Best long term prospects in Big 12 Football

[Jim Hammer]

I do not agree, except to say that the coach is the variable that effects immediate success. There is an exception, if you happen to put together a long enough run with a legend or two to build a History, then I would concur. I would argue the predicatable factors (coaches are tough), over the long term, are...

 

1) Money

2) Geographic access to good recruits

3) Great Fan Base

4) History / Game day experience (related because history that is too stale, that no one gets excited about, is not too valuable.)

5) Great facilities

6) Proximity to fans to fill stadium (which effects Money, fan base and game day experience)

 

 

On a side note, NU does spend a fair amount, pretty close to OU in spending (within 20%).

1. Money - Money is important to attract a good coach and have good facilities. Also to pay recruits under the table.

 

2. Geography - Not so important. Kids want to play where they will be successful, where they will be seen on TV, and somewhere that gives them a good shot at going to the NFL. A good coach sells them on all of these things and convinces them to join his program. How do you think Osborn was able to get all those kids from FL and NJ to come to NU?

 

3. Great fan base - Another selling point to recruits. Great fans fill the stadium through thick and thin, not just when the team is winning. A great fan base would never allow another school to outnumber them a home games (I was in the sea of red in Lawrence in '98).

 

4a. History - Selling point. Also builds the fan base. Players want to play where they saw other great players, but not as much as they want to be on TV.

 

4b. Game day experience - More for the fans than the players, but bringing in recruits to a packed house going crazy for the home team can seal the deal.

 

5. Great facilities - Not that important. Snyder build a some very good teams with the worst facilities in the conference. Kids want to play for a winner.

 

6. Proximity to fans - Aren't most fans already close to the school? It's not like the majority of fans at NU games have to be bussed in from Ohio.

 

 

All these things can attract top recruits, but unless you have a good coach who can develop the talent (Osborne, Snyder, Mangino), a top 5 recruiting class is for naught (Callahan, Blake, Neuheisel).

[jayhawk]

I do not agree, except to say that the coach is the variable that effects immediate success. There is an exception, if you happen to put together a long enough run with a legend or two to build a History, then I would concur. I would argue the predicatable factors (coaches are tough), over the long term, are...

 

1) Money

2) Geographic access to good recruits

3) Great Fan Base

4) History / Game day experience (related because history that is too stale, that no one gets excited about, is not too valuable.)

5) Great facilities

6) Proximity to fans to fill stadium (which effects Money, fan base and game day experience)

 

 

On a side note, NU does spend a fair amount, pretty close to OU in spending (within 20%).

1. Money - Money is important to attract a good coach and have good facilities. Also to pay recruits under the table.

 

2. Geography - Not so important. Kids want to play where they will be successful, where they will be seen on TV, and somewhere that gives them a good shot at going to the NFL. A good coach sells them on all of these things and convinces them to join his program. How do you think Osborn was able to get all those kids from FL and NJ to come to NU?

 

3. Great fan base - Another selling point to recruits. Great fans fill the stadium through thick and thin, not just when the team is winning. A great fan base would never allow another school to outnumber them a home games (I was in the sea of red in Lawrence in '98).

 

4a. History - Selling point. Also builds the fan base. Players want to play where they saw other great players, but not as much as they want to be on TV.

 

4b. Game day experience - More for the fans than the players, but bringing in recruits to a packed house going crazy for the home team can seal the deal.

 

5. Great facilities - Not that important. Snyder build a some very good teams with the worst facilities in the conference. Kids want to play for a winner.

 

6. Proximity to fans - Aren't most fans already close to the school? It's not like the majority of fans at NU games have to be bussed in from Ohio.

 

 

All these things can attract top recruits, but unless you have a good coach who can develop the talent (Osborne, Snyder, Mangino), a top 5 recruiting class is for naught (Callahan, Blake, Neuheisel).

