Started By
Message
re: 247 List of Top Jobs in College FB
Posted on 2/21/17 at 1:22 pm to Sunbeam
Posted on 2/21/17 at 1:22 pm to Sunbeam
Just another post to make Boomer feel like a dissapointment to his father
OU total staff pay 2016= $9,940,900
LSU total staff pay 2016 $10,167,067
OU 2016 Rev and Profit= $134,269,349 & $11,252,098
LSU 2016 Rev and Profit $138,642,237 & $16,694,462
OU Stadium- Capacity 82,212
LSU stadium- Capacity 102,321
weight room
locker room
quote:
OU pays more
OU total staff pay 2016= $9,940,900
LSU total staff pay 2016 $10,167,067
quote:
OU makes more
OU 2016 Rev and Profit= $134,269,349 & $11,252,098
LSU 2016 Rev and Profit $138,642,237 & $16,694,462
quote:
also as of right now OU has better facilities
OU Stadium- Capacity 82,212
LSU stadium- Capacity 102,321
weight room
locker room
2
Posted on 2/21/17 at 1:32 pm to bamasgot13
quote:
Bama may share a state with AU, but with the TOP talent in this state - those that end up in NFL - Bama wins more than 51% of that talent.
Actually its less than 51% if you look at players on current NFL rosters. There are 60 current NFL players (2016 rosters) that were born in Alabama. 19 of those played at Alabama (31.7%). 12 of those played at Auburn (20%). The others played elsewhere.
But again, those numbers show the same thing: Alabama is the dominant power in their state. But Auburn is enough of a threat to secure in-state talent, that to me that makes Alabama a little bit less attractive of a job compared to some of the other big schools who don't have as much of an in-state threat when it comes to that category. Alabama makes up for it in other areas, but having that in-state threat does need to be factored. It can't be ignored and treated irrelevant.
You think Ohio deals with an in-state threat that potentially takes 1/3 kids on their in-state radar? Absolutely not.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 1:59 pm to OilfieldLSUFan
That list has AIDS. TCU on there 
Posted on 2/21/17 at 1:59 pm to BHMKyle
And Alabama hasn't signed a class with more than 50% coming from in-state since 2008. Yet has dominated the recruiting landscape, both regionally and nationally.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 2:10 pm to lsupride87
LSU is a better job than Oklahoma based on recruiting blueprint alone. LSU is a top 3 job waiting for the right pieces to fall in place. I'd personally have them at #2.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 2:19 pm to Iron Lion
quote:
How are Clemson and Oklahoma better jobs than LSU?
Clemson and OU don't have to beat Alabama to win their division each year. You can have a great year in the SEC West but odds are you still won't be playing for the SEC title because Bama/Saban keep on rolling along. After Saban retires the West should get a little more competitive - not saying Bama still won't win but the gap will shrink.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 2:54 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
When you factor in that there are fewer big name programs within striking distance of Ohio (compared to Georgia with Alabama, Auburn, FSU, UF, Clemson, etc. all right next door), then you could probably say that Ohio State has better access to talent than Georgia does.... certainly they have more than LSU does.
Georgia produces over 120 more FBS scholarships kids than Ohio and there still are traditional powers that poach the state (not as many as Ga)but ND,Michigan,MSU,PSU,UT still go recruit the area.
Ohio also has several other D1 in state schools (about 6 I believe)that can still get an overlooked kid that might wind up in the NFL.
And where was OSU between '68 and '02 if they had access to all this talent?
And to use the NFL as your only yardstick when measuring in state talent only gives about 1/2 the equation.
quote:
the more talent inside the state, the better the elite program has performed over the past 17 seasons.
.
So now its only the last "17 years"???
quote:
California- 187
Texas- 160
Ohio- 80
Alabama- 60
Oklahoma- 16
Why are you even taking an average to justify your statement?It makes absolutley no sense.
I can do the exact same with Florida,Georgia,Lousiana and New Jersey
They're cumlative average as at 100 as well yet no state has the traditional rankings of a USC,OSU,Oklahoma or even ND.
quote:
Why is that? Oh I see, no talent in their state. Gotcha.
WHEN were the EVER a hot bed for HS talent?
And why do you use NFL talent has your only measuring stick?Pleanty of 2 and 3 year starters at SEC and other P5 schools that were 4 and sometimes 5 star guys that never make it in the NFL.
Point is,you can have access to talent and you might be good by accident but if you don't have the correct administration,alumni support and right AD in place it won't lead to sustained success.
