Moneyball Question for Insiders

[HeCannotGo]

This isn't a post about who we will or should hire, but a question for those in the know about our approach.

You've all seen "Moneyball," where Billy Beane learns he shouldn't use his very limited budget to buy players, but instead buy wins. Applied to college football, the landscape has shifted in recent years. In the olden days of three years ago, buying wins in college football meant you bought the best head coach you could afford.

But now, with the transfer portal and NIL, schools can also use money to buy wins by buying better players. Yes, I know schools can't directly contribute to NIL, but they also don't pay the full cost of hiring a new coach. Boosters kick in big dollars to help pay buyouts and the like.

And this leads to my question.

Let's say it would cost us $20 million to hire Coach 1, our preferred candidate. Coach 2 is almost as good as Coach 1, but he would cost us "only" $15 million. If we hire Coach 2 and get a booster to kick in the $5 million delta towards NIL, does that buy us more wins than if we'd hired Coach 1?

I'd like to hear from those in the know if Selmon is thinking about these things. We definitely shouldn't go the cheap route just to save money. But I'd really like us to buy the most wins possible.

[StarkVegasSteve]

This isn't a post about who we will or should hire, but a question for those in the know about our approach.

You've all seen "Moneyball," where Billy Beane learns he shouldn't use his very limited budget to buy players, but instead buy wins. Applied to college football, the landscape has shifted in recent years. In the olden days of three years ago, buying wins in college football meant you bought the best head coach you could afford.

But now, with the transfer portal and NIL, schools can also use money to buy wins by buying better players. Yes, I know schools can't directly contribute to NIL, but they also don't pay the full cost of hiring a new coach. Boosters kick in big dollars to help pay buyouts and the like.

And this leads to my question.

Let's say it would cost us $20 million to hire Coach 1, our preferred candidate. Coach 2 is almost as good as Coach 1, but he would cost us "only" $15 million. If we hire Coach 2 and get a booster to kick in the $5 million delta towards NIL, does that buy us more wins than if we'd hired Coach 1?

I'd like to hear from those in the know if Selmon is thinking about these things. We definitely shouldn't go the cheap route just to save money. But I'd really like us to buy the most wins possible.

I think those questions go into the interview process because you are asking what you need to win. Look at Lane, he is finding value in skills guys from the G5 level from Tre Harris or the TE from Memphis. That is really want money ball is about, it is finding value in guys related to your system. I mean Tre Harris would suck if he was at a run heavy place or in our offense where the downfield throws are limited.

[dawggoneit]

aTm paid for what they thought was coach1 and paid more than an extra $5 million on players. What did it get them. You have to get the right coach.

[Catfish]

Get a good coach and a great OC and a great DC.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

This isn't a post about who we will or should hire, but a question for those in the know about our approach.

You've all seen "Moneyball," where Billy Beane learns he shouldn't use his very limited budget to buy players, but instead buy wins. Applied to college football, the landscape has shifted in recent years. In the olden days of three years ago, buying wins in college football meant you bought the best head coach you could afford.

But now, with the transfer portal and NIL, schools can also use money to buy wins by buying better players. Yes, I know schools can't directly contribute to NIL, but they also don't pay the full cost of hiring a new coach. Boosters kick in big dollars to help pay buyouts and the like.

And this leads to my question.

Let's say it would cost us $20 million to hire Coach 1, our preferred candidate. Coach 2 is almost as good as Coach 1, but he would cost us "only" $15 million. If we hire Coach 2 and get a booster to kick in the $5 million delta towards NIL, does that buy us more wins than if we'd hired Coach 1?

I'd like to hear from those in the know if Selmon is thinking about these things. We definitely shouldn't go the cheap route just to save money. But I'd really like us to buy the most wins possible.

Your question is basically "what is the best and most effective way to spend each dollar"? And it's a very good question.