 

 

I put your points in red, I thought you would appreciate that, then answered each. This article was not on recruiting (although that is a part of it), it was on the factors that I think will lead to the long term success of a program that are quantifiable. I left out specific playes and coaches, as those are variables that cannot be predicted over the long term, outside of the definable factors that raise the odds of getting good ones.

 

1. Money - Money is important to attract a good coach and have good facilities. Also to pay recruits under the table.

 

I guess we agree, I am not using long term cheating as part of the prediction.

 

2. Geography - Not so important. Kids want to play where they will be successful, where they will be seen on TV, and somewhere that gives them a good shot at going to the NFL. A good coach sells them on all of these things and convinces them to join his program. How do you think Osborn was able to get all those kids from FL and NJ to come to NU?

 

NJ kids did not have a lot choices nearby, but that helped Penn State, but they tended to be more willing to travel. I guess maybe you did not take my advice in looking to the deep south at how many top kids are leaving their state. California, Florida and Texas kids are definitely more willing to leave their state, but the emergence of so many good programs in places like Florida has made it harder to get that talent out. I would argue that you do not like this arguement because it hurts Nebraska. Lots of stories in the media have shown ths to be true, but good look with beating UT, USC and Florida in recruiting...

 

3. Great fan base - Another selling point to recruits. Great fans fill the stadium through thick and thin, not just when the team is winning. A great fan base would never allow another school to outnumber them a home games (I was in the sea of red in Lawrence in '98).

 

This is literally inane. How could KU have some of the best basketball fans in the US, and yet be so allegedly terrible? Well, if one looks, a team that is consitently mediocre or bad over a long period of time will not have many fans. A really good team, with a built up fan base whose fans have a tradition of supporting their team, will have that momentum to help them throught he bad times. The fans follow the sustained success of the team. Go to an SMU game, where did their fans all go? They used to have em, but they lost their momentum. The more built up your fan base is, though, the bigger the speed bumps your program can get through and maintain itself.

 

4a. History - Selling point. Also builds the fan base. Players want to play where they saw other great players, but not as much as they want to be on TV.

 

Granted this is a bit of a mixed bag for a given recruit, but this is not a recruiting article. History attracts other factors, not just recruits. It inspires alumni, helps maintain fan support and improves the gameday experience.

 

4b. Game day experience - More for the fans than the players, but bringing in recruits to a packed house going crazy for the home team can seal the deal.

 

Indeed, and this is about the long term success of the progeam, so both about fans and recruits, and both like this part. In the end, this gives fans more reason to pack up each year and show up at the games.

 

5. Great facilities - Not that important. Snyder build a some very good teams with the worst facilities in the conference. Kids want to play for a winner.

 

Very important, this did hurt recruiting and it is why K-State could not maintain it's success and risks losing a lot of its progress right now. Go name some real sustained powers without good facilities, if K-State is the best you have, you are making this point for me.

 

6. Proximity to fans - Aren't most fans already close to the school? It's not like the majority of fans at NU games have to be bussed in from Ohio.

 

Are you in business? If you are, you know they do not put Best Buy in little towns in western Nebrsaska. Why, because no one would go. Collee sports needs to fill seats. It helps to be in a sweet spot. Close enough to fans to be able to really pack a big stadium, but it can get too big, and then pro sports can come along and make for competition. (See NY metro area as an example where college sports is hurt by so many pro teams). K-State is a fine example. It is really far from most of it's fans, over 2 hours from Kansas City and Witchita, fo rinstnace. Yeah, they have closer fans, but it is hard ot fill an 80,000 seat stadium with their population proximity. Also, when your team goes mediocre, if fans were driving 3 hours each way, that means their tolerance for that sort of effort to see a mediocre product is a little more at risk.

 

In summary, I do not agree with you. Coaches make a big difference, but that is one of those things that is hard to predict, other than by using the factors (i.e. Money does help with coaches). I think your logic is to focused on how things are, not how they get ot be that way, and how they stay that way.