Look at LSU the last 5 years,Texas the last 8,UF post Meyer,Miami post '02,Texas A&M or even UCLA.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 3:02 pm to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
And Alabama hasn't signed a class with more than 50% coming from in-state since 2008. Yet has dominated the recruiting landscape, both regionally and nationally.
No one has said otherwise.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:04 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
Georgia produces over 120 more FBS scholarships kids than Ohio
High school football is a bigger deal in Georgia. Plus the weather causes more kids to pick other sports up north. But when it comes to talent that eventually reaches the NFL, Ohio is a Top 5 state.
quote:
but ND,Michigan,MSU,PSU,UT still go recruit the area.
Yes, but let's be real. Michigan State is not going to come into Ohio and steal many recruits away from Ohio State. They've never been at that level in recruiting. Notre Dame, Penn State, and Tennessee might have been there at some point, but they aren't there now... and haven't been for awhile.
Georgia has to contend with:
Clemson (2016 Champs; 2015 #2)
Alabama (2009, '11, '12, '15 Champs; 2016 #2)
Auburn (2010 Champs; 2013 #2)
Florida (2006, '08 Champs)
Florida State (2013 Champs)
... all in bordering states. Plus Tennessee is closer to Athens than Columbus, so add them as a threat as well.
All I'm saying is that whatever the increased level of talent that Georgia has instate compared to Ohio is made completely irrelevant (or becomes a comparative disadvantage) once you factor in how close (and how strong) the nearby competition is.
quote:
And where was OSU between '68 and '02 if they had access to all this talent?
In the 33 seasons between those two National Titles, Ohio State ranked #7 in the country in AP Points... finishing in the AP Top 5 on eight separate occasions. I'd say they were pretty strong.
But then again, that can be explained because they were in a hotbed of talent at that time.... even more so than now. In the '70s and the '80s, the South was more sparsely populated than it is now. And it certainly was compared to the North. Ohio State had a major recruiting advantage in those days.
quote:
So now its only the last "17 years"???
Been saying, "since 2000" from the very beginning. Not my fault you just realized how many years that is.
quote:
Why are you even taking an average to justify your statement?It makes absolutley no sense.
Makes perfect sense. But then again, if the facts are facts, you can prove it anyway you want. How about take the ten traditional elite powers and list out how many NFL players those states produce. They'll range from #1 California (home of USC) at #1 down to Nebraska down at #10.
Next take how many AP Poll points those programs averaged from 1936-1999 per year. And compare it to how they've performed in the AP Poll from 2000-2016. Here are how they rank in terms of how they've performed in the new century compared to the previous one:
1. Ohio State
2. Oklahoma
3. USC
4. Texas
5. Alabama
6. Penn Statate
7. Michigan
8. Tennessee
9. Nebraska
10. Notre Dame
The Top 5 have all been better since 2000 than they were in the 1900s. The bottom five have all declined.
Four of those Top 5 just so happen to be located in the Top 5 of states for NFL players.
Four of those Bottom 5 just so happen to be located in the Bottom 5 states for NFL players. Amazing how that happened.
Oklahoma is the only outlier. Their state ranks 8th of those 10 for NFL players. Yet they've performed the 2nd best in the new century relative to the last one.
All of the other 9 are within 2 spots (ranking-wise) on both lists: Listing 1-10 of those states for producing NFL players and 1-10 of those schools for improvement in the new century.
Again, 9 out of 10 is no coincidence. It proves my point to be true.
quote:
WHEN were the EVER a hot bed for HS talent?
Before integration in the South, there was not nearly as large of a gap. Back in those days, it was the white kids of the South playing the white kids of Nebraska. As African Americans became more prominent in college football, Nebraska began to see itself at a competitive disadvantage. It wasn't really until the 1980s that schools began scouring the inner cities for amazing African American athletes (which is why Miami came to prominence). Soon most all the big schools in the South began doing that.
But in the 1960s and 1970s, college football was much "whiter." Which meant there wasn't much of a difference between Nebraska and everyone else. That's not the case today.
quote:
And why do you use NFL talent has your only measuring stick?Pleanty of 2 and 3 year starters at SEC and other P5 schools that were 4 and sometimes 5 star guys that never make it in the NFL.
Because the recruiting sights cater to kids in the South and in areas that hold camps. How is it that Wisconsin finishes Top 25 every single season, yet they never finish even in the Top 40 in recruiting?... because those kids fly under the radar. They are not rated highly in the recruiting rankings, but they have just as much or more talent than a lot of the 4-star kids in the South who go to all the camps. The NFL doesn't favor one region compared to the others. If you play football in college and have the ability to play in the NFL, you'll get your shot. There are tons of kids with 4 and 5-star talent that never get a look from the recruiting services.
quote:
Point is,you can have access to talent and you might be good by accident but if you don't have the correct administration,alumni support and right AD in place it won't lead to sustained success.
