Sleeping Giants: Will There Ever Be Another Gonzaga in the NIL Era?

Throughout history there have been several programs that have arisen from nothing to become national powers. Perhaps the two greatest examples were UConn and Arizona’s rise in the 1980’s, but those were also powered by power conferences in the Big East and Pac 10 to which they moved a few years before Jim Calhoun and Lute Olsen had arrived. Impressive, but likely powered by power conferences that helped put on a more equal ground.

Maybe you could point to UNLV as the next best example to Gonzaga, but where as Gonzaga has run a clean program UNLV was notoriously not. Since the early 1990’s there is really only one example of program going from essentially nothing to a power. that is Gonzaga. Butler, VCU, Saint Mary’s and others have have impressive runs of success as well, but can’t come close to matching the overall resume that Gonzaga has put together. The question here is how sustainable is once Mark Few is gone and can any other similar program ever reach these level in the NIL and free transfer era.

Gonzaga

Gonzaga exemplifies the epitome of success in the modern era that a program can achieve from the most humble beginnings. The appointment of Mark Few bringing stability that proved instrumental in their ascent.

Up until 1995, the Zags had made zero NCAA tournament and managed only one 20-win season. They only made their first first NIT appearance in1994. It wasn’t until the 1994-1995 season when Dan Fitzgerald guided them to their inaugural NCAA tournament as a 14th seed. Fitzgerald’s strategic hires of Dan Monson and Mark Few on his coaching staff before retiring and becoming the Athletic Director laid the foundation for the program’s future success.

Under Dan Monson’s leadership, Gonzaga experienced a significant breakthrough in its second year, securing an Elite 8 appearance as a 10 seed and marking a pivotal moment in the program’s history. However, Monson’s departure after this successful season paved the way for Mark Few to take the reins and guide Gonzaga to its eventual powerhouse status. If Monson had stayed would he have been able to maintain success with how the rest of his career went? Had Few also moved on as quick as Monson would we even be talking about Gonzaga right now?

From that point on, Gonzaga has been dominant on the college basketball scene, boasting an impressive 84% win rate and making the NCAA tournament in all 23 of Few’s season. The team consistently finishes ranked, with only five exceptions, and has held an average final rank of 3rd in the AP Poll over the past six years.

Getting that commitment however was already hard. Most coaches aren’t resigned to make less just to stay and build as long as Few has. It takes a special circumstances. With the NIL now playing such a vital role will it even be possible moving forward for similar type programs to compete at the level Gonzaga eventually got to?

Facilities

The key here seems to be faciites and support. Gonzaga has strategically enhanced and upgraded facilities and support over the years, which aided in higher level recruits. In 2004, the program inaugurated a state-of-the-art 6,000-seat arena, a substantial improvement from its previous 2,000-seat venue.

While conference realignment has not materialized thus far. This potential move represents the final piece of the puzzle in securing the program’s future and ensuring long-term sustainability beyond the tenure of Mark Few. That’s the other piece you probably have to land with your program to take it to the next level. Building it to the point they can get into a power conference.

Location

Location for Gonzaga like many will always be an issue. If Gonzaga was in the Midwest they would already be in the Big East. Butler was on a similar track at a similar time. The main difference being they couldn’t maintain the stability of Gonzaga with Few, but were able to get into the Big East with their ideal location before it was a problem. Between 1949 and 1997, Butler made one NCAA appearance and only two 20-win seasons in the span of 48 years, mirroring Gonzaga’s struggles.

While Butler faced the challenge of not retaining figures like Thad Matta or Brad Stevens as Gonzaga did with Mark Few, they managed to leverage their Final Four and National Finals appearances into an invitation to join the Big East. This is perhaps more advantageous in the long run and spanning coaches as it provides financial resources.

Coaching Challenges in 2024 and Beyond

The primary challenge confronting college basketball coaches today revolves around frequent player departures to the transfer portal a trend seemingly exacerbated by the the onset of the NIL era. Coaches grapple with the constant threat of losing key players to higher-tier schools, a dynamic that was less prevalent just a decade ago. While mid-major programs can land some solid under the radar talent in the transfer portal it’s akin to threading a needle each year in a way it wasn’t before.

