(05-26-2013 05:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody has ever said that the P5, including the ACC, aren't getting paid out the wazzoo. They are. The issue has been who is getting paid the least.

So, working class guys are supposed to get all worked about which millionaire has the fewest millions?

(05-26-2013 08:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 05:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody has ever said that the P5, including the ACC, aren't getting paid out the wazzoo. They are. The issue has been who is getting paid the least.

So, working class guys are supposed to get all worked about which millionaire has the fewest millions?

We are not talking about Corporations here. I would agree to an extent that a couple million isnt all that big of a deal but we are not talking about millionaire's here, we are talking about Universities and their Athletic Departments.

In the coming Recruiting War that is bound to happen with the Recruiting Leash taken off, every million will count. The Universities with the money advantage will have the opportunity to expand their recruiting base to a larger degree.

(05-26-2013 09:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 08:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 05:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody has ever said that the P5, including the ACC, aren't getting paid out the wazzoo. They are. The issue has been who is getting paid the least.

So, working class guys are supposed to get all worked about which millionaire has the fewest millions?

We are not talking about Corporations here. I would agree to an extent that a couple million isnt all that big of a deal but we are not talking about millionaire's here, we are talking about Universities and their Athletic Departments.

In the coming Recruiting War that is bound to happen with the Recruiting Leash taken off, every million will count. The Universities with the money advantage will have the opportunity to expand their recruiting base to a larger degree.

I think there will likely be a correlation between the money factor and recruiting, but I don't foresee a causation between the two as you appear to be saying above.

I still think the SEC will dominate recruiting in football, with the ACC on a par with the BiG. And I foresee the ACC and the BiG leading in recruiting in basketball with the SEC behind.

Football recruits, for the most part, will still be enticed to the warmer climes and basketball recruits will still want to play mostly in NYC, Chicago, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

It will be interesting to see how the trends develop by the end of this decade and early into the next.

To me, money will help in getting and keeping coaches moreso than in recruiting.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-26-2013 09:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  To me, money will help in getting and keeping coaches moreso than in recruiting.

And most importantly, buying out underperforming coaches (see Weis, Charlie and to a much lesser extent: Rod, Rich).

(05-26-2013 09:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 09:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 08:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 05:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody has ever said that the P5, including the ACC, aren't getting paid out the wazzoo. They are. The issue has been who is getting paid the least.

So, working class guys are supposed to get all worked about which millionaire has the fewest millions?

We are not talking about Corporations here. I would agree to an extent that a couple million isnt all that big of a deal but we are not talking about millionaire's here, we are talking about Universities and their Athletic Departments.

In the coming Recruiting War that is bound to happen with the Recruiting Leash taken off, every million will count. The Universities with the money advantage will have the opportunity to expand their recruiting base to a larger degree.

I think there will likely be a correlation between the money factor and recruiting, but I don't foresee a causation between the two as you appear to be saying above.

I still think the SEC will dominate recruiting in football, with the ACC on a par with the BiG. And I foresee the ACC and the BiG leading in recruiting in basketball with the SEC behind.

Football recruits, for the most part, will still be enticed to the warmer climes and basketball recruits will still want to play mostly in NYC, Chicago, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

It will be interesting to see how the trends develop by the end of this decade and early into the nex
To me, money will help in getting and keeping coaches moreso than in recruiting.

Cheers,
Neil

Coaches have a hell of a lot to do with recruiting.

Some coaches like where they are @....Charlie Strong turning down Jimmy Haslem & Tennessee to stay @ Louisville...

(05-26-2013 09:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 09:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 08:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 05:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody has ever said that the P5, including the ACC, aren't getting paid out the wazzoo. They are. The issue has been who is getting paid the least.

So, working class guys are supposed to get all worked about which millionaire has the fewest millions?

We are not talking about Corporations here. I would agree to an extent that a couple million isnt all that big of a deal but we are not talking about millionaire's here, we are talking about Universities and their Athletic Departments.

In the coming Recruiting War that is bound to happen with the Recruiting Leash taken off, every million will count. The Universities with the money advantage will have the opportunity to expand their recruiting base to a larger degree.

