Deadspin: "Changing Conferences Doesn't Affect College Football Success"

[StrayDawg]

Yes, well ... wins and losses is kind of the point of sports.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating here -- the relationship between athletic budget and winning is not a straight line into infinity. Rather, it's an incline on the lower end that flattens into a plateau as budget increases. Regardless of the level of facilities, salaries, marketing, etc, there remains a finite amount of wins available in any given sport in any given season. Thus, there MUST come a level of spending at which each additional dollar (or million) invested will accomplish less than the one before it. The institutions that invest hundreds of millions in their athletic budgets are only winding up with a incremental increase in wins.

Lets say University of X spends an average of $20MM per year on its football budget for 10 years. At the end of 10 years, they've averaged 7.5 wins per year. They had two conference championships, 7 bowl games, and finished one year in the Top 25. Not a stellar decade, by any stretch, but still a moderately successful program.

Now take Y State ... they spend $100MM per year on football. At the end of 10 years, they've averaged 9.5 wins per year. They had 4 conference championship, 9 bowl games, lost in one NC game, and never left the top 25 for most of the decade.

Clearly Y State is going to be nationally recognized a perennial football power. And XU is seen as a nice little school that sometimes has a good year and makes some noise.

But if the point of football is to get wins .... which one got the stronger return on investment?

Those are fair points, but the money offers the chance to win more consistently. If XU has a winning season because of a great coaching staff, but then has that entire staff hired away by Y State, then their future chances are diminished. Louisiana Tech is a great example. We won with Crowton, and he got hired away. We lost with Bicknell and nobody wanted him, so we can afford to keep him. We won with Dykes and he got hired away. In basketball, we won with Andy Russo, and he got hired away. We won with Tommy Joe Eagles and he got hired away for a paltry sum. We are winning with Mike White, but last year he almost got hired away. Duke wins consistently because they pay Coach K and don't let him get hired away by another program. That's true in all "power 5" schools, and it's how some programs win consistently.

Baylor is another good example. Texas flirted with Briles this offseason, but Baylor kept him. There is no way in hell that would have happened 20 years ago, but BCS money allowed them to not only keep their coach, but to build a nice new football stadium in a prime location.

When Dooley was here, Damaris Johnson was deciding between Tech and Tulsa. He chose Tulsa and told Dooley, "Coach, they just have more stuff," when referring to Tulsa's facilities. Having those facilities helps recruit players like Johnson who, in turn, help win games. Damaris Johnson is in his 3rd NFL season.

Regarding the "cash cow" issue, Forbes has said that Nick Saban is actually underpaid based on the money that he has brought into the school. From a quick search, here is one link to a Forbes writer saying as much.

http://ferrall.radio.cbssports.com/2...th-to-alabama/

There are a lot of articles out there that talk about the value of athletics to a university, but you get the idea. Success in athletics, and the money that comes from that success, benefits other parts of the university. When Boise beat OU in the Fiesta Bowl in 2006, their applications for admission increased by 30% the next fall. Many times on BB&B, someone has said that athletics is the window to the university. I'd say it's the marketing program. I live in Las Vegas, and have several friends who went to former WAC schools. When they would play each other, none of us ever said, "Hey man, Tech has a better math program than Fresno." Athletics is the thing that keeps selling my university to me, and keeps me interested in how things are going.

Of course, the BCS (and now the playoff) is a self fulfilling prophecy. If you are in a BCS conference, then you will make huge money no matter how horrible your teams are. That money keeps programs relevant and helps them avoid wandering in the wilderness for years, like we did between Crowton and Dykes. But, that money and exposure brought about by having the money to win consistently, helps universities in many other ways.

[champion110]

Those are fair points, but the money offers the chance to win more consistently. If XU has a winning season because of a great coaching staff, but then has that entire staff hired away by Y State, then their future chances are diminished. Louisiana Tech is a great example. We won with Crowton, and he got hired away. We lost with Bicknell and nobody wanted him, so we can afford to keep him. We won with Dykes and he got hired away. In basketball, we won with Andy Russo, and he got hired away. We won with Tommy Joe Eagles and he got hired away for a paltry sum. We are winning with Mike White, but last year he almost got hired away. Duke wins consistently because they pay Coach K and don't let him get hired away by another program. That's true in all "power 5" schools, and it's how some programs win consistently.

Baylor is another good example. Texas flirted with Briles this offseason, but Baylor kept him. There is no way in hell that would have happened 20 years ago, but BCS money allowed them to not only keep their coach, but to build a nice new football stadium in a prime location.

