Is money the biggest factor in football success?

[Coach34]

Came across this link on revenue and spending for NCAA teams- http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

As I looked at the schools that were within a few million of us on both sides- I noticed that they are all moderate success schools.



31
Indiana
$72,973,954 $69,915,060 $2,782,080 3.81
32
UCLA
$71,731,776 $71,731,776 $2,775,664 3.87
33
California
$71,183,404 $68,578,362 $9,518,112 13.37
34
Virginia Tech
$70,723,748 $66,970,798 $7,665,205 10.84
35
Purdue
$70,624,394 $68,056,269 $0 0.00
36
Kansas
$70,228,913 $78,973,441 $2,850,173 4.06
37
Clemson
$70,002,280 $67,783,797 $5,316,712 7.60
38
Mississippi State
$69,828,880 $67,926,160 $4,000,000 5.73
39
Maryland
$68,142,660 $68,109,639 $17,244,084 25.31
40
Texas Tech
$67,928,350 $60,346,836 $3,753,979 5.53
41
Rutgers
$64,038,720 $64,038,720 $27,996,056 43.72
42
Connecticut
$63,566,909 $63,828,620 $17,279,913 27.18
43
Kansas State
$63,271,615 $50,994,785 $2,735,933 4.32
44
Georgia Tech
$63,184,163 $61,179,789 $6,914,742 10.94


We are 38th in revenue.
We are mid-30's in football wins the last 3 1/2 years
There are only 2 teams out of that group of 14 schools with better football programs currently

Are we performing in football (as well as the Big 3) as to be expected considering our budget?

[smootness]

Are we performing in football (as well as the Big 3) as to be expected considering our budget?

Yes.

[Political Hack]

Money in relationship to your schedule would probably be a better indicator. If 9 of the 12 teams you play have a higher budget than you, then you being rnaked 30-something doesn't really matter. By that standard, we've probably way overachieved with CDM.

[smootness]

Money in relationship to your schedule would probably be a better indicator. If 9 of the 12 teams you play have a higher budget than you, then you being rnaked 30-something doesn't really matter. By that standard, we've probably way overachieved with CDM.

I agree with this. The fact that we're having similar success despite being in the SEC means we're actually doing better relative to the money than the programs around us.

[Barking 13]

I'd like to see the SEC budgets

ETA NM.. I clicked on the link...duh! So it looks like 90 to 125 k is about normal for upper tier SEC programs and MSU is almost 70 and of course TSUN is mid 50's (reported.. probably double under the table)

[Coach34]

I'd like to see the SEC budgets

well, I provided the link. We are 12th- ahead of Mizzou and OM. The link shows revenue and spending. We are at the bottom in football budget without a doubt

4. Bama- 125MM
5. Fla- 121MM
6. A&M- 120MM
7. LSU- 115MM
10. Auburn- 106MM
12. Tenn- 104MM
14. UPig- 100MM
18. Georgia- 92MM
19. Kentucky- 88MM
21. SC- 88MM
38. State- 70MM
51. Ole Miss- 52MM
52. Mizzou- 51MM

That's revenue that each school takes in. Budget and spending is up to the school. We took in 18MM more than OM in 2012. Interesting

[Barking 13]

I guess I read it wrong.. I thought it said revenue and spending... doesn't matter.. interesting stuff...

[HoopsDawg]

Your recruiting base is also a huge, huge factor.

[Political Hack]

I wish we could get a breakdown. I'd love to see what % OM sticks in their recruiting budget as compared to ours. We've also been on some big cap investment pushes recently with the facility udpates so 2012 may be a bad year to look at us in terms of how we usually rank. I'm pretty sure we had some big boosters throw some major money at the renovations that they normally don't donate on a year to year basis. Either way, we're not too far off from being in the middle of the pack in the SEC. It would be nice to stabalize there for a while in the short term with long term plans to move into the top tier.

On a separate note, we're graduating more students and have a higher salary rate than OM grads, so we're about to leave them in the dust. I think they realize that and it's probably why the gloves have come off in recruiting, on the football field, etc... It's now or never for them.

[HoopsDawg]

Our budget will never be as big as Bama's, but with the upcoming SEC network, our budget is plenty big enough to have everything we need and more. Like Bud Fox asked Gordon Gekko, how many yachts can you ski behind? At some point, the size of our budget is no longer an excuse.