Mark Few’s success at Gonzaga has propelled the program to a level where they can now compete with NIL opportunities. When contemplating a hypothetical scenario wherein Few at Gonzaga, circa 2003, faces the decision of whether to stay or move to a program with a substantial NIL budget it could have been different if this was the landscape. The temptation for coaches to opt for a financially more lucrative position with less stressful recruiting becomes apparent, particularly when the prospect of higher personal earnings is on the table. Mark Few stands out as a special case.

NIL introduces new complexities, rendering it more challenging for coaches to retain players when power conference programs can offer significant financial incentives. While advantages have always existed for Power conference teams in college basketball, the injection tens of thousands of dollars into the hands of 18-22-year-olds creates a substantial dynamic shift.

It’s increasingly unlikely for someone to stay in a conference like the WCC now. Would someone like Dusty May really stay at FAU longterm? It’s doubtful. The more likely scenario involves schools needing to replace coaches as they move up the ladder, resembling a situation akin to VCU after Shaka Smart. Even schools with better fanbases and history prior to their success may struggle to sustain momentum. It only takes one bad hire and if you are cycling through them the chances are you eventually miss.

How It Could Happen

So how could a program that had never been to, or rarely been to an NCAA tournament grow into a power today like Gonzaga has been, and do it in the NIL era. I think there are a couple of scenarios.

Scenario 1

In the pursuit of a successful coaching strategy, a key consideration is securing a coach with a distinct connection to the school or local area, demonstrating a genuine passion for the role. While an alumni is the most evident choice, it usually doesn’t matter. Although there may be coaches motivated by factors beyond financial gains, they constitute a minority. In the competitive coaching landscape, most professionals aim to ascend the career ladder. Given the precarious nature of coaching positions, having the flexibility to explore opportunities both upwards and downwards on the career ladder if it doesn’t work out becomes crucial.

An illustrative example is Dan Monson, who, despite being fired, managed to sustain a lengthy career when he fell back to a lower D1 job. Perhaps a plausible scenario entails a coach with experience in a Power Five conference achieving moderate success, subsequently being fired or opting for an off-ramp or a position outside the major conferences, similar to Steve Alford’s transition to New Mexico or Nevada.

Scenario 2

Gonzaga presents a unique profile as a private Jesuit university boasting a student body of around 7,000. On the surface this itself would seem to be very low potential and hard to replicate for most similar programs. When they started their process they had a 2000 seat arena and the WCC typically had one 12 to 15 seed. The more likely pathway is one involving institutions with large budgets and support. The key may lie in a coach’s ability to establish a strong presence over several seasons, paving the way for entry into a power conference. However, the dynamics are multifaceted, with things like football and market taking precedence with basketball being down the list of importance outside of the Big East. Moreover, the landscape for power conference placements is becoming increasingly set it seems with fewer spots to claim.

Sleeping Giants

These are the programs with very few if any NCAA appearances, few accomplishments, and history, but high budget or support.

2023 College Basketball Budget

That’s the current attendance averages and budgets. This list isn’t for the programs that have already had some major successes, or that are in conferences that have like the MWC or A10. It’s probably fair to include some of the AAC since it’s taking a big stepback. These are the true mid major sleepers.

Grand Canyon

NCAA’s: 2 (0-2)

	Budget
82	Grand Canyon University	WAC	$5,344,682

Grand Canyon despite its relative infancy, the university boasts an extensive budget and an impressive enrollment, hosting 70,000 students online and 20,000 on campus, all situated in the vibrant city of Phoenix. With an average of 7,000 fans filling the arena during the last season, Grand Canyon University has swiftly outpaced numerous programs in terms of both support and financial backing.

What sets this program apart is not just its substantial budget or large fan base, but they also have a former Power Five coach, who may have limited interest in returning to a high pressure job like that. He also made a good bit of money in the NBA as well as at Vanderbilt he doesn’t have to chase a payday. Notably, he comes from a great linage with brother Scott Drew, and his father Homer Drew who stayed committed to Valparaiso even after achieving success in the NCAA.