When Dooley was here, Damaris Johnson was deciding between Tech and Tulsa. He chose Tulsa and told Dooley, "Coach, they just have more stuff," when referring to Tulsa's facilities. Having those facilities helps recruit players like Johnson who, in turn, help win games. Damaris Johnson is in his 3rd NFL season.

Regarding the "cash cow" issue, Forbes has said that Nick Saban is actually underpaid based on the money that he has brought into the school. From a quick search, here is one link to a Forbes writer saying as much.

http://ferrall.radio.cbssports.com/2...th-to-alabama/

There are a lot of articles out there that talk about the value of athletics to a university, but you get the idea. Success in athletics, and the money that comes from that success, benefits other parts of the university. When Boise beat OU in the Fiesta Bowl in 2006, their applications for admission increased by 30% the next fall. Many times on BB&B, someone has said that athletics is the window to the university. I'd say it's the marketing program. I live in Las Vegas, and have several friends who went to former WAC schools. When they would play each other, none of us ever said, "Hey man, Tech has a better math program than Fresno." Athletics is the thing that keeps selling my university to me, and keeps me interested in how things are going.

Of course, the BCS (and now the playoff) is a self fulfilling prophecy. If you are in a BCS conference, then you will make huge money no matter how horrible your teams are. That money keeps programs relevant and helps them avoid wandering in the wilderness for years, like we did between Crowton and Dykes. But, that money and exposure brought about by having the money to win consistently, helps universities in many other ways.

Excellent post.....

[Champ967]

Excellent post.....

Indeed.

Listen, I don't refute that more money is the key ingredient to more success. My point remains that there comes a level at which doubling the the athletic budget ceases to double the athletic success.

Now will doubling the athletic budget result in other tangible benefits to the university, wins and losses notwithstanding? Maybe ... but that's a pretty value-laden question, and likely a fairly complicated thing to measure. We can all speculate as to how a school has gained prestige or academic success by virtue of its excellent football (ie. Flutie effect), but the evidence for that phenomenon remains anecdotal. Moreover, correlation is not causality. How do we know that applications to Boise State wouldn't have jumped without their Fiesta Bowl appearance? We can't say for sure. Plenty of schools have decades of athletic futility, yet maintain historical levels of prestige and academic success, and even grow their enrollment in spite of their bad sports teams.

[StrayDawg]

Listen, I don't refute that more money is the key ingredient to more success. My point remains that there comes a level at which doubling the the athletic budget ceases to double the athletic success.

I completely agree with that, and I don't ever think that an athletic program should be funded a such a level that it hurts the rest of the university. My gripe with the Deadspin article is that they talked about teams changing conferences without mentioning money, which is the main reason teams change conference to begin with.

On the other hand, I would love to see what La. Tech could do with a decade's worth of BCS checks.

[Bigdog13]

The WAC we were in was much better competitively than the current conference USA. It seems as soon as we join a conference all the better schools leave (including the WAC notice TCU, Tulsa, SMU, Rice etc.) Now C-USA and ECU, Houston, Tulane, SMU (again). The AAC is essentially the old C-USA and the Mountain is the old WAC from way back(less Arizona and Arizona State). So with all the shuffling we're (everybody) all back to where we started in about 2000. TCU is back in the old SWC/Big12. SMU is hanging in there with UH and Tulsa. The biggesyt gainers have been TCU (Big 12), Utah (PAC 12), Lousiville (ACC), Rutgers (B1G) and all the guys that went from the Old Big East to the ACC (Miami, BC, Va. Tech. and Syracuse) Maryland may or may not be a lateral move. We, La Tech have simply went from being Independent to a glorified Belch (sorry guys that's my opinion of the depleted Conference USA). As a real Div 1 school we never were in any conference unless we were we Div 1 in the Big West.

So my conclusion is "the more things change, the more they remain the same."

You can call it a glorified Belt, but the Belt never, had TV, Exposure, Bowls, and Revenue anywhere near what we have in CUSA. Not only that, but the non Football Sports are better than the Belt by a country mile. The rest of the posts go over how important the money is so I don't need to go I to that anymore. If you are basing your glorified Belt comment on CUSA's recent football success alone, I would say you are being incredibly shortsighted, or maybe not shortsighted but tunnel visioning on Football OOC Records so much that you don't see the massive gap between the two conferences that exists everywhere else.

[HogDawg]

Indeed.

Listen, I don't refute that more money is the key ingredient to more success. My point remains that there comes a level at which doubling the the athletic budget ceases to double the athletic success.