[Political Hack]

Our budget will never be as big as Bama's, but with the upcoming SEC network, our budget is plenty big enough to have everything we need and more. Like Bud Fox asked Gordon Gekko, how many yachts can you ski behind? At some point, the size of our budget is no longer an excuse.

until every player has their own locker room with flat panel TVs, beds, walk in closets, personal shower and toilets... It's going to happen.

[engie]

We will go up $10 mil+ with the stadium expansion.

Got to keep working --- but we are a helluva lot closer to mid tier SEC today than we were 5 years ago.

[SheltonChoked]

That's really our biggest hardship in football, and also why being in the Super Conference (Division 4 or whatever), would be a good thing for us. If everyone played the schedule we have to every year (LSU, Alabama, Auburn, TAMU), we'd be better than mid 30's.

Also expect the SEC Network to raise us (and the rest of the SEC) up another $10-20 million ($10 million more would put us at 28th, $15 million at 23rd, $20 million only up to 21st). So that would make us a borderline Top 25 program, on par with where OkSTate, UGA, Louisville, and USCe are now. I'd expect that to be about 8-11 wins a year.

Realistically, we would still be in the SEC west and all it would really mean is 6-8 wins a year, but our 4 non-con wins could be big boys instead of SunBelt teams.

As long as we are in a division with schools that can outspend us by ~40% (4 of the top Ten earners are in the SEC West after the SECNetwork it will be 5), we will struggle.

All of this makes me want to spend more money on Dudy Noble. We win in baseball. Spend to make it the best.

[codeDawg]

Yes, it is the most important factor. You can overachieve versus your expenditure, but is an exception, there is a ceiling, and you have to make the most use the other factors.

This is what people need to understand. There are a lot of factors against us. The population of our state, the number of schools in our state, the perception MS has nationally, a lack of a winning tradition, a traditionally weak and underfunded front and back office in the athletic department, and Starkville is the most geographically isolated SEC town.

All of this is not an excuse, though. We need to have realistic, but steadily advancing goals. The we have to make the most of our few advantages and be prepared to strike when the stars align, e.g. 1998. We have to make our own luck. Mullen is underperforming this year, it's his fault, and he needs to be held accountable, but those expecting us to be in the hunt every year are delusional.

[codeDawg]

Our budget will never be as big as Bama's, but with the upcoming SEC network, our budget is plenty big enough to have everything we need and more. Like Bud Fox asked Gordon Gekko, how many yachts can you ski behind? At some point, the size of our budget is no longer an excuse.

We are waaaay behind the upper tier guys right now. Just the assistant coaching and athletic office personnel alone is a major disparity.

[Political Hack]

wrong thread...

[Coach34]

Our budget will never be as big as Bama's, but with the upcoming SEC network, our budget is plenty big enough to have everything we need and more. Like Bud Fox asked Gordon Gekko, how many yachts can you ski behind? At some point, the size of our budget is no longer an excuse.

ahhhhh, the mantra of all small revenue programs everywhere. Yet, as I look at that list- there are very, very few BCS bowl appearances out of that group.

Clemson has never made one- altho they may finally this year

The top money schools are same ones that keep ending up in the big games year after year

[HereComesTheSpiral]

ahhhhh, the mantra of all small revenue programs everywhere. Yet, as I look at that list- there are very, very few BCS bowl appearances out of that group.

Clemson has never made one- altho they may finally this year

The top money schools are same ones that keep ending up in the big games year after year

Clemson was raped in the orange bowl by West Virginia.

[Coach34]

ahhhh yes- how did I forget that jewel

[Dawg61]

Hire the right coach and money is far less important. Kliff Kingsbury is at a University with less money than MSU and already has them ranked #15 and undefeated and has had to use 3 different QB's (one a walk-on). He's only been there for 10 months. The MOST important difference between average football and elite football is the head coach. Look at Bama. Shitty with Shula and now almost unbeatable with Saban. Put Saban at MSU and you'd have 10+ wins EVERY season at MSU. To me the money excuse is a total bullshit excuse to get people to give more money. Just my 2 cents.