I think there will likely be a correlation between the money factor and recruiting, but I don't foresee a causation between the two as you appear to be saying above.

I still think the SEC will dominate recruiting in football, with the ACC on a par with the BiG. And I foresee the ACC and the BiG leading in recruiting in basketball with the SEC behind.

Football recruits, for the most part, will still be enticed to the warmer climes and basketball recruits will still want to play mostly in NYC, Chicago, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

It will be interesting to see how the trends develop by the end of this decade and early into the next.

To me, money will help in getting and keeping coaches moreso than in recruiting.

Cheers,
Neil

Spot on...

(05-26-2013 09:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 09:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 08:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 05:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody has ever said that the P5, including the ACC, aren't getting paid out the wazzoo. They are. The issue has been who is getting paid the least.

So, working class guys are supposed to get all worked about which millionaire has the fewest millions?

We are not talking about Corporations here. I would agree to an extent that a couple million isnt all that big of a deal but we are not talking about millionaire's here, we are talking about Universities and their Athletic Departments.

In the coming Recruiting War that is bound to happen with the Recruiting Leash taken off, every million will count. The Universities with the money advantage will have the opportunity to expand their recruiting base to a larger degree.

I think there will likely be a correlation between the money factor and recruiting, but I don't foresee a causation between the two as you appear to be saying above.

I still think the SEC will dominate recruiting in football, with the ACC on a par with the BiG. And I foresee the ACC and the BiG leading in recruiting in basketball with the SEC behind.

Football recruits, for the most part, will still be enticed to the warmer climes and basketball recruits will still want to play mostly in NYC, Chicago, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

It will be interesting to see how the trends develop by the end of this decade and early into the next.

To me, money will help in getting and keeping coaches moreso than in recruiting.

Cheers,
Neil

Because of the new NCAA rule passing, Urban Meyer has already been on record stating how he would ask for Eight times the recruiting budget he currently has. Said that if this rule stands it would have such an affect all across college football. He knows it and not only doesn't want to fall behind but would want to put the full force of Ohio State resources behind recruiting. He could push down into Florida like no other Big Ten coach with his recruiting but first and foremost he has to heavily recruit the traditional recruiting grounds of Ohio as well as continuing to challenge in Michigan and Pennsylvania while keeping a strong gaze upon the rest of the region for the stars that pop up. With expansion into Maryland and New Jersey, those will become areas of focus even more than they were before. It all takes money and manpower.

Now though he wont have to sacrifice any of that in order to put resources and manpower into new recruiting regions. He can do both as long as the AD will cut the checks.

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/1/25/391603...es-changes

Quote:In addition to the deregulation of phone calls and text messages and the elimination of off-time, the new rules get rid of restrictions on the amount of printed materials a school can send a prospect. Perhaps the biggest changes allow schools to hire recruiters that aren't on the regular coaching staff and eliminate restrictions on the number of off-campus recruiters at any given time. For big, money-making programs that already have a leg up on their smaller counterparts, the last two changes listed given them an even bigger leg up.

The problem with having to use coaches as recruiters is that they have to take time off from recruiting to actually coach. But if a school has enough money to hire an entirely separate recruiting staff, which some schools do, that gives it a huge advantage over a school that can't afford the extra payroll.

Emmert and his fellow proponents of the changes may view them as a streamlining of the rule book, but many see them as something else entirely: the NCAA waived the white flag on trying to enforce its current rules.

(05-26-2013 10:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 09:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 09:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 08:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 05:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody has ever said that the P5, including the ACC, aren't getting paid out the wazzoo. They are. The issue has been who is getting paid the least.

So, working class guys are supposed to get all worked about which millionaire has the fewest millions?

We are not talking about Corporations here. I would agree to an extent that a couple million isnt all that big of a deal but we are not talking about millionaire's here, we are talking about Universities and their Athletic Departments.

In the coming Recruiting War that is bound to happen with the Recruiting Leash taken off, every million will count. The Universities with the money advantage will have the opportunity to expand their recruiting base to a larger degree.

I think there will likely be a correlation between the money factor and recruiting, but I don't foresee a causation between the two as you appear to be saying above.

