Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Who's afraid of deregulation? It's not the small schools...
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #21
RE: Who's afraid of deregulation? It's not the small schools...
(05-30-2013 09:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  These 16 teams are essentially the entire collection of "blue bloods" (Notre Dame, Michigan) and "nouveaux riche" (Miami, FSU) of college football. And the last time anyone else shared a national title was Colorado and Georgia Tech in 1990, and before that BYU in 1984.

1991 was also a split title: Washington (coaches) and Miami (AP).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_NCAA_D...all_season
05-30-2013 10:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #22
RE: Who's afraid of deregulation? It's not the small schools...
(05-30-2013 10:52 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-30-2013 09:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  These 16 teams are essentially the entire collection of "blue bloods" (Notre Dame, Michigan) and "nouveaux riche" (Miami, FSU) of college football. And the last time anyone else shared a national title was Colorado and Georgia Tech in 1990, and before that BYU in 1984.

1991 was also a split title: Washington (coaches) and Miami (AP).

Yep, brain-fart. 04-cheers

I do think it is interesting that while football recruiting is more regulated than ever, the stranglehold of the elite teams has tightened even further. Since 1994, the onset of the 85 scholarship era, Oregon and VT are the only teams outside of that group to even play for the title and neither won.
05-30-2013 02:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sultan of Euphonistan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,999
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 80
I Root For: Baritones
Location: The Euphonistan Tree
Post: #23
RE: Who's afraid of deregulation? It's not the small schools...
Yes but you have to account for the fact that there were decades with less regulation that allowed those schools to build a lot of clout.

Another thing is that I think while the talent has leveled somewhat coaching has not. The bigger schools have more power than ever to take the best coaches (and assistants) which can develop talent. Today coaching salaries are getting crazier and the non-powers have trouble keeping up even in AQ leagues. So even if you have talent you can't use it as well. This is also how some schools that used to be powers and still get talent can't manage to win. They have hired poor coaches.
05-30-2013 08:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Who's afraid of deregulation? It's not the small schools...
(05-30-2013 02:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-30-2013 10:52 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-30-2013 09:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  These 16 teams are essentially the entire collection of "blue bloods" (Notre Dame, Michigan) and "nouveaux riche" (Miami, FSU) of college football. And the last time anyone else shared a national title was Colorado and Georgia Tech in 1990, and before that BYU in 1984.

1991 was also a split title: Washington (coaches) and Miami (AP).

Yep, brain-fart. 04-cheers

I do think it is interesting that while football recruiting is more regulated than ever, the stranglehold of the elite teams has tightened even further. Since 1994, the onset of the 85 scholarship era, Oregon and VT are the only teams outside of that group to even play for the title and neither won.

If you thrown in Colorado, Washington and Oregon to those 16 schools, they represent 79 of the 84 top 3 AP Poll finishes since 1985 (when BYU won) and 118 of the 140 top 5 finishes as well as every AP Poll champion and all the coaches poll champions except Georgia Tech. No other school has cracked the top 3 more than once or the top 5 more than twice in those 28 years. Each of those 19 has been top 3 at least twice and top 5 at least 3 times.
05-31-2013 08:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #25
RE: Who's afraid of deregulation? It's not the small schools...
(05-30-2013 08:50 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  Yes but you have to account for the fact that there were decades with less regulation that allowed those schools to build a lot of clout.

Another thing is that I think while the talent has leveled somewhat coaching has not. The bigger schools have more power than ever to take the best coaches (and assistants) which can develop talent. Today coaching salaries are getting crazier and the non-powers have trouble keeping up even in AQ leagues. So even if you have talent you can't use it as well. This is also how some schools that used to be powers and still get talent can't manage to win. They have hired poor coaches.

Coaching is obviously extremely important. E.g., 5 years ago, Alabama had every structural advantage - fan support, money, prestige, etc. - that it has today, and yet was mired in mediocrity. Enter a great coach (at $4 million a year salary) and the national titles start to flow in again.

And among the P5 getting good coaching is really a matter of will, will to spend the money. E.g., the ACC consistently has lots of players taken high in the NFL draft, often second only to the SEC, and yet the ACC teams consistently perform poorly on the field. That's because ACC teams are badly coached, and THAT is because a large number of ACC schools just do not prioritize football. At North Carolina, they tolerate the football team going 7-5 but would never tolerate the basketball team going 16-12.