[Coach34]

Hire the right coach and money is far less important. Kliff Kingsbury is at a University with less money than MSU and already has them ranked #15 and undefeated and has had to use 3 different QB's (one a walk-on). He's only been there for 10 months. The MOST important difference between average football and elite football is the head coach. Look at Bama. Shitty with Shula and now almost unbeatable with Saban. Put Saban at MSU and you'd have 10+ wins EVERY season at MSU. To me the money excuse is a total bullshit excuse to get people to give more money. Just my 2 cents.

A) Kingsbury took over a program that was 8-5 last year and had been built by Tommy T the last 3 seasons. He didnt walk into a loser program. Mullen has been ranked in the top 15 three times since taking over at State. TT has yet to play a D-1 team with a winning record:

SMU 1-4
Stephen F Austin 1-AA
TCU 3-3
Texas State 3-3
Kansas 2-3
Iowa State 1-4


How is money a bullshit excuse when example after example can be given of where the money programs end up each season vs lower-level budget schools?

[coastdoglover]

amen

[Dawg61]

It's important. Don't get me wrong. With money you can buy the elite coach so I guess it trumps it but money runs the world and is nothing new. I just hate the money topic because it's never enough. If Bill Gates donated 300 billion dollars to MSU you'd still have people asking for money the very next day.

[SheltonChoked]

We were number 11 at one point last year. What's your point again?

[Dawg61]

We were number 11 at one point last year. What's your point again?

What's yours? Would an extra 20 mill keeps us at #11 or a better head coach? I rest my point.

[Coach34]

What's yours? Would an extra 20 mill keeps us at #11 .


Yes

We would have a better coaching staff with better recruiters and more money to spend on recruiting- which would make our players betters

[Goat Holder]

That's ONE year, dude. Over time, the rankings will look like the budgets. Sure, if you take a random snapshots, teams will be skewed here or there.

How does anyone not understand this?

[Dawg61]

How does anyone not understand this?

The team directly above MSU is currently ranked #3 in the nation. Would Clemson be #3 because of Dabo Swinney and the OC or because of how much money they get? Coaching outweighs money in terms of how good you are. Look at the Tampa Bay Rays. They are great because of great coaching not how much money the team has.

[SheltonChoked]

Money gives you the freedom to buy out mistakes.

It's not the end all, but a very good indicator of ability to succeed.

[dawgs]

ahhhhh, the mantra of all small revenue programs everywhere. Yet, as I look at that list- there are very, very few BCS bowl appearances out of that group.

Clemson has never made one- altho they may finally this year

The top money schools are same ones that keep ending up in the big games year after year

more than you think. clemson, k state, gt, vt, kansas, and uconn (yeah, big east champ, i know, but still they made it) have all been to BCS bowl in the last half decade or so. and rutgers, cal, and tx tech have been in legit national title discussion late in the season (and really cal and tx tech got screwed out of a BCS bowl imo). ucla last went to a BCS bowl in 99, but they are back in the top 10 this year. so yeah, it's hard to build a consistent contender with revenues in the 30s, but you can perk up here and there to win big for a year or 2.

and yes, i'm well aware that the 11 sec programs ahead of us make up more than 1/3 of the top 30.

[smootness]

The team directly above MSU is currently ranked #3 in the nation. Would Clemson be #3 because of Dabo Swinney and the OC or because of how much money they get? Coaching outweighs money in terms of how good you are. Look at the Tampa Bay Rays. They are great because of great coaching not how much money the team has.

Uh, and more money gets you better coaching.

[Dawg61]

Uh, and more money gets you better coaching.

Yup it's a chicken and egg situation

[SheltonChoked]

It's worse than that. 5 of the top 11 are in the sec west. Only the mississippi schools have that problem. And it why the other schools in the 30's have been able to jump up at times. Sure texas may have down years, and Baylor can win the big 12. With us, Arkansas and auburn are having down years right? But TAMU, Alabama, and lsu are not. We have a lot of ground to make up. And we have to start by closing the money gap.

[SheltonChoked]

No it's not.


More money allows you to get better coaches. Better facilities. Better recruiting. Better players.

Chris petersen is one of the best coaches out there. Where is all of Boisie's money, if it is chicken and egg?

