Interesting article on Yahoo today. Basically says that Franklin, Nuss, Mark D contracts are a sign that B1G is finally willing to pay coaches enough to compete better. Article points to $ that B1G has and Rutgers and MD being added b/c of TV dollars / metro area viewers. Made me wonder if the B1G is trying to lock up the major media sites in the Midwest/East. Could CFB become like major league baseball- where the richest teams generally keep buying the best talent?http://sports.yahoo.com/news/better-salaries-help-make-big-ten-more-attr...
Is Big Ten finally getting serious about winning?
I don't think "willingness to spend money" has ever been the big ten's #1 issue
Sure it has. At least when it comes to coaches. For years, despite making more than any other conference, the Big Ten has lagged behind most of the rest of CFB when it comes to paying for top shelf coaches. Especially the SEC.
In the top 25 paid CFB coaches (article is slightly dated), the SEC has ten teams. Ten! The Big 12 has six and the Big Ten has five.
The conference has been bringing in enough dough that they should've been shelling out more to attract the best coaches. Yet, outside of Mich, OSU, PSU, and Nebraska, no one has been spending any of that money on anything that helps with the actual product on the field (I'm not including Iowa paying Ferentz $4M a year because God knows why they are doing that...) Sparty has finally gotten with the program and is shelling out for their good staff.
So back to your original point, yes the majority of the Big Ten has definitely been hesitant to spend money when it comes to coaches. When schools like Illinois, or Indiana, or Wisconsin start doing the same, then maybe you can say its not an issue. But until then, the Big Ten is still your rich uncle that makes you pay for your half of the dinner.
The rare food-centric username to food-centric username reply; definitely don't see that one often. I had Pizza House last night, too.
Man do I miss Pizza House. Being able to get anything delivered until 3am was amazing.
Had the routine down pat heading in to my senior year: go to the bar, order Pizza House just before close from the bar and by the time we walked home the delivery guy would be there 5 min later. Drunk Genius.
That is... Brilliant.
One of the reasons Beilema cited when he left Wisky was the pay for the assistant coaches in Madison was low and thus, a lot of his assistants were always looking at other places.
I don't think you can consider the "B1G" serious about getting better until Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota, etc. start spending big money on coaches and staffs. Michigan, OSU and PSU are always going to spend with the best, and MSU is trying to keep up with Michigan and OSU.
Isn't this a common problem in all major conferences though. The bottom feeders aren't willing to spend the money those on top do. I have no idea what coaches and assistants make in the bottom of the ACC or PAC-12 but I would think it is similar to Purdue, Minnesota and Indiana.
The SEC has 10 of the top 25 highest paid college coaches. So even the bottom feeders are shelling out for the best coaches they can afford. Its part of the reason they are considered the best conference. Its not so much that their top schools are better its that their mid to bottom tier schools are better than every one elses. Case in point, Penn State just hired the coach of the 7th or 8th best school in the SEC.
No one is chomping at the bit to hire the coach of the 7th or 8th best team in the Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, or Pac 12.
I think it's more about the "middle" group that matters. Maybe the bottom schools somewhat as well, but programs like Iowa and MSU getting on the same page is a big step forward. Clearly, OSU, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska already are on that level and frankly, you can probably include Wisconsin as well, but if the Big Ten wants to be the best conference, getting one of two of those other ones to be regarded as good programs that can compete nationally is an essential step, especially with the way the Big Ten West is build now.
For the record, I don't agree that the middle and lower schools don't want to build. Minnesota's new stadium alone raises some major questions about that. Along with that, maybe Iowa is overpaying their coach, but they'll be able to attract someone legit after Ferentz leaves with that salary. Finally, MSU has shown they can compete. The Big Ten is making some gains at least in my opinion. Problem is that people don't see how spending money actually impacts things and it can take years to have an effect.
I don't think money is the issue as much as the recruiting/talent in the southern states where football is life. The defensive lines in the SEC and other southern schools look like they're playing an entirely different sport than those elsewhere.
That's not to say that the B1G can't win against those teams, it's just that it's tougher because of the talent difference.
BlockM is correct, all the best athletes in the south play football, in northern and western states they are spread out playing other sports. For example, if Michael Phelps grew up in Texas, he would have been 60 pounds heavier and playing tight end.
Do you work for ESPN?
Am I wrong?
RR brought in many players from the south and they arent bigger,faster or stronger than any others. Good player come from all over..Coaching is the difference as MSU is proving
I think that's true. Look at basketball, the southern schools just aren't as good because basketball isn't as big down there. It would be similar if the SEC even attempted to field varsity hockey teams, the talent from the north isn't going to go play in Alabama in significant enough quantities to make them good every year
Yes there is more talent in the south, but it takes good coaches to recruit that talent and then get the most out of it.
