(07-11-2018 11:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote: (07-11-2018 04:59 PM)Indytarheel Wrote: (07-11-2018 01:00 PM)JRsec Wrote: (07-11-2018 11:58 AM)Indytarheel Wrote: (07-11-2018 10:19 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: I know people often point out that there is a diminishing return on facilities about a certain amount of money - and I totally agree with that. However, what is often missed is that there are no caps on (a) recruiting budgets, or (b) coaches salaries. Therefore, a huge revenue gap over a long period of time likely results in some schools recruiting a larger area and hiring up all of the best coaches (and not just head coaches; Alabama has had former head coaches on their staff in the role of "advisors" - but it keeps lower revenue teams from hiring those guys all the same). These are the two biggest problems with the revenue gap, IMO: hiring assistant coaches and being able to recruit more players over a wider area effectively.
And, there is still zero correlation between winning it all and TV contract revenue. You do not have to look at the history of football national champions to name the champs. It is a repeating cycle that rarely include outsiders. For all of the money being received and spent by Texas A&M, they are no closer to winning a football national championship than VaTech or GaTech or NC State or Minnesota or Iowa, etc. The fact that you do not see different programs (in the Big Ten and SEC) jump up, challenge and win their conference championship as well as national titles speaks volumes about the effect these additional TV revenues are having.
Except that Michigan, Alabama, Ohio State, U.S.C.w, Oklahoma, Texas, and historically Notre Dame have always earned more. Maybe that's not just TV revenue but they have always had more to spend. TV revenue in the SEC is roughly 1/4th of our total revenue historically. However, in recent years it has been increasing and as the TV revenue shoots up it will ultimately be a larger % of the revenue pie. So whether the Auburn's, Tennessee's, Florida's, L.S.U.'s, A&M's, Va Tech's, F.S.U.'s, Clemson's, Georgia Tech's or Miami's of the world want to compete will depend more and more upon that TV revenue and the gap is real and will have an impact. However if you are UNC and obviously don't give a hoot about anything but Hoops and Lacrosse then of course you would feel as you do. But at the schools named having the legitimate belief that you can compete is what drives the momentum for ticket sales and donations. So it will always be relevant to them.
You are correct that UNC obviously does not want to be a one trick pony like your Auburns, Bamas, UGas, etc, but our unfortunate inability to improve our middling program isn't do to not trying. You certainly made the case for me since SEC programs have won national championships prior to the influx of additional funds. FSU and Miami was head and shoulders above all SEC programs and they certainly won championships without the ticket sales, TV revenue, etc. It took the retiring of a legend at FSU and the probation & vilification of the U for UF to even sniff a national championship. Again, where is the correlation? Shouldn't the IU's, Vandy's, etc be eclipsing the lesser funded programs in the ACC?
Which legend retired at FSU in the mid 1990's when Florida played for a national title in 95 and won one in 96? How about 2006 and 2008 when they won the two under Meyer? Who retired then? Last time I checked Bowden didn't retire until AFTER the 2009 season.
Love how you convenient didn't mention the U and the 1995 probation. 1995: On probation for three years, banned from playing in a bowl for one season, stripped of 31 scholarships over three years and publicly reprimanded and censured for proving improper financial aid to players, for players receiving cash awards for game performance and for players being allowed to compete without being subjected to the required disciplinary measures in the drug-testing program. The NCAA charged the school with “lack of institutional control.”
UF certainly benefited from the issues that was present at the U. They certainly were not a top program in Larry Coker's last season going 7-6 (3-5 in the ACC) and then 7-6 (4-4 in the ACC) in Randy Shannon 2nd season. They were losing South Florida talent left and right. South Florida talent were headed else where.
As far as FSU, the slow death walk FSU went through started in in 2005 with a 8-5 season and the wheels fell off a program as Bowden couldn't call it quits. No coincidence that the two most decorated football programs in Florida were on downward spirals.
JR.... the fact that SEC teams won national championships prior to the influx of cash from TV revenue further strengthen the fact that the correlation between TV revenue and on the field success is specious at best. You guys love ignoring the fact that
1. The college football national champions club is an extremely small group of programs. Neb., USC, UO, OSU, UF, Bama, Penn State, Michigan, ND, FSU, Clemson, Auburn, UW, UT, Texas, the U. May have missed some but there isn't many and the athletic budgets are very diverse.
2. The influx of money should mean UK, Purdue, Iowa, UI, IU, Vandy should be blowing less funded opponents out of the water.
Please explain why we are not seeing that success since you crow about the success and influx of money. In an earlier post you mentioned the money from boosters and tickets and that SEC always had money. That is why they succeeded in the past. If that were true, Michigan wouldn't be chasing a football championship, Tenn certainly would have one since 1998. Texas would have been shut out for so long. Thank God for Vince Young and Mack Brown huh? FSU and Miami shouldn't have been able to compete nor win championships. Please explain.
As far Kap.... Kap gets a pass since he waited for 30+ years to be happy. Really rooting for him to not have to wait another 30+ years. Clemson may not be a one trick pony (they did win national championships in golf and soccer) but that 0-58 in Chapel Hill cracks me up. Rant over.