B1G and Big 12 Recruiting Budgets

[disgrig]

Revealing article in DM Register this morning on basketball recruiting budgets. Data given over 5-year period. Interesting to compare budgets to success. ISU $1.3 over the 5 years. Hawks $734,000. Hawks rate 7th in B1G of 10 reporting schools. Given that they finished higher than that in standings--at least this year--looks like at this point in time it is fairly efficient use of money.

ISU tied for 3rd with K State in bb budget. Since they finished second in regular season and won conf tournament 2X, that also looks like decent efficiency. But they're close to a million behind Kansas, so that makes it tough to compete over time. Can't say Kansas is NOT efficient over time.

There is certainly not a direct correlation between spending and success. Wisconsin is shown last of the 10 reporting at $298,000. Illinois is shown at top of spending, yet they pretty much suck lately in performance. So, after looking at all of this data, you've got to wonder how accurate reporting is and if all are using same methods. Either that or there is a tremendous difference in efficiency. I don't believe Wisconsin spent a million less than Illinois and stands solidly last among all of the B1G and Big 12 schools reporting. (Something rotten in Denmark--or Madison?) ISU needs to up the ante somehow to hang consistently with Kansas; and Iowa needs to increase it significantly. Yes, we know it's not all about how much is spent. But amount of money committed and how you spend it does matter over time.

 

[ThatsFootball]

Originally posted by disgrig:
Revealing article in DM Register this morning on basketball recruiting budgets. Data given over 5-year period. Interesting to compare budgets to success. ISU $1.3 over the 5 years. Hawks $734,000. Hawks rate 7th in B1G of 10 reporting schools. Given that they finished higher than that in standings--at least this year--looks like at this point in time it is fairly efficient use of money.

ISU tied for 3rd with K State in bb budget. Since they finished second in regular season and won conf tournament 2X, that also looks like decent efficiency. But they're close to a million behind Kansas, so that makes it tough to compete over time. Can't say Kansas is NOT efficient over time.

There is certainly not a direct correlation between spending and success. Wisconsin is shown last of the 10 reporting at $298,000. Illinois is shown at top of spending, yet they pretty much suck lately in performance. So, after looking at all of this data, you've got to wonder how accurate reporting is and if all are using same methods. Either that or there is a tremendous difference in efficiency. I don't believe Wisconsin spent a million less than Illinois and stands solidly last among all of the B1G and Big 12 schools reporting. (Something rotten in Denmark--or Madison?) ISU needs to up the ante somehow to hang consistently with Kansas; and Iowa needs to increase it significantly. Yes, we know it's not all about how much is spent. But amount of money committed and how you spend it does matter over time.

Bail bonds aren't cheep.

 

[StormHawk42]

Link

 

[Titanhawk2]

Originally posted by disgrig:
Revealing article in DM Register this morning on basketball recruiting budgets. Data given over 5-year period. Interesting to compare budgets to success. ISU $1.3 over the 5 years. Hawks $734,000. Hawks rate 7th in B1G of 10 reporting schools. Given that they finished higher than that in standings--at least this year--looks like at this point in time it is fairly efficient use of money.

ISU tied for 3rd with K State in bb budget. Since they finished second in regular season and won conf tournament 2X, that also looks like decent efficiency. But they're close to a million behind Kansas, so that makes it tough to compete over time. Can't say Kansas is NOT efficient over time.

There is certainly not a direct correlation between spending and success. Wisconsin is shown last of the 10 reporting at $298,000. Illinois is shown at top of spending, yet they pretty much suck lately in performance. So, after looking at all of this data, you've got to wonder how accurate reporting is and if all are using same methods. Either that or there is a tremendous difference in efficiency. I don't believe Wisconsin spent a million less than Illinois and stands solidly last among all of the B1G and Big 12 schools reporting. (Something rotten in Denmark--or Madison?) ISU needs to up the ante somehow to hang consistently with Kansas; and Iowa needs to increase it significantly. Yes, we know it's not all about how much is spent. But amount of money committed and how you spend it does matter over time.

12 of the 16 players on Wisconsin's roster are from Wisconsin, MN or IL. 3 are from Ohio, 1 from CA. When you can drive and pick up 3 quarter of your team you don't have to spend money

 

[ThatsFootball]

Originally posted by StormHawk42:
Link

Awesome link. Wisconsin so low just blows my mind, it is unbelievable how Ryan continues to do it.

Also, why does PSU not have to report? Northwestern is obvious, but isn't PSU's public record?

 

[hawk44ever]

Schools like Iowa and ISU really need to invest a lot of time and money to convince kids from another state to come here. KU is at another level- they are automatically in with the top recruits so now they can just try to wow them. Iowa needs to commit more to this budget and allow a wider net to be cast. Recruiting budget doesn't mean everything- the more highly rated kids you pursue- the higher % of failures but you need to try on some of these 5* recruits. ISU has progressed quickly in 5 years, they are in on some of the top 25 recruits. If they get this Diallo kid, Final 4 next year is a real possibility. It can happen for Iowa with a little more success and a little bigger budget. Success on the court and a great crowd atmosphere helps a lot and we are getting better at that, just not there yet.

 

[disgrig]

Don't think that's the big difference, Titan. Illinois has 12 players from Illinois on roster, and they still spent a boatload more than Wisconsin. Still something going on here that is not revealed in figures reported.

 

[IamHawkeye]

Originally posted by ThatsFootball:

Originally posted by StormHawk42:
Link

Awesome link. Wisconsin so low just blows my mind, it is unbelievable how Ryan continues to do it.

Also, why does PSU not have to report? Northwestern is obvious, but isn't PSU's public record?

Originally posted by ThatsFootball:

Originally posted by StormHawk42:
Link

Awesome link. Wisconsin so low just blows my mind, it is unbelievable how Ryan continues to do it.

Also, why does PSU not have to report? Northwestern is obvious, but isn't PSU's public record?

There was some out for PSU mentioned in a previous discussion about spending. I don't remember what it was, but doremember that it sounded rather spurious for a Univ. named Penn STATE. Maybe someone else remembers it.

 

[ichawk24]

Pennsylvania claims PSU is "state related", which is semantic bullshit. They appropriate similar amounts as other state schools.

Fact: Penn State is "state-related." It was incorporated in 1855 as a private entity but the Board of Trustees included representatives of state government, including the governor. The state legislature in 1863 named Penn State the Commonwealth's sole land-grant institution, a designation that gave the University a broad mission of teaching, research, and public service. The legislature only occasionally granted funds to Penn State during the early years but since 1887 has made appropriations on a regular basis.


Posted from Rivals Mobile