It seems like the schools that are able to spend in the Big Ten usually do - perhaps not always, but the checkbooks are definitely open at a few places, Michigan included. The talent density of the Big Ten footprint outside of Ohio, Pennsylvania and, I would say, Ilinois, is not terribly high. Indeed, FootballStudyHall actually did produce a study which shows that - typically - about 2 in 5 FBS recruits come from either California, Texas or Florida, with Georgia, Alabama and Lousiana being right up there as well.
On a per capita basis, the only two Big Ten states which produce more talent than the typical rate are Michigan and Ohio, whereas several states in the SEC footprint exceed the national rate (Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Louisiana and now Texas thanks to A&M). Even a great staff might have issues when up against such a disparity.
This article hit that point with some analysis. Bama, LSU, UF - their DLs are typically huge and fast. Then add in other positions that are at least equal to other conferences and you have a competitive advantage. These big guys are rare, so even much of the SEC has a hard time getting 3 or 4 at once.
I think they're finally getting that programs need to invest in the best facilities and pay extreme amounts of money if they want the best coaches. However, this is still a far cry from actually getting a good product on the field. I still think the B1G schools themselves don't care as much about having a crazy good football program outside of UM, OSU, MSU, PSU as most of the SEC does. That and the fact that the B1G states just don't produce nearly as many potential stars as the south, and the B1G may still not get it self to the SEC level even with crazy pay for the best coaches.
Of course the B1G is trying to lock up major media sites and expand the B1G Network footprint. I didn't realize that was ever a question. The problem is that the powerhouse teams are already spending (UM, OSU, PSU, and sure, Sparty). You have to figure out how to get that lower echelon to extend themselves, which is tough since they'd have to pay even more considering they lack the innate draw of one of the big names.
I think the BIG needs to change the culture to ever be considered on par with the SEC. like others have said football is life down there. The campuses are based around football and the facilities are top notch. Obviously Michigan Ohio Penn State all have great facilities but other schools are behind on theirs. Minnesota obviously just made drastic improvements and Illinois upgraded slightly not too long ago. I think these schools are starting to change their culture to reflect the importance of football for the rest of the school. Along with this will come better recruiting and eventual better programs.
Until the BIG can compete with the SEC on all levels I think the SEC will always have a slight edge.
Meh, I would rather have the football of the BIG than the academics of the SEC
I'd like to be good at both. It's not an either/or. Michigan's U.S. News ranking didn't suddenly shoot up in 2008 when we went 3-9.
And, in fact, the two are cometimes positively related: Northwestern's US News ranking did shoot up when they put together good teams in 95-96, as they saw a dramatic increase in application, which led to a lower admittance percentage, which was a large portion of the US News rankings back then.
I would like to see a reduction in the 'football is life' culture... more's the pity...
For me, the problem is just how important winning has become. It permeates all the levels of football to the point where middle school kids only care about winning...
In my thinking its Attendance which drives your program to the monetary promised land. Consider that Purdue v. Illinois tix were going for under $2 on the Hub last year and I don't mean like 1 or 2 seats. Like 40 of them. They probably got like 30k to attend and Lord help them if they were to implement a PSD for all fans.
I don't have to reiterate what happens at the Big Haus. We all have a handle on that.
It seems like Minnesota is on the bubble trying to rise up. I believe they did a facility upgrade and have had some reasonable success under Coach Kill. Indiana might have a chance if they continue to play video game offense. Iowa...I don't know. Ferentz seems solid but plodding. Although Kinnick seemed packed on a 7(?) degree day vs. M. Northwestern would seem to have the program to do this but their field is half Home and half Away. Perhaps that's a nice recipe for gaining revenue even if your home fanbase is too sorry to do it for themselves. The Purdues and Illinois-es would seem to be stuck. I would default Maryland and Rutgers to that also, but out of naievety to where their programs are.
you PLAY to win the game...but you must PAY to win the game as well
Now if the B1G can work on paying the weather to stay sunny and warm for the whole season, maybe these newly high paid coaches can recruit the southern boys a little easier. Is it any coincidence an indoor sport like basketball is the B1G's forte?
