Why is it that some programs never do good in College Football? For example, schools like Duke, Temple, Rutgers, Vanderbilt, UTEP, and Rice are always bad. Wake Forest, Iowa State, Kentucky, Oklahoma State, California, Stanford, and Washington State are usually bad. I live about an hour from Nashville. I know Vanderbilt, Duke, and Rice's admission standards are higher than Texas, Tennessee, and Florida State. However if Northwestern can go to a bowl game for several seasons then why can't these schools that I have named up above do likewise? Also, why have some schools that used to be real powers are mediocre now? Schools like Notre Dame, Michigan State, Alabama, Georgia, and USC have great traditions, but haven't come close to winning a national championship lately. I know Alabama is fixing to be placed on probation and they may have had reduced scholarships the last couple of years but still what about the others? Georgia, especially, is a frustrating case. They are annually in the Top 20 every year in recruiting, but yet 7 to 8 wins are about the best they can do. They are not even close to surpassing either Florida or Tennessee in the SEC East; however, I think that Mark Richt is as good as anybody in trying to solve the riddle that is Georgia football. Unfortunately, losing to South Carolina at Between the Hedges makes for another disappointing season in Dawg Country.
It's simple man! Duke, Temple, and Rutgers don't pay their players as much as Texas, Tennessee, and Florida State.
I went to Vandy. All I can say is that they play in the SEC. What player would want to play for them over the other SEC teams? Sure it is an excellent education. However, historically Vandy has never been a true powerhouse or a top 10 team. I believe last year a player went in the draft. Other than him, I am not sure who the last person was. At least Vandy has a somewhat decent basketball team. Dan Langhi went to Vandy.
Schools with high academic standards (Duke, Rice, California) are not good in football, but there are exceptions like Northwestern. Private schools (Baylor, Rutgers) are not good in football, but again there are exceptions. Every team you mentioned can have a good year and get to a bowl game, but they will not be able to maintain that level. I don't see Northwestern competing for the Big Ten title every year with Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan. Private schools and schools with high academic standards normally do not have large athletic budgets. It all comes down to money. The universities with large athletic budgets are able to attract the best athletes (Texas, Florida State, Miami). In the Big XII for example, Texas' budget is double maybe even triple the amount spent by Oklahoma State and/or Iowa State. If you were a top recruit, where would you play? College Football is a business to the schools. Public schools with small athletic budgets are not good in football but again there are exceptions (Fresno State). Alabama, USC, Notre Dame etc...are going through a down period, but that will not last for long. These schools have tradition and history and fan support. These schools spend lots of money. It's all about resources in college football.
Vandy has had several players make it into the NFL and start or play a key role. This includes Will Wolford, Jamie Duncan, Shelton Quarles, Corey Chavous, and now Jamie Winborn. As a matter of fact, Vandy has sent more players to the NFL in the last 15 seasons than their basketball team has sent to the NBA ever. It's funny how the teams that are bad in football like Vandy, Duke, and Indiana are always better in basketball. I'm just saying that if Northwestern can do it then why not Vandy?
Agree with you Smokey. However, I think it's more attitude than anything. Northwestern has shown that to be true. Plus if you could put in an offensive system like the spread offense or the wishbone or something that many teams are not used to that can also help. I remember when the Air Force Academy started running the wishbone. Other teams had a tough time stopping them and they went to bowl games. Yes other teams have run the wishbone and not be successful, but IMO, this offense did not play up to that team's strengths well enough. Don't forget that Miami is a private school and for years were a mediocre football team at best. It was only when Schellenberger came in '79 did things change. Once again it was about attitude. The same thing happened at Florida State when Bowden came. I just wonder why the same teams or almost the same teams every year struggle like they do. A lot of it are the reasons you pointed out, but some of it has to be attitude. Vanderbilt may be a hopeless case, though.
It also has something to do with local competition for recruits. Who is Northwestern recruiting against? Illinois. Others? Rice goes up against UT, A&M, Oklahoma, Houston, LSU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Arkansas for the local kids that can qualify. Vanderbilt goes up against Tennessee, Memphis, Arkansas, Mississippi, and the rest of the SEC-- Florida in particular-- for the local kids that can qualify. Duke is head-to-head with Carolina, NC State, ECU, and Wake Forest-- and that's just in-state schools. I do think that Northwestern's willingness to open up the offense and play a gambling, exciting brand of football is a big help, though. Duke's best years in the modern era were with a wide-open passing offense. Oh yeah, and the coach was Steve Spurrier!
Not every school can be good, and good players will tend to go to good schools. Sure, smaller schools will get a few good players here and there, but they can't recruit the quality depth that a Florida State or Michigan can. If you were a stud college player, would you rather go to a school where you had a chance to win a national title and make a name for yourself, or go to a lower-tier school and basically live in mediocrity? On the other hand, it is *possible* for a school to turn that around, but it takes amazing coaching, luck, the right schedule, etc. For example, look at K-State, Oregon, Oregon State, and Northwestern. All were programs just like Vanderbilt, Duke, Temple, and UTEP 10 years ago. <B>Also, why have some schools that used to be real powers are mediocre now? </B> As for this, there can only be so many Top10-tier schools. If you add new powers, you have to eliminate others. Miami, Texas (hopefully), Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, and V-Tech all became Top10 programs in the 3 years or so, meaning 6 old Top10 teams had to get worse by default.