I still think the SEC will dominate recruiting in football, with the ACC on a par with the BiG. And I foresee the ACC and the BiG leading in recruiting in basketball with the SEC behind.

Football recruits, for the most part, will still be enticed to the warmer climes and basketball recruits will still want to play mostly in NYC, Chicago, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

It will be interesting to see how the trends develop by the end of this decade and early into the nex
To me, money will help in getting and keeping coaches moreso than in recruiting.

Coaches have a hell of a lot to do with recruiting.

So do top flight facilities and multiple high profile TV appearances. Sooner or later that will result in a gap that will be hard to bridge. There will probably be a few schools that manage to bridge that gap, due to the talent level in the area. But the number of schools able to do that will become fewer and fewer over time...

Athletics has become an arms race, and those without the arms will lose the race in the long run. Money is the key to acquiring the arms you need in this race...

(05-27-2013 07:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 09:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 09:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 08:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 05:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody has ever said that the P5, including the ACC, aren't getting paid out the wazzoo. They are. The issue has been who is getting paid the least.

So, working class guys are supposed to get all worked about which millionaire has the fewest millions?

We are not talking about Corporations here. I would agree to an extent that a couple million isnt all that big of a deal but we are not talking about millionaire's here, we are talking about Universities and their Athletic Departments.

In the coming Recruiting War that is bound to happen with the Recruiting Leash taken off, every million will count. The Universities with the money advantage will have the opportunity to expand their recruiting base to a larger degree.

I think there will likely be a correlation between the money factor and recruiting, but I don't foresee a causation between the two as you appear to be saying above.

I still think the SEC will dominate recruiting in football, with the ACC on a par with the BiG. And I foresee the ACC and the BiG leading in recruiting in basketball with the SEC behind.

Football recruits, for the most part, will still be enticed to the warmer climes and basketball recruits will still want to play mostly in NYC, Chicago, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

It will be interesting to see how the trends develop by the end of this decade and early into the next.

To me, money will help in getting and keeping coaches moreso than in recruiting.

Cheers,
Neil

Because of the new NCAA rule passing, Urban Meyer has already been on record stating how he would ask for Eight times the recruiting budget he currently has. Said that if this rule stands it would have such an affect all across college football. He knows it and not only doesn't want to fall behind but would want to put the full force of Ohio State resources behind recruiting. He could push down into Florida like no other Big Ten coach with his recruiting but first and foremost he has to heavily recruit the traditional recruiting grounds of Ohio as well as continuing to challenge in Michigan and Pennsylvania while keeping a strong gaze upon the rest of the region for the stars that pop up. With expansion into Maryland and New Jersey, those will become areas of focus even more than they were before. It all takes money and manpower.

Now though he wont have to sacrifice any of that in order to put resources and manpower into new recruiting regions. He can do both as long as the AD will cut the checks.

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/1/25/391603...es-changes

Quote:In addition to the deregulation of phone calls and text messages and the elimination of off-time, the new rules get rid of restrictions on the amount of printed materials a school can send a prospect. Perhaps the biggest changes allow schools to hire recruiters that aren't on the regular coaching staff and eliminate restrictions on the number of off-campus recruiters at any given time. For big, money-making programs that already have a leg up on their smaller counterparts, the last two changes listed given them an even bigger leg up.

The problem with having to use coaches as recruiters is that they have to take time off from recruiting to actually coach. But if a school has enough money to hire an entirely separate recruiting staff, which some schools do, that gives it a huge advantage over a school that can't afford the extra payroll.

Emmert and his fellow proponents of the changes may view them as a streamlining of the rule book, but many see them as something else entirely: the NCAA waived the white flag on trying to enforce its current rules.

When the likes of Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana and Northwestern regularly appear in the Top 25 of recruiting classes over the likes of FSU, Miami, Clemson and VT then you will have proven your point.

Until such time, I don't see much change from what happens now with the current rules in place. Do you?

Cheers,
Neil

(05-27-2013 10:23 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 07:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 09:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 09:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 08:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  So, working class guys are supposed to get all worked about which millionaire has the fewest millions?

We are not talking about Corporations here. I would agree to an extent that a couple million isnt all that big of a deal but we are not talking about millionaire's here, we are talking about Universities and their Athletic Departments.