Now will doubling the athletic budget result in other tangible benefits to the university, wins and losses notwithstanding? Maybe ... but that's a pretty value-laden question, and likely a fairly complicated thing to measure. We can all speculate as to how a school has gained prestige or academic success by virtue of its excellent football (ie. Flutie effect), but the evidence for that phenomenon remains anecdotal. Moreover, correlation is not causality. How do we know that applications to Boise State wouldn't have jumped without their Fiesta Bowl appearance? We can't say for sure. Plenty of schools have decades of athletic futility, yet maintain historical levels of prestige and academic success, and even grow their enrollment in spite of their bad sports teams.

I respectfully disagree with the evidence being only "anecdotal". Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim. In this case the evidence is more scientific, and can be tied back to direct results. There are a ton of great examples of universities benefiting tremendously from athletic success on the field/court. It happens almost every year now. That's whey we have so many FCS programs trying to move up and get into the FBC game.

Besides Boise St back in 2006, there was Baylor and the "RGIII" effect in 2009-2011. TX A&M certainly benefited from moving to the SEC and from Johnny football. Look at Louisville, the real UL :icon_wink: : The Cards LOST to LA Tech back in the 1977 Independence Bowl, when almost no one in north Louisiana had even heard of them. But, after 3 NC's on the basketball court, countless Final Four appearances, and a football program with reasonable NC hopes each year, Louisville is now in the ACC. Don't you think Louisville's association with UVA, UNC-Chapel Hill, Duke, etc....will ultimately enhance Louisville's academic reputation? Of course it will. It's only a matter of time.

How about Rutgers and Maryland ? Don't you think they will both benefit academically and experience an increase in prestige from playing athletics in the Big Ten? Of course they will.

These are just a hand full of notable examples. There are dozens of other examples. The list goes on and on. But I'm sure you get the point.

[HogDawg]

Indeed.

Listen, I don't refute that more money is the key ingredient to more success. My point remains that there comes a level at which doubling the the athletic budget ceases to double the athletic success.

I don't think any reasonable person disputes that. It's called "the point of diminishing returns". It's scientific as well.

[Houston Techsan]

It is a glorified belch. I am basing my comment partially on the fact that there are so many former Belch members (WKU, Middle Tennessee and NTU and maybe more(I don't kow about those Florida schools). And yes it is football. Isn't that what the whole discussion has been about - money. How much money does women's tennis or bowling bring in? ODU is just barely FBS. It is better than the belch but is not a real step up from where we were in the WAC - except for travel. But other than that you missed my point. My point was really how every time we try to step up to a perceived "better conference" the better teams in that conference move out either before we get there or immediately after. My comments are still correct -- the American Athletic is essentially the old C-USA and the Mountain West is essentially the old WAC. I am not being short sighted but very long sighted as I have been following this changing scenario for over 40 years and it keeps repeating itself - starting with the move from the GSC to the Southland back in Div II.

[JuBru]

Maryland and Rutgers are considered Public Ivy universities and are part of AAU. Can't really get higher academic rep than that.

They're athletic rep could improve, if the B1G ever stops sucking.

[champion110]

Indeed.

Listen, I don't refute that more money is the key ingredient to more success. My point remains that there comes a level at which doubling the the athletic budget ceases to double the athletic success.

Now will doubling the athletic budget result in other tangible benefits to the university, wins and losses notwithstanding? Maybe ... but that's a pretty value-laden question, and likely a fairly complicated thing to measure. We can all speculate as to how a school has gained prestige or academic success by virtue of its excellent football (ie. Flutie effect), but the evidence for that phenomenon remains anecdotal. Moreover, correlation is not causality. How do we know that applications to Boise State wouldn't have jumped without their Fiesta Bowl appearance? We can't say for sure. Plenty of schools have decades of athletic futility, yet maintain historical levels of prestige and academic success, and even grow their enrollment in spite of their bad sports teams.

I don't disagree with you at all. There are some ways to measure the success of marketing (and that is, actually, what we are discussing). All of those ways are fairly complicated and need true research to conduct - in order to get objective results and not just anecdotal. My belief is that B5 conferences bring in a LOT of money and that brings in facility upgrades, DRAMATICALLY improves your viewership nationally and name recognition, and can purchase a great coach. That, in turn, helps recruiting and building a fan base in numerous ways. TCU is the latest example of that.

Now, if it turns into wins on the field is a different story. The good part is that you can afford to switch out that coach easily, if it isn't working. Ask University of Texas if it translates to winning, though. They can't seem to get it together on the field and they are one of the wealthiest public universities in the country. The competition is different, though. You are now competing against other programs with the same amount of money or more. Right now, we are competing against the B5 programs with much less money, less fans, and less facilities.

