Started By
Message
Posted on 6/10/16 at 7:59 am to djsdawg
I know recruiting budgets dont tell the whole story but the USA today study that lookrd at recruiting budgets from 09-13 shows that UGA averaged 581k (recruiting expenses) during that time. 6 SEC team alone spent more. Some OOC programs did too, for example GT=745K, Iowa St. 584K, Neb=818K, Illinois= 791K. My argument is that OL are the most expensive to identify/ find. The budget "may" have contributed was my only point.
Posted on 6/10/16 at 8:11 am to Bleudawg
quote:
I know recruiting budgets dont tell the whole story but the USA today study that lookrd at recruiting budgets from 09-13 shows that UGA averaged 581k (recruiting expenses) during that time. 6 SEC team alone spent more. Some OOC programs did too, for example GT=745K, Iowa St. 584K, Neb=818K, Illinois= 791K. My argument is that OL are the most expensive to identify/ find. The budget "may" have contributed was my only point.
That's mostly because UGA doesn't need to travel so much to recruit.
Posted on 6/10/16 at 8:26 am to Crowknowsbest
We needed more support staff (which we have now). Im assuming they come out of that budget. Is that correct?
Posted on 6/10/16 at 8:33 am to Bleudawg
quote:
Im assuming they come out of that budget. Is that correct?
Don't think so. I think that's mostly just transportation, hotels, official visits, etc.
Posted on 6/10/16 at 8:37 am to Bleudawg
No support staff is a different staff budget because they're not just breaking down recruit film. Recruiting takes into account actual recruiting staff, travel expenses for recruiting, resources needed for OVs (meals, lodging, activities), camps, etc
And the largest expense in all of that is likely the travel dollars. Renting a helicopter or private plane and keeping the thing fueled is costly. Unless of course there are a booster or two that have their own planes and choppers they're willing to lend at no expense to athletics, in which case those costs don't show up on that USA Today study.
That's all to say that this figures are just what the school spends and doesn't take into account anything being provided for free in the background
And the largest expense in all of that is likely the travel dollars. Renting a helicopter or private plane and keeping the thing fueled is costly. Unless of course there are a booster or two that have their own planes and choppers they're willing to lend at no expense to athletics, in which case those costs don't show up on that USA Today study.
That's all to say that this figures are just what the school spends and doesn't take into account anything being provided for free in the background
This post was edited on 6/10/16 at 8:40 am
Posted on 6/10/16 at 8:41 am to tylerdurden24
This post was edited on 6/10/16 at 10:47 am
Posted on 6/10/16 at 8:41 am to tylerdurden24
thanks Cowboy. I still cant believe we spent less than GT. shite we could have found something to spend it on.
Posted on 6/10/16 at 8:46 am to tylerdurden24
thanks Cowboy. I still cant believe we spent less than GT. shite we could have found something to spend it on. 

Posted on 6/10/16 at 8:47 am to tylerdurden24
been missin ya on the other site btw
This post was edited on 6/10/16 at 8:48 am
Posted on 6/10/16 at 8:49 am to Bleudawg
While we as fans are constantly engaging in dick measuring contests with other fan bases, keep in mind that the goal of a business like UGA athletics is not to win the immediate sprint of who can have a flashier numbers sheet but who can own the long term race of getting the most by spending the least. UGA does what it does because mcgarity learned from foley who has been the master of maximizing results without having to spend much on facilities upgrades and so on. The problem of course is that mcgarity doesn't seem to have Foley's hiring acumen and is only now realizing that he has to appease the donors in other ways, by keeping up with the joneses in building bigger and flashier facilities. But unless you want to end up like Tennessee or auburn, you still have to figure out how to maximize your dollar. Honestly, I think South Carolina has quietly done the best job of any SEC school at building and upgrading ther facilities. They upgraded all around Williams Brice, built new tailgating grounds, built an IPF, colonial life arena is top notch, and founders park may be the nicest college baseball stadium in the country. If they could actually hire a decent FB coach, they'd be pretty formidable as a rival athletics program
This post was edited on 6/10/16 at 8:53 am
Posted on 6/10/16 at 8:51 am to Bleudawg
I pop in every now and again. The news is slower this time of year and the real world is demanding more and more of my time. Truth be told, I'm probably going to be growing more and more scarce around her as well.
Posted on 6/10/16 at 9:01 am to Crowknowsbest
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/10/16 at 9:05 am
Posted on 6/10/16 at 11:47 am to Bleudawg
quote:
I know recruiting budgets dont tell the whole story but the USA today study that lookrd at recruiting budgets from 09-13 shows that UGA averaged 581k (recruiting expenses) during that time. 6 SEC team alone spent more. Some OOC programs did too, for example GT=745K, Iowa St. 584K, Neb=818K, Illinois= 791K. My argument is that OL are the most expensive to identify/ find. The budget "may" have contributed was my only point.
Unless the story is wrong, Uga spent the 7th most in the nation from 2009-2013. More than uf, Michigan, Clemson, Ohio st, Texas, ou, and Lsu.
It doesn't take a ton of money to ID the best OL. Only isolated diamonds in the rough would be hard to find, but I don't think missing on the 2 and 3 stars was our issue. It was the high profile guys that we clearly struggled with.
Posted on 6/10/16 at 12:36 pm to djsdawg
Guys we are one of the top teams to produce NFL talent, but as you guys have pointed out, it is all about the trenches. Bama's method is recruit more guys, which is what we have been lacking under Richt. Granted Bama does get its share of the top talent at OL, especially the tackle spots, but I think it is changing at UGA. Even the past couple of classes for Richt, showed him getting better Oline talent than what we have been getting. I think Kirby takes it up a notch as well.
Now imagine us with Bama's oline and having Chubb/Michel running through it. Gurley would of set all kinds of record with those lines.
Now imagine us with Bama's oline and having Chubb/Michel running through it. Gurley would of set all kinds of record with those lines.
Posted on 6/10/16 at 12:53 pm to DawgGONIT
quote:
Bama's method is recruit more guys,
Is it? I honestly don't know. In a typical year, how many people does Alabama have on their roster that are offensive linemen? Does anybody know? Surely there isn't that big of a difference from team to team.
It has to be coaching and quality of recruits. I mean, it seems like every recruit they get is a 4* or 5*.
Posted on 6/10/16 at 1:03 pm to DawgGONIT
the article I read in no way says uga was #7 in recruiting budget /spending. I also was not trying to defend / or persecute CMR. I was simply pointing out our Athletic department was being out spent by many. Not sure about the accuracy of the USA today article but its been referenced by many. Yes missing Tunsil sucked and likely EJ will prove to be a big loss. I just dont think we had guys out there finding talent like the others.
This post was edited on 6/10/16 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 6/10/16 at 2:07 pm to Bleudawg
Posted on 6/10/16 at 2:38 pm to djsdawg
Damn, Bama and AU spend almost twice what we do. Imagine if we ramped up our spending. We could start landing top 5 classes instead of top 10.
Posted on 6/10/16 at 2:45 pm to djsdawg
DJS thats a different one (article)...who knows man. Im just a dude in my mothers basement. It was USA today however like the one you posted, Thanks for the link. Either way go Dawgs 

This post was edited on 6/10/16 at 2:57 pm
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