In the coming Recruiting War that is bound to happen with the Recruiting Leash taken off, every million will count. The Universities with the money advantage will have the opportunity to expand their recruiting base to a larger degree.

I think there will likely be a correlation between the money factor and recruiting, but I don't foresee a causation between the two as you appear to be saying above.

I still think the SEC will dominate recruiting in football, with the ACC on a par with the BiG. And I foresee the ACC and the BiG leading in recruiting in basketball with the SEC behind.

Football recruits, for the most part, will still be enticed to the warmer climes and basketball recruits will still want to play mostly in NYC, Chicago, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

It will be interesting to see how the trends develop by the end of this decade and early into the next.

To me, money will help in getting and keeping coaches moreso than in recruiting.

Cheers,
Neil

Because of the new NCAA rule passing, Urban Meyer has already been on record stating how he would ask for Eight times the recruiting budget he currently has. Said that if this rule stands it would have such an affect all across college football. He knows it and not only doesn't want to fall behind but would want to put the full force of Ohio State resources behind recruiting. He could push down into Florida like no other Big Ten coach with his recruiting but first and foremost he has to heavily recruit the traditional recruiting grounds of Ohio as well as continuing to challenge in Michigan and Pennsylvania while keeping a strong gaze upon the rest of the region for the stars that pop up. With expansion into Maryland and New Jersey, those will become areas of focus even more than they were before. It all takes money and manpower.

Now though he wont have to sacrifice any of that in order to put resources and manpower into new recruiting regions. He can do both as long as the AD will cut the checks.

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/1/25/391603...es-changes

Quote:In addition to the deregulation of phone calls and text messages and the elimination of off-time, the new rules get rid of restrictions on the amount of printed materials a school can send a prospect. Perhaps the biggest changes allow schools to hire recruiters that aren't on the regular coaching staff and eliminate restrictions on the number of off-campus recruiters at any given time. For big, money-making programs that already have a leg up on their smaller counterparts, the last two changes listed given them an even bigger leg up.

The problem with having to use coaches as recruiters is that they have to take time off from recruiting to actually coach. But if a school has enough money to hire an entirely separate recruiting staff, which some schools do, that gives it a huge advantage over a school that can't afford the extra payroll.

Emmert and his fellow proponents of the changes may view them as a streamlining of the rule book, but many see them as something else entirely: the NCAA waived the white flag on trying to enforce its current rules.

When the likes of Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana and Northwestern regularly appear in the Top 25 of recruiting classes over the likes of FSU, Miami, Clemson and VT then you will have proven your point.

Until such time, I don't see much change from what happens now with the current rules in place. Do you?

Cheers,
Neil

Was going to say the exact same...plus, even with the extra $$$ it doesn't guarantee success...case in point the Texas Longhorns...nobody in college sports has their $$$, facilities, recruiting base etc...etc but yet right now schools like Baylor, Oklahoma State & K-State are out performing them in the Big XII.

(05-27-2013 10:35 AM)Maize Wrote:  Was going to say the exact same...plus, even with the extra $$$ it doesn't guarantee success...case in point the Texas Longhorns...nobody in college sports has their $$$, facilities, recruiting base etc...etc but yet right now schools like Baylor, Oklahoma State & K-State are out performing them in the Big XII.

I think the best way to think about $$$$ is to regard money as a necessary but not sufficient condition for big-time football success. E.g., 5 years ago, Alabama had all the facilities and money in the world, but were mired in a decade-long funk of football mediocrity thanks to poor coaching and AD leadership. Saban arrives and they have a dynasty. So coaching personnel is critical.

But coaching personnel alone won't get it done either. E.g., the reason Saban gave for leaving Michigan State for LSU was that given the nearby presence of Michigan, Ohio State, and Notre Dame, schools with bigger names and money resources, he had come to the conclusion that there was an inherent ceiling on the talent-level he could attract to MSU and hence a ceiling on results. In contrast, he said LSU was a place that "you could win a national title from". You need a certain base of money and resources in order to compete. Even a great coach can spin only so much straw in to gold. Louisville has developed that base of resources and thanks to ACC membership will continue to have them, and in coach Strong you have the man who can leverage them, thus your future is bright. USF has neither, and little current prospect of getting either, so our future is dim.