It actually is interesting to look at what the Big Ten is good at vs what Southern schools are good at
Big Ten great at / Southern schools great at:
Big Ten poor at / Southern schools good at:
Probably speaks more to larger cultural and climate issues with their respective regions
Did you mean what southern schools are poor at in your first column? It seems strange to me too suggest they'd be good at hockey when climate is one of your points that distinguishes why one region is better at certain shorts than the other
To pray for global warming to get here sooner.
seems to me that oversigning + more leinent academic standards + warm and sunny + we are where the talent is >> how much we pay coaches. Doesn't seem to me that the B10 has really lacked for talented coaches over the years, but the rest of those items are clearly places where we lag, and are going to lag going forward. Being in the mix for top, young coaching talent will help, as will facilities upgrades. As long as the B10 demographic commands more money than does the SEC's, we should be able to use money to help equalize some of the structural disadvantages.
in the success of a football program. Ivy league schools are well funded but have little interest in recruiting top players if they do not meet academic entrance policies.
The B1G is more liberal in admitting players while Southern schools tend to ignore most of the academic requirements they require for the general student population.
I'm pretty sure there is little to no difference in terms of admissions standards - everyone (outside of a few schools like Stanford) admits players who are above the NCAA minimum and finds an easy program to stash them in.
Several SEC schools do oversign, though.
Sure, but what about the ability of those guys to stay eligible? My guess is the sec provides much more help and cheating to keep these guys on the field than big schools. Does it happen everywhere? Yes, down to the high school level even, but probably not as widespread as the sec. Source: gut.
Has there been an epidemic of B1G players being academically ineligiible? Not to my knowledge.
Let's get off our high horse. B1G schools, other than possibly Northwestern, admit pretty much anyone who's eligible, and even though all logic would dictate that a ton of them would flunk out, the vast majority manage to stay eligiible for 4-5 years. And given that B1G schools, on the average, are higher-ranked than SEC schools, you'd expect more academic casualities, if anything. But it doesn't happen. It's quite the mystery.
Other than under RR, Michigan coaches have not gone after the borderline players, socially or academically. How much of this can be applied to MSU or TUOSU, I cannot say, but I do know MSU recruited a WR that Michican would have no part of. Even though Michigan took his two classmates.
I think we all know who I'm talking about, yes?
If a player is academically qualified under the NCAA standards, we will admit him almost 100% of the time. The handful of times we don't admit a qualified guy are so few that they don't explain our performance on the field. Again, it's not like our academic standards suddenly skyrocketed in 2008.
People need to stop trying to take the moral high ground. B1G programs gladly lower their standards to admit athletes and we know that athletes get lots and lots of "help," some of which may border on academic fraud. Pretty much anyone who attended classes with athletes can back this up. How about we stop searching for excuses and just perform better on the field?
Pay attention people...Obama effectively doubled the money supply. Thats where this newfound "money" is originating. Inflation
Wow.....really? And to think I used to respect your posts. Silly me for stating a fact. The money supply essentially doubled, and I suggested it as a possible reason for a newfound spending by the Big Ten. Perhaps had I left out the Presidents name, that you'd have read it differently.
Or Big 12? Not getting which conference/school doubled their money supply.
Inflation - lol - or maybe gargantuan tv because it is worth it for the networks?
Also I'm fairly certain we're using the same currency as the SEC and Pac.
Last year there were more Big 12 coaches (4) in the top 10 highest paid vs. 3 for the SEC and B1G. The next 10 are separated by about $500,000. That will change next year but it doesn't seem like a big difference.
I don't really think that is the story so much as the willingness of PSU to get an AQ coach. Aside from Meyer, that hasn't happened in the conference since Rodriguez in 2008. In that same time, the SEC hired 5 AQ conference coaches.
I don't think the highest paid coaches argument is just about those coaches abilities. I think it also plays a significant role in peoples perception of the schools/conference.
I think one of the issues that has dogged the Big Ten is their coaches have typically tended to be promoted from within the program or coached there for extended periods of time. From 1969 until 2008, Michigan had three coaches and two were promoted from within. From 1951 until 1987, ohio had two coaches. From 1966 to 2011, PSU had one coach. All of these coaches and regimes had their successes but they also had their share of disappointments. While the Big 10 tied itself to tradition the SEC has went almost mercenary in their hiring of coaches.
Not sure this is it. Michigan/Ohio/PSU stuck with the same guys forever because things were going well. Other, less successful, B1G schools have regularly hired and fired guys. Indiana has gone through a ton of football coaches over the years.
Louisville sure is:
Other conferences have just been better. But we're highering better coaches and spending more money...which is good, but it's not because programs weren't serious before.
I doubt anyone in the Big Ten was never serious about winning. Everyone wants to win, from Michigan to Purdue. But it's just now that some programs are starting to realize that if you want big time results, you've got to pay big time money for big time coaches.
Some programs have more of a capacity to do that than others (i.e. UM, OSU, PSU, Neb) , but its a sad fact of our current reality with college football. If you want to win and do it on a consistent basis, you've got to pay for it.