(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.