The "little fish in a big pond" or "mid-size fish in a big pond" or "big fish in a big pond" comes to mind. We are the little one in a big pond, if we want to be a regular top 25 team. No amount of money can buy that, but it sure helps your chances.

I am into the marketing angle, though. Seen and be seen! That is what B5 money gets you very quickly.

[dawg80]

It is a glorified belch. I am basing my comment partially on the fact that there are so many former Belch members (WKU, Middle Tennessee and NTU and maybe more(I don't kow about those Florida schools). And yes it is football. Isn't that what the whole discussion has been about - money. How much money does women's tennis or bowling bring in? ODU is just barely FBS. It is better than the belch but is not a real step up from where we were in the WAC - except for travel. But other than that you missed my point. My point was really how every time we try to step up to a perceived "better conference" the better teams in that conference move out either before we get there or immediately after. My comments are still correct -- the American Athletic is essentially the old C-USA and the Mountain West is essentially the old WAC. I am not being short sighted but very long sighted as I have been following this changing scenario for over 40 years and it keeps repeating itself - starting with the move from the GSC to the Southland back in Div II.

True.

But, what can we do except keep pursuing better surroundings. The WAC we joined in 2001 is the best conference Tech has ever belonged to. Then, it unraveled. Then when the WAC died, CUSA was our only real choice. So, here we are, as you say, effectively back at square one. Gotta keep trying.

"It's not how hard you can hit. It's how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward." - Rocky Balboa

[Champ967]

I respectfully disagree with the evidence being only "anecdotal". Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim. In this case the evidence is more scientific, and can be tied back to direct results. There are a ton of great examples of universities benefiting tremendously from athletic success on the field/court. It happens almost every year now. That's whey we have so many FCS programs trying to move up and get into the FBC game.

Besides Boise St back in 2006, there was Baylor and the "RGIII" effect in 2009-2011. TX A&M certainly benefited from moving to the SEC and from Johnny football. Look at Louisville, the real UL :icon_wink: : The Cards LOST to LA Tech back in the 1977 Independence Bowl, when almost no one in north Louisiana had even heard of them. But, after 3 NC's on the basketball court, countless Final Four appearances, and a football program with reasonable NC hopes each year, Louisville is now in the ACC. Don't you think Louisville's association with UVA, UNC-Chapel Hill, Duke, etc....will ultimately enhance Louisville's academic reputation? Of course it will. It's only a matter of time.

How about Rutgers and Maryland ? Don't you think they will both benefit academically and experience an increase in prestige from playing athletics in the Big Ten? Of course they will.

These are just a hand full of notable examples. There are dozens of other examples. The list goes on and on. But I'm sure you get the point.

Those are some examples that happen to fit the theory, but they don't control for other variables. Plenty of schools enhance their profile without athletic success. How do we know that what actually drives the increase in applications isn't apartment style student housing? Or a campus Pepsi contract? Or advanced course offerings in applied goat snuggling?

But the sports media doesn't pick up on those things, so sports fans don't hear about them. Instead we only hear about schools who've had athletic success and concurrent or subsequent overall success, and we assume that one caused the other.

[HogDawg]

Those are some examples that happen to fit the theory, but they don't control for other variables. Plenty of schools enhance their profile without athletic success. How do we know that what actually drives the increase in applications isn't apartment style student housing? Or a campus Pepsi contract? Or advanced course offerings in applied goat snuggling?

But the sports media doesn't pick up on those things, so sports fans don't hear about them. Instead we only hear about schools who've had athletic success and concurrent or subsequent overall success, and we assume that one caused the other.

No one claimed that improved athletic success was the ONLY way to enhance a schools profile, but rather that it was certainly a successful way to do it. And I don't believe that point is debatable. And speaking only for myself, I would further argue that the success rate for improving a schools "profile" and reputation is HIGHER with a much improved and well funded athletic department versus any other methodology, short of downright huge philanthropic donations. And in that scenario, the argument is the same: It still comes down to money.

Your last sentence is certainly true. Even though Emory University has an excellent academic reputation, it doesn't get near the publicity that Marshall will get because it doesn't have a big athletic department.

[inudesu]

It is better than the belch but is not a real step up from where we were in the WAC - except for travel.

This is like saying that gold is no better than lead except for the shininess.

And just as incomplete. Because you left out the part about the better bowl picture, the higher conference payouts, and the tv deal.

And the part about where our former WAC-mates Idaho, NMSU, and USU came to us from.

[Champ967]

I'd just like to point out that this week's new consensus #1 college football program isn't ranked among the top 50 athletic budgets.