In assessing potential sleeping giants in the collegiate sports landscape, Grand Canyon University emerges as a prime candidate. Already it has demonstrating prowess in navigating the transfer portal, the university has positioned itself as a formidable force. Speculation about potential partnerships with conferences like the WCC or MWC in the future adds another layer to its intriguing narrative and growth.

Liberty

NCAA’s: 5 (1-5)

Win Percentage: .512

95

Liberty University

ASUN

$4,068,580

Liberty University shares a comparable institutional structure with Grand Canyon University, boasting a substantial enrollment of 15,000 on campus and an additional 80,000 online powering a large budget. What distinguishes Liberty is the augmentation of a burgeoning football program that embodies upward mobility. However, a notable hurdle revolves around the institution’s religious affiliations, which has led several conferences to overlook potential collaborations. Despite this, there is a prospect for Liberty to emulate the success of programs like BYU. If you good enough at some point they may have to let you in. They have been able to maintain stability with a coach who has already been in the P5 and doesn’t seem interested in seeking other jobs. That helps.

High Point

NCAA’s: 0

Win Percentage .477

125

High Point University

Big South

$2,862,009

The second-highest funded institution in the Big South Conference is currently Winthrop, well over 100 spots lower at 238th spot in basketball funding. High Point University presents itself as a program with the potential to emerge as a dominant force within the conference, reminiscent of the era when Gregg Marshall led Winthrop. This situation raises the possibility of a coach choosing to establish a long-term presence, following the example set by Marshall, by consistently securing NCAA tournament berths. High Point, with its ability to offer competitive compensation and its strategic location in a robust recruiting state, has recently unveiled a state-of-the-art 4,500-seat arena. The noteworthy aspect here lies in the Big South Conference being comparatively more susceptible to sustained dominance than many other mid-major conferences. They had solid attendance as well for a Big South program.

James Madison

NCAA’s: 5 (4-5)

Winning percentage .512%

112

James Madison University

Sun Belt

$3,357,397

James Madison University has secured victories in several tournament games, albeit predating the NCAA expansion over 40 years ago. Over the past four decades, JMU has made only two NCAA appearances, once as a 14th seed and more recently, a decade ago as a 16th seed. Despite being the most well-funded institution in the Sun Belt, it competes in a large and competitive league. The university has made substantial investments in recent years, including upgrading facilities and constructing a new arena, establishing a solid foundation. While the coaching prowess of Mark Byington remains uncertain as a potential superstar, the team has demonstrated excellence in the current season. It’s worth noting that Jim Larranaga also took an years to reach his first NCAA tournament. It is still possible.

Drake

NCAA’s: 6 (6-6)

Winning Percentage .471%

140

Drake University

MVC

$2,598,945

Drake appears to be a program poised for success under the guidance of the right coach. Prior to Darian DeVires’ tenure, spanning almost five decades, the team had secured only one NCAA tournament appearance and a single 20-win season. However, in his six-year leadership, DeVires has transformed the program into one of the best mid major programs. The real litmus test for his commitment may come after his son graduates, at which point discussions about his potential long-term tenure could gain traction. This juncture could serve as the pivotal moment that defines him as a coach dedicated to building a lasting legacy at Drake.

Hofstra

NCAA’s: 4 (0-4)

Winning Percentage: .526%

136

Hofstra University

Colonial

$2,653,531

Hofstra is the number one funded program in the CAA, demonstrating noteworthy success recently. The focal point of consideration lies in the leadership of Speedy Claxton, a distinguished alum. Under his guidance, the team has achieved an impressive record and securing a CAA championship within his first three years. Claxton, with prior extensive NBA experience and earnings approaching nearly 40 million dollars makes him interesting as he doesn’t need to chase the money. He’s a coach we could see sticking with Hofstra longterm as an alum who doesn’t need the money.

Conclusion

While this endeavor might require a unique combination of a talented coach and favorable circumstances, as seen in Gonzaga’s case, it remains a distinct possibility. The current landscape of college athletics, shaped by the NIL era, presents both challenges and opportunities for such programs. Achieving this feat may be even more improbable than it was a decade ago, let alone two or three decades when Gonzaga embarked on its transformative journey.