Texas is suffering right now because Mack Brown has lost his coaching touch. Texas is still attracting better recruits than schools like K-State, but K-State has a better coach and that is making the difference. When Texas gets another top coach, it will be in the playoff picture once again, because it has the foundational resources. In fact, it has the best foundational resource of all, one that Louisville football lacks: An established elite "brand name" as a football power. The 10-15 schools with that are always just one coaching change away from being at the top again.

(05-27-2013 11:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 10:35 AM)Maize Wrote:  Was going to say the exact same...plus, even with the extra $$$ it doesn't guarantee success...case in point the Texas Longhorns...nobody in college sports has their $$$, facilities, recruiting base etc...etc but yet right now schools like Baylor, Oklahoma State & K-State are out performing them in the Big XII.

I think the best way to think about $$$$ is to regard money as a necessary but not sufficient condition for big-time football success. E.g., 5 years ago, Alabama had all the facilities and money in the world, but were mired in a decade-long funk of football mediocrity thanks to poor coaching and AD leadership. Saban arrives and they have a dynasty. So coaching personnel is critical.

But coaching personnel alone won't get it done either. E.g., the reason Saban gave for leaving Michigan State for LSU was that given the nearby presence of Michigan, Ohio State, and Notre Dame, schools with bigger names and money resources, he had come to the conclusion that there was an inherent ceiling on the talent-level he could attract to MSU and hence a ceiling on results. In contrast, he said LSU was a place that "you could win a national title from". You need a certain base of money and resources in order to compete. Even a great coach can spin only so much straw in to gold. Louisville has developed that base of resources and thanks to ACC membership will continue to have them, and in coach Strong you have the man who can leverage them, thus your future is bright. USF has neither, and little current prospect of getting either, so our future is dim.

Texas is suffering right now because Mack Brown has lost his coaching touch. Texas is still attracting better recruits than schools like K-State, but K-State has a better coach and that is making the difference. When Texas gets another top coach, it will be in the playoff picture once again, because it has the foundational resources. In fact, it has the best foundational resource of all, one that Louisville football lacks: An established elite "brand name" as a football power. The 10-15 schools with that are always just one coaching change away from being at the top again.

Our ceiling @ Louisville in reality & IMO is a Virginia Tech/K-State level...a good solid Top 25 Program that from time to time go for a ACC Division Title. In Football being in the same Division as Clemson/Florida State it going to be tough.

With USF, you finally have the right coach in Taggart....now unless you can get into a P5 league it going to be tough to keep him.

(05-26-2013 05:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 01:09 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 01:04 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 12:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 11:04 AM)Maize Wrote:  Actually, on par with the Big XII...but don't let the facts get in the way

Actually, it is currently less than what the Big 12 gets, and it will only rise to close, not equal to, but close, to what the Big 12 gets if an ACCN isn't put in to operation. But don't let facts get in the way. Plus, the ACC deal extends out to 2027, which is worse than the Big 12's deal, which expires in 2025.

A couple of points:

1) The Big 12 isn't getting a big increase after 2025. Networks are already overpaying for the content. ACC on the other hand....

2) If it takes the ACC 3 years to get a network up and running, then the Big 12 has 3 years to make more than the ACC (per team). After that it's all over.

Exactly....all 5 Leagues are get'n paid....all 5 have Direct Tie-Ins to CFP Bowls...All 5 are laughing all the way to the bank...

Nobody has ever said that the P5, including the ACC, aren't getting paid out the wazzoo. They are. The issue has been who is getting paid the least.

The only issue I see are people like you that don't understand TV contracts, don't understand math, and have a serious agenda over personal butt hurt.

(05-27-2013 10:23 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 07:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 09:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 09:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 08:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  So, working class guys are supposed to get all worked about which millionaire has the fewest millions?

We are not talking about Corporations here. I would agree to an extent that a couple million isnt all that big of a deal but we are not talking about millionaire's here, we are talking about Universities and their Athletic Departments.

In the coming Recruiting War that is bound to happen with the Recruiting Leash taken off, every million will count. The Universities with the money advantage will have the opportunity to expand their recruiting base to a larger degree.