No one ever said those things weren't also factors. But I can tell you this: You can have idiots running the Athletic Department (case in point Joe Aleva at LSU and even Jay Jacobs at Auburn) and still produce Top 25 teams consistently if are surrounded by top notch players you can consistently enroll in the program.
And then you can have an A.D. and booster who spend hundreds of millions of dollars (like at Oregon and Oklahoma State) towards improving facilities. It can and does bring success. But its far less likely that THAT method of gaining success stays constant compared to those programs who win because they have talented kids.
Recruiting is #1. And the easiest way to recruit is to be located close to the kids you want to sign.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:50 pm to lsupride87
That's not the new locker room or weight room. Also those figures don't include any staff bonuses that would put OUs staff pay over 11 mil.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:52 pm to Sunbeam
quote:
But my impression is that the rest of the Big 10 recruits Ohio harder than your neighbors recruit Georgia.
Ohio State gets nearly any Ohio kid that they really want. Sure there are aberrations but for the most part it's true.
quote:
Plus the nationally recruiting schools hit Ohio hard too (I think it is easier to get a kid from Ohio to truck across the country than a kid from Georgia).
How many top Ohio kids have gone to Georgia recently and how many top Georgia kids have gone to Ohio State recently?
Ohio State, like Alabama and a few others is a national recruiting power. There are few schools that can make that statement.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:55 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
High school football is a bigger deal in Georgia
No, it isn't. Ohio is as football crazed as any state in the country.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:59 pm to VABuckeye
quote:
How many top Ohio kids have gone to Georgia recently and how many top Georgia kids have gone to Ohio State recently?
Georgia is pretty close to a national recruiting power. They just don't have to. It's usually a waste of resources.
2017
- #16 player in America from Brooklyn, NY
- #33 player in America from Philadelphia, PA
- #134 player in America from Warminster, PA
2016
- #5 player in America from Lake Stevens, WA
Posted on 2/21/17 at 5:00 pm to VABuckeye
quote:
No, it isn't. Ohio is as football crazed as any state in the country.
His statement might apply to south GA but certainly not overall.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 5:09 pm to Boomer00
DC: $1.8M vs $850K
OC: $1.5M vs $500K (I'm surprised they underpay Riley so much)
Just comparing the head coaches and coordinators, LSU's are paid more. If you add in the position coaches and GA's and shadow staff, its not even close.
OC: $1.5M vs $500K (I'm surprised they underpay Riley so much)
Just comparing the head coaches and coordinators, LSU's are paid more. If you add in the position coaches and GA's and shadow staff, its not even close.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 5:18 pm to OilfieldLSUFan
"LSU has top 5 recruiting classes most years, the best DC in the country, and the best available OC. They held 2016 Bama to the teams lowest scoring game of the season."
"LOL LSU COULD NEVER BEAT BAMA" - Bama
ok bruh
"LOL LSU COULD NEVER BEAT BAMA" - Bama
ok bruhPosted on 2/21/17 at 5:22 pm to Triple Daves
quote:
Georgia is pretty close to a national recruiting power. They just don't have to. It's usually a waste of resources.
Ohio State pulled eight top 50 players from out of state. Georgia got two. Big difference there.
As a comparison Alabama got six top 50 players from out of state.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 5:29 pm to VABuckeye
In order of "has to recruit out of state"
Ohio
Alabama
Georgia
Ohio
Alabama
Georgia
Posted on 2/21/17 at 5:31 pm to VABuckeye
quote:
Ohio State pulled eight top 50 players from out of state. Georgia got two. Big difference there.
The state of Georgia had 3 five-stars and 15 top 150 players (6 top 50 players)
The state of Alabama had 1 five-star and 6 top 150 players (1 top 50 player)
The state of Ohio had 0 five-stars and 2 top 150 players (0 top 50 players)
Like I said, leaving the state (plus Florida) except for special reasons isn't necessary for Georgia. And when they did, they signed the #16 and #33 players in the country from New York and Pennsylvania and the #5 player in America the year before from Washington.
They are capable of it, they just don't need to waste their time and effort doing it. If they lock down the state and sign 75% of the Top 150 kids they sign a Top 3 class every year.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 5:37 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 5:32 pm to Boomer00
quote:dude
That's not the new locker room or weight room. Also those figures don't include any staff bonuses that would put OUs staff pay over 11 mil.
You think your staff is the only one with bonuses?
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News