There was a time that recruits were lured by fancy locker rooms, etc. What if a donor offered to donate $10 million to refurbish the locker room and weight room? But instead the school asked for the $10 million to got to NIL. Maybe some recruits would rather have a crappy locker room and more money in their pocket. The problem is that some schools will have both. At LSU they will have the fancy locker room AND plenty of money in their pocket. Good leaders are always trying to stretch each dollar and spend it as wisely and efficiently as possible.

[HeCannotGo]

Your question is basically "what is the best and most effective way to spend each dollar"? And it's a very good question.

There was a time that recruits were lured by fancy locker rooms, etc. What if a donor offered to donate $10 million to refurbish the locker room and weight room? But instead the school asked for the $10 million to got to NIL. Maybe some recruits would rather have a crappy locker room and more money in their pocket. The problem is that some schools will have both. At LSU they will have the fancy locker room AND plenty of money in their pocket. Good leaders are always trying to stretch each dollar and spend it as wisely and efficiently as possible.

Yep. You summarized it perfectly. I'm curious if Selmon is thinking outside the box to use our limited funds to hire the best coach, or to buy the most wins. It's possible that hiring the best coach leads to the most wins, but there may be creative ways to get more wins per dollar.

[WinningIsRelentless]

The main takeaway from all of yalls post is talent evaluation. We have x to spend and must use that money wisely. Look at the bust we had in transfers this year and how much that cost us.

[StarkVegasSteve]

The other problem is we have to invest in off the field recruiting and analysts roles with this next staff. That is another reason we have so many busts with transfers. We have 1/4 of the staffers of almost every other SEC program not named Vanderbilt. It is embarrassing. And yet we are still sending back 8 figure checks to the university because of a surplus. Go hire 10-12 off the field recruiting people and analyst and spend 1.5-3 mil to do it

[BrunswickDawg]

I think those questions go into the interview process because you are asking what you need to win. Look at Lane, he is finding value in skills guys from the G5 level from Tre Harris or the TE from Memphis. That is really want money ball is about, it is finding value in guys related to your system. I mean Tre Harris would suck if he was at a run heavy place or in our offense where the downfield throws are limited.

^^^^ Moneyball is about finding value in new ways, or in ways that may not be traditional. I think for us it will be a combination of coach, spending money the right way for quality off-field staff (game analysts, talent scouts, etc), and finding value in overlooked corners, and still some player development. People may disagree with this, but in addition to scouting G5 for the best potential - I think we would need to expand that a bit to trying to land the very best of FCS and DII talent. Cody Schrader at Mizzou is a great example of guys we need to be IDing moving forward. Guy goes from DII, to walk on, to Doak Walker Finalist.

And before I get blasted for thinking we can win with DII and FCS players - I'm talking about their top 1% - Harlon Hill Trophy Finalists, Walter Payton Award finalists, etc. - those lists are peppered with NFL players.
And the roster doesn't need to be built by them - but if you can land a guy like Schrader, Trey Lance, Jimmy Garrapollo, Kenny Moore II, etc. they can be impact players.

[Really Clark?]

The main takeaway from all of yalls post is talent evaluation. We have x to spend and must use that money wisely. Look at the bust we had in transfers this year and how much that cost us.

Part of the reason we had busts in the portal this year is because it didn't cost us much in NIL.

[KB21]

I think those questions go into the interview process because you are asking what you need to win. Look at Lane, he is finding value in skills guys from the G5 level from Tre Harris or the TE from Memphis. That is really want money ball is about, it is finding value in guys related to your system. I mean Tre Harris would suck if he was at a run heavy place or in our offense where the downfield throws are limited.

And that's where the moneyball aspect comes into play. It comes from scheme, IMO. You run a scheme that can take players who may not be the most talented and have them succeed. You don't try to be like the blue blood programs in the conference.

[Randolph Dupree]

Mullen was a Moneyball coach. Love him or hate him, that's what he was. Find the 2 star OL and develop him, etc etc.