I think there will likely be a correlation between the money factor and recruiting, but I don't foresee a causation between the two as you appear to be saying above.

I still think the SEC will dominate recruiting in football, with the ACC on a par with the BiG. And I foresee the ACC and the BiG leading in recruiting in basketball with the SEC behind.

Football recruits, for the most part, will still be enticed to the warmer climes and basketball recruits will still want to play mostly in NYC, Chicago, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

It will be interesting to see how the trends develop by the end of this decade and early into the next.

To me, money will help in getting and keeping coaches moreso than in recruiting.

Cheers,
Neil

Because of the new NCAA rule passing, Urban Meyer has already been on record stating how he would ask for Eight times the recruiting budget he currently has. Said that if this rule stands it would have such an affect all across college football. He knows it and not only doesn't want to fall behind but would want to put the full force of Ohio State resources behind recruiting. He could push down into Florida like no other Big Ten coach with his recruiting but first and foremost he has to heavily recruit the traditional recruiting grounds of Ohio as well as continuing to challenge in Michigan and Pennsylvania while keeping a strong gaze upon the rest of the region for the stars that pop up. With expansion into Maryland and New Jersey, those will become areas of focus even more than they were before. It all takes money and manpower.

Now though he wont have to sacrifice any of that in order to put resources and manpower into new recruiting regions. He can do both as long as the AD will cut the checks.

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/1/25/391603...es-changes

Quote:In addition to the deregulation of phone calls and text messages and the elimination of off-time, the new rules get rid of restrictions on the amount of printed materials a school can send a prospect. Perhaps the biggest changes allow schools to hire recruiters that aren't on the regular coaching staff and eliminate restrictions on the number of off-campus recruiters at any given time. For big, money-making programs that already have a leg up on their smaller counterparts, the last two changes listed given them an even bigger leg up.

The problem with having to use coaches as recruiters is that they have to take time off from recruiting to actually coach. But if a school has enough money to hire an entirely separate recruiting staff, which some schools do, that gives it a huge advantage over a school that can't afford the extra payroll.

Emmert and his fellow proponents of the changes may view them as a streamlining of the rule book, but many see them as something else entirely: the NCAA waived the white flag on trying to enforce its current rules.

When the likes of Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana and Northwestern regularly appear in the Top 25 of recruiting classes over the likes of FSU, Miami, Clemson and VT then you will have proven your point.

Until such time, I don't see much change from what happens now with the current rules in place. Do you?

Cheers,
Neil

I didnt say Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana and Northwestern would beat out the schools you listed. What kind of point are you trying to make by stating such? Are you trying to make mine look outlandish by attributing such silliness to it? I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do such.

Yes, I do see change happening. It is far too early to predict just how it will play out but when you go from a governed system within which despite some cheating there is not a Wild West all out atmosphere when it came to recruiting. Now...Athletic Departments and Sports Programs will have their own recruiting staff that are not coaches. Some Universities will be able to maintain much larger of such staffs. You can go ahead and think that won't make some kind of difference, if so then I have a nice box of sand to sell you for you to stick your head in.

(05-27-2013 12:21 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 10:23 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 07:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 09:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 09:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  We are not talking about Corporations here. I would agree to an extent that a couple million isnt all that big of a deal but we are not talking about millionaire's here, we are talking about Universities and their Athletic Departments.

In the coming Recruiting War that is bound to happen with the Recruiting Leash taken off, every million will count. The Universities with the money advantage will have the opportunity to expand their recruiting base to a larger degree.

I think there will likely be a correlation between the money factor and recruiting, but I don't foresee a causation between the two as you appear to be saying above.

I still think the SEC will dominate recruiting in football, with the ACC on a par with the BiG. And I foresee the ACC and the BiG leading in recruiting in basketball with the SEC behind.

Football recruits, for the most part, will still be enticed to the warmer climes and basketball recruits will still want to play mostly in NYC, Chicago, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

It will be interesting to see how the trends develop by the end of this decade and early into the next.

To me, money will help in getting and keeping coaches moreso than in recruiting.