[Dawg61]

Boise was good before Peterson but I'm willing to bet they've doubled their "budget" since he became HC. Is Boise in the consideration to be added to a super conference without Petersen? Doubtful. Plus Petersen is like the ONLY great HC that hasn't moved up. Still he's built a mini monster compared to BSU 10 years ago. So there's your chicken and egg. You can't expect one man to take a school in Idaho and raise it all the way to top 10 category in terms of money in one lifetime but he is capable of making his team a top 10 ranked team. He's already done that multiple times over. Better coaching beats more money.

[smootness]

Plus Petersen is like the ONLY great HC that hasn't moved up.

You just countered your own point.

Better coaching beats more money...until more money buys your coach.

[SheltonChoked]

In any given year. Yes. The best coach will win.

Until Auburn uses the money to buy your coach. ( see Tuberville, Tommy)

But more often happens is more money allows you to fire a coach and buy the best coach. ( see Alabama hire Saban)

[Dawg61]

You just countered your own point.

Better coaching beats more money...until more money buys your coach.

You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that money doesn't buy better coaching. Of course it does. However I am arguing that MSU should blame its mediocre football program on finances. Better coaching would circumvent this. Of course with more money MSU can just buy better coaching. Which I am under the impression MSU is about to do just that and increase the salaries significantly for the assistants with all the new SECNetwork and increased seating money. Then your Tim Brewsters and Mark Hudspeth's might not leave as quickly.

[SheltonChoked]

But nobody hits on every hire and not every coach is able to translate success to every school. And the ones that do get moved up quickly.

Look at Mack brown. He started at Tulane. Had them 11-0. Got hired by UNC. Won. Got hired by Texas.

I think you are saying Tulane and UNC should have just hired a good replacement and kept going. And that discounts our situation where we are in the same division as 3 of the best coaches out there with more money for assistants etc.

Mark wanted to be a head coach so he was going to leave anyway. Brewster might have stayed with more money.

[engie]

Brewster wasn't staying period. He didn't leave over money -- and got basically no raise at FSU and less than we counter offered. There are people on this board that knew him personally that can attest to his reasons for leaving

[messageboardsuperhero]

Yes

We would have a better coaching staff with better recruiters and more money to spend on recruiting- which would make our players betters

Which is why I'm excited about what the football expansion will do. Premium seating and generating revenue is the name of the game. I still wish they had made those suites more expensive though.

And to continue beating the dead horse, this is exactly why a new stadium is huge in baseball. I can't even describe how much money is being left on the table with the current setup, especially when you consider that we could be bringing in close to what USCe and even LSU do. The new stadium will get us out of the terrible lifetime seating arrangements and allow us to have FAR more premium seating and revenue generating options than what we have now.

[Coach34]

Dawgs61- you realize Boise won big before Peterson right?

Dan Hawkins started the Boise train

[Dawg61]

Dawgs61- you realize Boise won big before Peterson right?

Dan Hawkins started the Boise train

Yes, I said that in a previous post. Petersen has taken the train and turned it into FedEx though.

[MaroonState]

But nobody hits on every hire and not every coach is able to translate success to every school. And the ones that do get moved up quickly.

Look at Mack brown. He started at Tulane. Had them 11-0. Got hired by UNC. Won. Got hired by Texas.

I think you are saying Tulane and UNC should have just hired a good replacement and kept going. And that discounts our situation where we are in the same division as 3 of the best coaches out there with more money for assistants etc.

Mark wanted to be a head coach so he was going to leave anyway. Brewster might have stayed with more money.

Aren't you thinking of Tommy Bowden that had them 11-0 and then Clemson hired him away? But your point still stands.

[smootness]

You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that money doesn't buy better coaching. Of course it does. However I am arguing that MSU should blame its mediocre football program on finances. Better coaching would circumvent this. Of course with more money MSU can just buy better coaching. Which I am under the impression MSU is about to do just that and increase the salaries significantly for the assistants with all the new SECNetwork and increased seating money. Then your Tim Brewsters and Mark Hudspeth's might not leave as quickly.

You're going around and around with your argument. More money buys better coaching, yet we shouldn't blame our lack of coaching on money because we could just get better coaching?

What is stopping the other teams bringing in at least as much money as us from getting even better coaches? It then essentially all comes down to luck; you have to hope you absolutely nail every hire you make because if they have success, they will bought by other programs.

Yes, it would be nice if we had more money to use on coaching...but that's exactly the point of this thread.

I'm still not getting your point.