What does it really take to build a "Program?"

[TXDawg.sixpack]

<div>I was thinking about this today. At some point, all of the big "Programs" (Alabama Football, Duke Basketball, etc) had to be built.</div><div>
</div><div>There are several examples of Programs surviving coaching changes (Alabama losing Bear Bryant, UNC Basketball losing Dean Smith, Auburn losing Shug Jordan, etc) and maintaining their status. Likewise, there are several examples of Programs having significant success with a good coach, but not being able to sustain it once he's gone (Ole Miss Football & Vaught, UCLA Basketball & Wooden, etc). Obviously, there are other examples where a school has never seen significant to sustained success (Mississippi State).</div><div>
</div><div>At some point, Alabama was just another football team (as were Duke and UNC Basketball). So what does it take to build a true Program that can have sustained success regardless of the head coach?</div><div>
</div><div>Further, can it be done today? Obviously, Boise State has had good success under Peterson, but will they survive his eventual departure? IF Mullen ends up building a consistent winner at MSU, how do we sustain it once he's gone?</div><div>
</div><div>What say you?</div><div>
</div><div>Please - let's not let this devolve into a debate over the examples I provided. While not perfect, they should provide a good representation of the points I'm trying to make. Let's focus on answering the question.</div>

 

[The Usual Suspect]

that most powerhouses were built over time, beginning over 50 years ago in most cases (AL, TX, etc.). Fact is most of these were built before every movement by recruits and coaches were publicized. How many (blantant) illegal things were done in the past, that the public just did not know about. Also, that was before athletics was the huge money making organization that it is today, which puts MSU even more behind the 8 ball. Meaning, many more teams in 1945 had relatively equal funding for football, compared to today, where the difference between for example FL and MSU is huge. The only new "programs" that are being built now, at least in football, originate as independents, or in small conferences, where they can play one to two meaningful teams a year. Also, generally they are in high growth population areas where they can recruit locally, giving them an advantage over other schools in their conference (Houston, TCU-Ft. Worth, Central Florida, South Florida, Boise St., etc.). They do not have 8-9 brutal games a year to have to deal with.

 

[TXDawg.sixpack]

nm

 

[BeerHound]

Is Va. Tech. If you look at where they were before Frank B., they were nothing. He certainly didn't do it overnight either...

 

[jackstefano]

and almost yearly league championships. More recently you've seen tradition built in the absence of NCs -- think Boise and Va. Tech. But the direct answer to your question is that you have to be able to dominate your league. Probably not going to happen for any emerging SEC program in the near future.