Cheers,
Neil

Because of the new NCAA rule passing, Urban Meyer has already been on record stating how he would ask for Eight times the recruiting budget he currently has. Said that if this rule stands it would have such an affect all across college football. He knows it and not only doesn't want to fall behind but would want to put the full force of Ohio State resources behind recruiting. He could push down into Florida like no other Big Ten coach with his recruiting but first and foremost he has to heavily recruit the traditional recruiting grounds of Ohio as well as continuing to challenge in Michigan and Pennsylvania while keeping a strong gaze upon the rest of the region for the stars that pop up. With expansion into Maryland and New Jersey, those will become areas of focus even more than they were before. It all takes money and manpower.

Now though he wont have to sacrifice any of that in order to put resources and manpower into new recruiting regions. He can do both as long as the AD will cut the checks.

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/1/25/391603...es-changes

Quote:In addition to the deregulation of phone calls and text messages and the elimination of off-time, the new rules get rid of restrictions on the amount of printed materials a school can send a prospect. Perhaps the biggest changes allow schools to hire recruiters that aren't on the regular coaching staff and eliminate restrictions on the number of off-campus recruiters at any given time. For big, money-making programs that already have a leg up on their smaller counterparts, the last two changes listed given them an even bigger leg up.

The problem with having to use coaches as recruiters is that they have to take time off from recruiting to actually coach. But if a school has enough money to hire an entirely separate recruiting staff, which some schools do, that gives it a huge advantage over a school that can't afford the extra payroll.

Emmert and his fellow proponents of the changes may view them as a streamlining of the rule book, but many see them as something else entirely: the NCAA waived the white flag on trying to enforce its current rules.

When the likes of Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana and Northwestern regularly appear in the Top 25 of recruiting classes over the likes of FSU, Miami, Clemson and VT then you will have proven your point.

Until such time, I don't see much change from what happens now with the current rules in place. Do you?

Cheers,
Neil

I didnt say Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana and Northwestern would beat out the schools you listed. What kind of point are you trying to make by stating such? Are you trying to make mine look outlandish by attributing such silliness to it? I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do such.

Yes, I do see change happening. It is far too early to predict just how it will play out but when you go from a governed system within which despite some cheating there is not a Wild West all out atmosphere when it came to recruiting. Now...Athletic Departments and Sports Programs will have their own recruiting staff that are not coaches. Some Universities will be able to maintain much larger of such staffs. You can go ahead and think that won't make some kind of difference, if so then I have a nice box of sand to sell you for you to stick your head in.

The monied programs are still the same ones winning the recruiting battles now without those recruiting staffs. So, if $$$ is the only difference as you are saying, and the likes of Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, and Northwestern will be receiving more $$$ than other P5 conference programs as a result of the huge increase they have been promised in terms of BTN and their new as yet negotiated national contract, then yes, whether you realize or not you are basically saying these institutions will in fact have the ability to surpass other P5 conference teams that won't be making as much.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-27-2013 11:42 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 11:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 10:35 AM)Maize Wrote:  Was going to say the exact same...plus, even with the extra $$$ it doesn't guarantee success...case in point the Texas Longhorns...nobody in college sports has their $$$, facilities, recruiting base etc...etc but yet right now schools like Baylor, Oklahoma State & K-State are out performing them in the Big XII.

I think the best way to think about $$$$ is to regard money as a necessary but not sufficient condition for big-time football success. E.g., 5 years ago, Alabama had all the facilities and money in the world, but were mired in a decade-long funk of football mediocrity thanks to poor coaching and AD leadership. Saban arrives and they have a dynasty. So coaching personnel is critical.

But coaching personnel alone won't get it done either. E.g., the reason Saban gave for leaving Michigan State for LSU was that given the nearby presence of Michigan, Ohio State, and Notre Dame, schools with bigger names and money resources, he had come to the conclusion that there was an inherent ceiling on the talent-level he could attract to MSU and hence a ceiling on results. In contrast, he said LSU was a place that "you could win a national title from". You need a certain base of money and resources in order to compete. Even a great coach can spin only so much straw in to gold. Louisville has developed that base of resources and thanks to ACC membership will continue to have them, and in coach Strong you have the man who can leverage them, thus your future is bright. USF has neither, and little current prospect of getting either, so our future is dim.