The SEC of course takes football to another level. E.g., the new Arkansas coach noted that he has a $3.2 million budget for hiring assistants, whereas at Wisconsin, a major B1G program with just as much money, they had only half that. And that's because even though they care a lot about winning football at Wisconsin, they aren't as fanatical about it as they are in the SEC.

As long as the SEC leads the way in coaching spending, it is likely to dominate football.
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2013 09:29 AM by quo vadis.)
05-31-2013 09:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,881
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 898
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Grayson Highlands
Post: #26
RE: Who's afraid of deregulation? It's not the small schools...
(05-31-2013 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-30-2013 08:50 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  Yes but you have to account for the fact that there were decades with less regulation that allowed those schools to build a lot of clout.

Another thing is that I think while the talent has leveled somewhat coaching has not. The bigger schools have more power than ever to take the best coaches (and assistants) which can develop talent. Today coaching salaries are getting crazier and the non-powers have trouble keeping up even in AQ leagues. So even if you have talent you can't use it as well. This is also how some schools that used to be powers and still get talent can't manage to win. They have hired poor coaches.

Coaching is obviously extremely important. E.g., 5 years ago, Alabama had every structural advantage - fan support, money, prestige, etc. - that it has today, and yet was mired in mediocrity. Enter a great coach (at $4 million a year salary) and the national titles start to flow in again.

And among the P5 getting good coaching is really a matter of will, will to spend the money. E.g., the ACC consistently has lots of players taken high in the NFL draft, often second only to the SEC, and yet the ACC teams consistently perform poorly on the field. That's because ACC teams are badly coached, and THAT is because a large number of ACC schools just do not prioritize football. At North Carolina, they tolerate the football team going 7-5 but would never tolerate the basketball team going 16-12.

The SEC of course takes football to another level. E.g., the new Arkansas coach noted that he has a $3.2 million budget for hiring assistants, whereas at Wisconsin, a major B1G program with just as much money, they had only half that. And that's because even though they care a lot about winning football at Wisconsin, they aren't as fanatical about it as they are in the SEC.

As long as the SEC leads the way in coaching spending, it is likely to dominate football.


Agreed. It ties into your Northwestern comments earlier in another thread. All universities want to have winning sports teams.

However, the "total war" or "win at all costs" approach to winning is not the ultimate goal of some universities.

It does not make them "right" and some others "wrong". It just means that their are different philosophies involved.

Not all will go the "winning is all that matters" route or the "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'" mentality or the total scorched earth commitment of dollars to winning at all costs.

For instance, ND athletics provides $20 million per year to the academic side of the university and has been for years.

What would happen if ND decided today to commit those funds to winning football games instead of funding academic scholarships for non-athletes?

What if they decided to expand the stadium to over 100,000 or even 125,000, or decided to lower its academic requirements for football players, build athletic dorms and accept JUCO's, along with making all of its coaches the highest paid in the country?

ND has the money and ability to do these things, if it so chooses.

I don't think that ND will ever do those things. ND thinks that it can stay the same and still win.

ND thinks that it can stay #1 in grad rates and win big.

The key, they think, is hiring the right coach.

Time will tell if they are right or not.
05-31-2013 11:16 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #27
RE: Who's afraid of deregulation? It's not the small schools...
(05-31-2013 11:16 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ND thinks that it can stay #1 in grad rates and win big.

The key, they think, is hiring the right coach.

Time will tell if they are right or not.

Yes, Notre Dame is fanatically devoted to winning football, but there are certain academic and other standards that it will not give on even to achieve the goal of winning.
05-31-2013 02:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ECU-DMB Fanatic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,343
Joined: Oct 2006
Reputation: 88
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Who's afraid of deregulation? It's not the small schools...
I think Urban's biggest fear obviously was not lower level schools...I think his fear was that there would be certain conferences and schools that would be more willing to devote big time money to these professional scouting departments than his school or the schools in the Big 10.

Having the money to spend in one thing but there would be huge backlash from the academic side at many schools if they were to start hiring scouting managers at 200k a year...Then there are other schools where football runs the show and the academic side dare not question the football programs use of money.
06-02-2013 05:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.