[Jim Hammer]

In summary, I do not agree with you. Coaches make a big difference, but that is one of those things that is hard to predict, other than by using the factors (i.e. Money does help with coaches). I think your logic is to focused on how things are, not how they get ot be that way, and how they stay that way.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you can't predict what's going to happen over the next 50 years. Your "article" seems to base future success on what's happened in the past 5 years. That's fine. You presented your opinion, I presented mine.

[jayhawk]

In summary, I do not agree with you. Coaches make a big difference, but that is one of those things that is hard to predict, other than by using the factors (i.e. Money does help with coaches). I think your logic is to focused on how things are, not how they get to be that way, and how they stay that way.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you can't predict what's going to happen over the next 50 years. Your "article" seems to base future success on what's happened in the past 5 years. That's fine. You presented your opinion, I presented mine.

 

I have no idea how you can say my article is just based on the last 5 years. I have A&M listed as #3 and Tech as #9. My contention about KU seems to be be getting reaction that this is not a real surge for us, which I can very much understand. I do mention that they have to put together a good enough run to establish something. Tech has, as a contrast, had such a run and it is maxed out. Same thing happened to K-State. They have a limited upside when they have there good years, maker it hard to entrench at the top.

 

Anyway, I respect your right to a differing opinion, and am very glad you through out some contrasting views. I just did not realize you were contending that there are not factors that make it more or less likely that a program will be good in the long run. While I agree they are not absolute bny any means, I guess we do differ on that point. The house wins on small odds, but over a long time.

[Enhance]

Very specious reasoning in this thread. If you look at the Big 12 teams, the main factor in each team's success has been the head coach. When McCarney was at ISU, they were challenging for the North title. Now that KU has Mangino and Pinkel is at MU, they are up there. NU gets Callahan and they drop off. OU was way down before they got Stoops. KSU had a great run with Snyder.

 

To infer anything about the next 50 years, you need to look at the ability to attract a top coach. UT and OU will be up there because they will throw the most money at a coach and have tradition. OSU and TAMU will do the same without the tradition. NU won't spend as much, but they have tradition to attract talent. The other schools will have to gamble on a hot assistant coach or small school head coach and hope to hit a home run.

 

2) Geographic access to good recruits

 

 

Do you mean your location needs to be nice to bring recruits in (i.e. weather) or that you need to be in an area relatively close to good recruiting states? i.e. a place right next to Texas

 

If it's the first one, I think that is a very over-dramatized belief. Nebraska would recruit great 3 and 4 star guys from across the country, get em to come to Lincoln, and kick the a$$ of teams with 5 star recruits all over the place.

 

If it's the second one, idk if I agree or disagree, cause most kids just wanna play football and go to school for free. Washington used to be a nice little powerhouse but they have horrible geographic location.

 

That's just how I think about it at least.

 

I am talking about being near where the recruits are. A lot of kids do not want to go too far away, or have very high views of local powers. UT comes to mind. ALso, a lot of Southern Kids, especially from the deep south, won't leave it. Go look at rivals if you do not believe me. They may roll over to Texas or Mississippi, but Louisiana kids don't roll of to Minnesota very often. I am not saying you cannot get any kids at a place like Nebraska, but I would say if you took 2 Nebraska clone programs, but one was in Texas, it would get better recruits on average, all else being equal, due to location.

 

Also, what is wrong with Washington? It is right in Seattle, they are in the Pac 10, and a lot of those big Samoan kids like to play on the West Coast as well (no idea why that is, but it seems true anyway), It is a decent sized state, etc. It is not like USC or something, but it is a pretty decent sized state and they do not even get snow...

 

Good points.

 

As to your second paragraph, I would comment by reverting to your first. Most talent (maybe not most, but a majority) comes from the south, southeast, and the West Coast (mainly a place like California). Washington is a pretty far place for recruits to go. Even if it is next to Seattle, I think it hurts their recruiting a bit more than other places.

 

And as to whoever commented about the coaching staff (too lazy to look), you are absolutely right. Recruiting ain't crap if you don't have the ability to coach it (hey-o Callahan).