Texas is suffering right now because Mack Brown has lost his coaching touch. Texas is still attracting better recruits than schools like K-State, but K-State has a better coach and that is making the difference. When Texas gets another top coach, it will be in the playoff picture once again, because it has the foundational resources. In fact, it has the best foundational resource of all, one that Louisville football lacks: An established elite "brand name" as a football power. The 10-15 schools with that are always just one coaching change away from being at the top again.

Our ceiling @ Louisville in reality & IMO is a Virginia Tech/K-State level...a good solid Top 25 Program that from time to time go for a ACC Division Title. In Football being in the same Division as Clemson/Florida State it going to be tough.

With USF, you finally have the right coach in Taggart....now unless you can get into a P5 league it going to be tough to keep him.

I agree that the Cards ceiling is probably K-State and V-Tech, but don't sell that level too short. VT has played for a national title and K-State has come within a whisker of doing so a couple of times. UofL can reach similar heights.

As for USF, you are correct that we are caught in a catch-22: Even if Taggart is a big winner, we will have him for only a couple years because he will leave for greener pastures, much the way guys like Kelly, Petrino and RichRod would leave the Big East for other AQ conferences.

You guys were lucky the B1G made its move on Maryland when it did, opening the door to your ACC invite. Had coach Strong been offered the UT job while you were still in the AAC, he almost certainly takes it ..

(05-27-2013 11:44 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 05:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 01:09 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 01:04 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 12:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually, it is currently less than what the Big 12 gets, and it will only rise to close, not equal to, but close, to what the Big 12 gets if an ACCN isn't put in to operation. But don't let facts get in the way. Plus, the ACC deal extends out to 2027, which is worse than the Big 12's deal, which expires in 2025.

A couple of points:

1) The Big 12 isn't getting a big increase after 2025. Networks are already overpaying for the content. ACC on the other hand....

2) If it takes the ACC 3 years to get a network up and running, then the Big 12 has 3 years to make more than the ACC (per team). After that it's all over.

Exactly....all 5 Leagues are get'n paid....all 5 have Direct Tie-Ins to CFP Bowls...All 5 are laughing all the way to the bank...

Nobody has ever said that the P5, including the ACC, aren't getting paid out the wazzoo. They are. The issue has been who is getting paid the least.

The only issue I see are people like you that don't understand TV contracts, don't understand math ....

Your knowledge of the position of the ACC in the P5 and these media deals is just laughable. I school you on the realities of both daily, and none of it sinks in. You are a clown who shows his bright pink colors every day. Good Lord.

(05-27-2013 01:00 PM)omniorange Wrote:  The monied programs are still the same ones winning the recruiting battles now without those recruiting staffs. So, if $$$ is the only difference as you are saying, and the likes of Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, and Northwestern will be receiving more $$$ than other P5 conference programs as a result of the huge increase they have been promised in terms of BTN and their new as yet negotiated national contract, then yes, whether you realize or not you are basically saying these institutions will in fact have the ability to surpass other P5 conference teams that won't be making as much.

Obviously, money isn't the only thing that matters. The biggest factor in recruiting is the national stature of the football program. E.g., as a member of the B1G, Indiana may have more money for recruiting than FSU, but FSU is a national football brand and Indiana isn't, so recruits will naturally be far more inclined to sign with FSU.

(05-27-2013 03:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2013 01:00 PM)omniorange Wrote:  The monied programs are still the same ones winning the recruiting battles now without those recruiting staffs. So, if $$$ is the only difference as you are saying, and the likes of Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, and Northwestern will be receiving more $$$ than other P5 conference programs as a result of the huge increase they have been promised in terms of BTN and their new as yet negotiated national contract, then yes, whether you realize or not you are basically saying these institutions will in fact have the ability to surpass other P5 conference teams that won't be making as much.

Obviously, money isn't the only thing that matters. The biggest factor in recruiting is the national stature of the football program. E.g., as a member of the B1G, Indiana may have more money for recruiting than FSU, but FSU is a national football brand and Indiana isn't, so recruits will naturally be far more inclined to sign with FSU.

But Indiana doesn't have more money.