say they are not.
I'll use a tournament that is going on in Minneapolis right as an example. This isn't a knock on D1Minnesota AAU program. I'm just using it as an example because it's going on right now.
72 teams entered the tournament (Three of their own organization are in the tourney, so 69 teams paid)
Revenue
- Cost per team is $500 - $34,500 for entry fees
- Each team brings roughly 16 people (easier for math) at minimum. I paid $10 today to get in, I don't know if there is a whole tournament fee. If there is, let's say it's $25. Now parents from the D1 program are paying that as well. That's $400 per team for entrance fees. That's $28,800 in admission fees.
- College Coaches' Packets usually are $100 for JUCO and D3, $150-$200 for D2, and $250-$350 for D1. Now, I didn't see a ton of college coaches but I have to think they made at least $2,000 on those.
So, at the bare minimum (I think) they make $65,300 in revenue.
Expenses
- Facility Rental - I'm making a complete guess here but I'll say $5,000 total for all the gyms.
- Insurance - Another complete guess but I'll go with $2,000
- Athletic Trainer(s) - $2,000
- Referees - I would think the going rate is $25 per game per ref. So that's $50 per game. There are 156 games for the whole tourney (yes, I counted). That's $7,800
- Runners/Scorekeepers/etc - $2,000
So, there are roughly $17,800 in expenses for the tournament.
$65,300
-$18,800
$47, 500
That's a lot of money to make on a weekend even if I am off on rental fees or the costs of the referees. I would think that a lot of this money will go back into the D1Minnesota AAU organization with coaching salaries, rental facilities for practice, gear for the kids, travel for organization to out of town tournaments, etc.
There are other tournaments like any NY2LA tourney that makes WAAYYYYYYY more than that because they have more teams, and way more college coaches. Also, NY2LA (there are many more like these series of tournaments but this is one most are familiar with) isn't tied to any AAU organization, so the money clearly isn't going back to the kids.
I'll use a tournament that is going on in Minneapolis right as an example. This isn't a knock on D1Minnesota AAU program. I'm just using it as an example because it's going on right now.
72 teams entered the tournament (Three of their own organization are in the tourney, so 69 teams paid)
Revenue
- Cost per team is $500 - $34,500 for entry fees
- Each team brings roughly 16 people (easier for math) at minimum. I paid $10 today to get in, I don't know if there is a whole tournament fee. If there is, let's say it's $25. Now parents from the D1 program are paying that as well. That's $400 per team for entrance fees. That's $28,800 in admission fees.
- College Coaches' Packets usually are $100 for JUCO and D3, $150-$200 for D2, and $250-$350 for D1. Now, I didn't see a ton of college coaches but I have to think they made at least $2,000 on those.
So, at the bare minimum (I think) they make $65,300 in revenue.
Expenses
- Facility Rental - I'm making a complete guess here but I'll say $5,000 total for all the gyms.
- Insurance - Another complete guess but I'll go with $2,000
- Athletic Trainer(s) - $2,000
- Referees - I would think the going rate is $25 per game per ref. So that's $50 per game. There are 156 games for the whole tourney (yes, I counted). That's $7,800
- Runners/Scorekeepers/etc - $2,000
So, there are roughly $17,800 in expenses for the tournament.
$65,300
-$18,800
$47, 500
That's a lot of money to make on a weekend even if I am off on rental fees or the costs of the referees. I would think that a lot of this money will go back into the D1Minnesota AAU organization with coaching salaries, rental facilities for practice, gear for the kids, travel for organization to out of town tournaments, etc.
There are other tournaments like any NY2LA tourney that makes WAAYYYYYYY more than that because they have more teams, and way more college coaches. Also, NY2LA (there are many more like these series of tournaments but this is one most are familiar with) isn't tied to any AAU organization, so the money clearly isn't going back to the kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)