Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Does Money = Wins?

hawkin

hawkin

Member
Jun 11, 2010
122
5
18
Yes, most of the time.

Here's a interesting article on the subject.

Big-Spending Ohio State Could Change Nickname to Bucks-Eyes -- NCAAFB FanHouse

"Texas has the Big 12's biggest budget, but has only two league titles in the past five seasons. Oklahoma has won the other three. Texas Tech, with the only the league's eighth-biggest budget, has compiled 26 league victories since 2005. Only Texas and Oklahoma have more. Texas A&M's budget is only topped by UT, OU and Nebraska, but the results on the field haven't paid off for the Aggies. A&M has only two winning seasons since 2005 and hasn't won a bowl game since 2001. Oklahoma State may have the biggest booster in college athletics, but T. Boone Pickens' alma mater still ranks above only lowly Baylor for the league's smallest football budget. Big 12's best bang for the buck: Texas Tech. Most financially irresponsible: Iowa State."
 
More money does equal more wins. It may not be a direct correlation, but in general, the more money you have the more wins you will get. Why? Because you have money to keep/buy proven assistants, coordinators and coaches.
 
hawkin said:
Yes, most of the time.

Here's a interesting article on the subject.

Big-Spending Ohio State Could Change Nickname to Bucks-Eyes -- NCAAFB FanHouse

"Texas has the Big 12's biggest budget, but has only two league titles in the past five seasons. Oklahoma has won the other three. Texas Tech, with the only the league's eighth-biggest budget, has compiled 26 league victories since 2005. Only Texas and Oklahoma have more. Texas A&M's budget is only topped by UT, OU and Nebraska, but the results on the field haven't paid off for the Aggies. A&M has only two winning seasons since 2005 and hasn't won a bowl game since 2001. Oklahoma State may have the biggest booster in college athletics, but T. Boone Pickens' alma mater still ranks above only lowly Baylor for the league's smallest football budget. Big 12's best bang for the buck: Texas Tech. Most financially irresponsible: Iowa State."
Click to expand...

Or, how about - Big Ten most financially irresponsible - Iowa - 3rd largest football budget in the nation - I want to know where they got these numbers, some of this seems insane.
 
Here's where he said he got them.

"All of the financial figures are from the U.S. Department of Education's Equity in Athletics report for the 2008-09 school year."
 
hawkin said:
Here's where he said he got them.

"All of the financial figures are from the U.S. Department of Education's Equity in Athletics report for the 2008-09 school year."
Click to expand...

Something still isn't right - UT just did a ridiculous stadium upgrade - Jerry Jones' team finalized their video off of UT's GodzillaTron and the north end zone just got a massive upgrade last year - this may be athletic budget money, but no way does it account for total athletic spend including boosters - T. Boone and OSU are the prime example.
 
More money doesnt necessarily mean more wins, but if you were to have a graph of 'likelihood of x wins, where y would = likelihood, itd probably look similar to a bell curve, who's high point would move towards the right as money increased.
 
alarson said:
More money doesnt necessarily mean more wins, but if you were to have a graph of 'likelihood of x wins, where y would = likelihood, itd probably look similar to a bell curve, who's high point would move towards the right as money increased.
Click to expand...


Money buys the bells and whistles. Coaches use these to recruit. The better the bells and whistles, the better the caliber of player you can attract.

The better the caliber of player that you attract, the more talent you have. The more talent you have, the more you win. That creates a cycle.

Tressel is a perfect example of this. Rarely does he out x and o somebody. He wins because the players that he is able to recruit are better than most of the other schools in the country. Of course playing in the big 10 helps with that.
 
Something that's gotta be taken into consideration is the quality of the local recruiting grounds. Teams with less money and a strong local talent pool have a much higher ability to compete with the rich teams. Texas Tech is a perfect example.
 
Money does not buy wins. Lack of money produces losses. In other words, if the U spends ten million one season and Indiana spends ten million one season, they still aren't on equal footing: geography, population and historic followings are still on the side of Miami. However, if Indiana decides that they can't outspend the U anyhow, and cuts spending to 3 million, they will drop out of relevance.

Money spent buys mindshare and attracts more money. There are a ton of factors that go into wins on the field, and money spent isn't the biggest one.

I wish it were that easy to "buy" wins.
 
If money bought wins, Notre Dame would have played a BCS national championship game by now.

If money bought wins, Auburn shouldn't suck.

If money bought wins, Rutgers should have held Cinncinnati's position in recent years.

If money bought wins, ISU's lucrative Chizik "era" would have been a little better than the 5-19 Express.

Money provides an edge, but far more important is to have skin in the game. The schools that don't spend, don't win. The schools that do spend aren't guaranteed wins by any stretch, but they do give themselves an opportunity to compete for relevance.
 
Miller and Deace were discussing it this morning. Deace wondered if this number included the amount that is being paid for the stadium upgrades. Since both ISU and Iowa recently underwent upgrades and a renovation, it may be possible that those skewed the numbers slightly.
 
Clonehomer said:
Miller and Deace were discussing it this morning. Deace wondered if this number included the amount that is being paid for the stadium upgrades. Since both ISU and Iowa recently underwent upgrades and a renovation, it may be possible that those skewed the numbers slightly.
Click to expand...

Nice catch. It is always hard to compare the straight numbers anyway. It isn't like anyone ever goes "Why did we go 6-6 this year? After all, we spent 1.5 million for next year's stadium parking resurfacing! In advance!"

I also wonder if those expenses include department bowl travel and other expenditures that have no impact whatsoever on on-field performance, but have plenty of impact on the elusive "relevance" factor.
 
Even with all the variables relating to BCS vs. non-BCS conference wins you can still see a fairly strong relationship. For fun I plotted the 2007-2008 Athletic budgets against overall winning pct for all FBS teams. I just used 2007-2008 because that was what I found after a quick google. ISU is right in the middle of the pack, preforming pretty much as you'd expect given our budget.
 
I'm a firm believer that you should obtain the wins first and the money will follow.

How much winning has the Yankees spending sprees brought them over the last decade?
 
RING4CY said:
I'm a firm believer that you should obtain the wins first and the money will follow.

How much winning has the Yankees spending sprees brought them over the last decade?
Click to expand...

Well, we didn't spend a dime on football in the 80's and half of the 90's, how'd that work out for us? You can't attract decent coaches or athletes to a school that refuses to invest in its programs.
 
I don't get the ISU, most financially irresponsible comment. Sure JP has spent some money that was not there, but so have lot of other schools. If his predecessor hadn't let the Cyclones get so far behind everyone else in the conference, then Jamie would not have had to make all these upgrades. If you can take any shots at JP, they are for hiring GMac and Chizik, and he came out of those better than anyone deserved to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back