Why Run-n-Gun makes sense for the Women's College Game

I had the opportunity to watch the Michigan State women play at Michigan today on the Big Ten Network.  It was a tremendous game and was exactly what a rivalry game should be.  I saw intensity on the faces of the players and coaches, physical play, tremendous athleticism, numerous ties and lead changes, and comebacks from both sides.  This was the women's game at it's finest.  The problem, there were only 4,510 people on hand (in an arena that seats over 12,000) to see a game between two teams undefeated in conference play whose schools are separated by 65 miles and enough dislike to last hundreds of lifetimes.  Compare this to an exhibition hockey game between Michigan and Waterloo (who???) on October 6 that drew 4,360.  This means that for one of the most important women's basketball games at Michigan in years, against an in-state rival no less, only 150 more people showed up than those who showed up to an exhibition hockey game against a team from Canada.  Does anyone else see the problem here?  Women's basketball is lagging significantly in fan support.

What can be done to deal with this issue?  One idea is to make the game more uptempo.  Personally, I am suggesting something drastic.  The Grinnell System created by David Arsenault and used by Andy Hoaglin and me at Jackson (MI) Community College from 2010-13 could breathe new life into a number of programs across the country and put substantially more butts in seats.  Think it can't work?  Look at the success Bunky Harkleroad is having at Sacramento State in his first year (and he was hired in October).  Though Coach Harkleroad is not running the full Grinnell System, he is running and gunning without a doubt.

If even 5-10 more schools start playing uptempo (Oregon and Paul Westhead are pushing the pace as well), there's a great chance most fans across the country would get the opportunity to see it played at some point during the season.  But why does it make sense to do this in the women's game.  Following are a couple of the reasons.

First, playing run-n-gun is low risk/high reward from a financial standpoint .  99% of the D1 women's programs are non-revenue producing.  And by the attendance at that MSU-UM game, you can see why.  Schools aren't about to cut out women's basketball.  So, it makes sense to try to bring a few more folks through the turnstiles every game.  Even if that is only a hundred more on average at say $5 bucks a pop, that is $150,000 over the course of a 15 game home schedule.  I believe 100 more a game is an extremely conservative estimate, but even $150,000 would more than pay a head coach's salary at most schools.  Now what if you add to that a few endorsement deals for averaging 100 points a game, additional apparel sales, etc.  You may never see women's basketball be a significant revenue producer, but it could sure stop hemorrhaging as much cash and allow say football and men's hoops to keep a bit more of the cash those sports bring in or spread more to other sports.

Kids want to play where they can do special things and where they can, at the least, be a contributor.  In the Grinnell System, nearly everyone sees the court every game - the system works best when wearing folks down with multiple players.  Think about this, what athlete, when being recruited thinks - "gosh I'd love to go to a place where they play in front of 500 people/game and I will have to sit most of my freshman and sophomore years".  I believe a coach who can sell playing uptempo in front of thousands of fans and have the chance to actually play, will attract progressively better recruits.

Honestly, I know run-n-gun can be successful in the win column as well and will get into that in future posts, but if players stick at an institution and that school is able to earn a few more dollars a year, I think we're already off to a great start.