[Maverick91]

The other problem is we have to invest in off the field recruiting and analysts roles with this next staff. That is another reason we have so many busts with transfers. We have 1/4 of the staffers of almost every other SEC program not named Vanderbilt. It is embarrassing. And yet we are still sending back 8 figure checks to the university because of a surplus. Go hire 10-12 off the field recruiting people and analyst and spend 1.5-3 mil to do it

This this right here cannot be stated enough! We can bring in the general to run the blitzkrieg but if he doesn't have all the peace's to keep the blitz running effectively what does it matter.

[Maverick91]

And that's where the moneyball aspect comes into play. It comes from scheme, IMO. You run a scheme that can take players who may not be the most talented and have them succeed. You don't try to be like the blue blood programs in the conference.

This goes back to Taters approach of bringing in a bunch of 350 earth movers and just play 3 yards and a cloud of dust until you wear down the defense. Theoretically it would work, no defense could withstand that for four quarters.

[Ezsoil]

Mullen was a Moneyball coach. Love him or hate him, that's what he was. Find the 2 star OL and develop him, etc etc.

He did a good job signing QBs because they are the best athletes on the field in most cases ....and like McKinney and Lawrence ...he moved them to the best position to help the team ....

In Fitzgerald's case ... he saw a guy with a linebacker build the speed of a wide receiver ... doing anything including returning punts to get on the field.... just a football player ..... he took a chance on him and struck gold

[Tater]

This goes back to Taters approach of bringing in a bunch of 350 earth movers and just play 3 yards and a cloud of dust until you wear down the defense. Theoretically it would work, no defense could withstand that for four quarters.

Hell yeah brother. Spread the good word.

[parabrave]

Get a good coach and a great OC and a great DC.

This.

[Maverick91]

Hell yeah brother. Spread the good word.

I would actually love to see this I. Action. Like take a 1A or 2A high school that's kicked back into the woods and just give this try for a year or two. Would be fun to see if it would work.

[memsu06]

Mullen was our money ball coach. They found diamonds in the rough and coached them up. Not sure how that translates to the NIL now where it took time to develop players. Now they'll just jump ship if they aren't playing. If recruiting was an issue at Florida for him though would that be an issue with us again?

Leach was one of the best at doing more with less talent than others. Hate on the Air Raid all you want, but keeping things simple translated to fast play when needed or a ball control offense. There's something to be said for a simple offense where everyone is on the same page vs a complicated offense where players aren't always on the same page resulting in a blown play.

As we've seen this season I don't care how flashy you make your offense if the line can't block and receivers don't run the right routes it's not going to work.

I'd pitch to the new coach that we aren't going to go cheap on hiring the best DC or OC. We want people that are phenomenal at teaching the players the scheme they want to run. It would make his life much easier for the HC and we're gonna need some very good recruiters. Kinda like how LSU caught lightening in a bottle with Joe Brady. Their offensive turnaround for just 1 season was phenomenal, we need that kind of guy as the OC or HC.

I've often pondered if there was some moneyball approach in football. If I was Selmon I'd definitely be doing some research into it, because that's what we're gonna need going forward.

[Dawghouse]

I'm surprised we don't see a GM role yet, or maybe we do but it's called something else.

In theory this structure should work great

GM - handles recruiting, portal, NIL, etc to build the team based on input from coaches. Wheeler and dealer personality can handle boosters and parents.

HC - is administrator of the team, planning practices and managing all other coaches and staff. Maybe handle special teams staff. Mullen would be great because no recruiting needed but can evaluate talent then send in the GM. Would allow you to have an asshole in this role without ruining recruiting.

OC and DC - run their respective sides of the ball. Rain man types who are solely focused on strategy for their side of the ball.

If this was structure I'd pay all 4 about equally. 2-4 mil depending. Maybe GM and HC split a normal HC salary and the OC and DC are slightly below.

I mean this is basically how the NFL operates right and that's the direction college is going, might as well jump on board.