I think attitude has alot to do with it. For example, Kansas State had a horrible football program before Bill Snyder. The Wildcats are in contention for a conference title every year now, and if you also look at their athletic budget, you will see that it has increased to keep up with the Nebraska's and Texas'. Competition for recruits is also a good point. If a athlete wants to stay locally, and is offered a scholarship by both Vanderbilt and Tennessee, 8 out of 10 will sign with the Vols. Again this goes back to resources. Tennessee plays its home games at a stadium with over 100,000 orange fans. Vanderbilt has to look for players who 1) qualify and 2) are willing to pass on scholarships offered by other programs. This is really tough in the Southeast where there are many historical and traditional programs. Vandy just needs to win. Winning in a strong conference like the SEC will bring them exposure, and athletes will be willing to pass up scholarships at other programs to play for a winner. Northwestern has recently been able to hang with the bigger Big Ten schools. Like Rich Rocket said, they probably do have a easier time recruiting their region than Vandy. Also, NW was able to go to the Rose Bowl which has had an after effect on the program bringing in talent. Duke, Indiana, and North Carolina are definitely basketball schools first. Mack Brown left a relatively no pressure job after back to back 10 win seasons to come to Texas. A lot of things went into his decision - recruiting, resources, history etc... It's hard to maintain a high level when you don't have those things. UNC fell really hard after Brown left. NW has been able to develop some of those things and has been successful.
Big wins always mean a lot to programs that are fledgling or have been struggling. A perfect example is my alma mater, Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro. When I was going to school there, MTSU was always one of the top I-AA programs in the country. It was always be between us and Eastern Kentucky in who would win the Ohio Valley Conference. Right as I was graduating with my Bachelor's, there was talk about MTSU moving up to I-A. I, personally, didn't think it was a good move. Other schools that had been successful in I-AA that moved up to I-A were finding it hard to have winning seasons and to attract fans. Schools like Akron, Arkansas State, Northeast Louisiana (now Louisiana-Monroe), and North Texas were all down at the bottom of I-A football. The only I-AA school that has consistently done well in I-A has been Marshall. So when MTSU decided to do this, I thought, "Great, my alma mater is going to be a laughingstock." Most of the fans felt like this, too, because MTSU wasn't having the crowds that they thought they would have. Then they won 6 games last year and now they are in a conference that has ties with a bowl game. However, MTSU still had not gotten that breakthrough win. That all changed when they beat ironically enough, Vanderbilt back in August in Nashville. Last night's game in Murfreesboro against Troy State (another I-AA powerhouse that's moving to I-A) featured one of the biggest crowds that MTSU has had in years. It's amazing how the people will come when your team or program wins some games. If Vanderbilt, Duke, Rutgers, or any of these other teams that have been mentioned can just get that breakthrough win, then maybe their attitudes will change and the school will put more money into the program and the school will be more attractive to high school kids.
The academic standards argument doesn't fly. A lot of the schools that have higher standards and are bad at football, are also good at basketball. Unless you think basketball players are smarter than football players.
Well, a basketball team only needs 12 players. A football team needs 60-80 players. I'm not saying basketball players are smarter than football players. It's just harder for all schools to field football teams. Some have it easier than others for whatever reason.
I think most of it is reputation -- it's a self replicating process. The top recruits want to go to the best performing schools, so that they can be a part of a top program and get noticed. The teams that don't perform as well get second pick of the recruits, and continue to not do as well. Since there's no draft, and players don't get paid (well, they aren't supposed to -- and the big payoff comes in NHL contracts later anyway), reputation is the key advantage schools have in attracting players. Part of it is the division, and all of the divisional alignments. Rice is a great example -- they've done much better since moving out of the SW Conference, where they struggled, and into a less capable conference, where they can compete. On the opposite end is Baylor, which was respectable in the SW Conference, and would do well in a lower conference, but struggles in the Big 12 with so many powerhouses. Budget is an issue, but not a huge factor, since many of the schools who don't perform as well also have a big budget. Great workout facilities or a nice field are nice, but comparable schools will have comparable stuff. Case in point again is Baylor, which has outstanding facilities on par with the other Big 12 schools, but just can't compete against those powerhouses.
I agree with all of your points except one. Again, are you serious about Baylor? I've got nothing against Baylor, but here are the projected Big XII Athletic Budgets for 2001: Texas $43.9 million. Nebraska $37.5 million. Texas A&M $30.0 million. Colorado $27.4 million. Oklahoma $25.3 million. Kansas $22.9 million. Missouri $21.6 million. Kansas State $21.2 million. Texas Tech $20.2 million. Baylor $19.8 million. Iowa State $19.8 million. Oklahoma State $19.0 million. http://www.theindependent.com/stories/060500/Hus_budget05.html ---- So Baylor and for that matter Iowa State and Oklahoma State are keeping up with Texas, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado etc... Baylor must be getting some huge donations. Also, notice that the big money spenders are/were football powerhouses.
Yes, with the exception of Texas, Newbraska, and A&M, the schools have pretty comparable athletic budgets. I'd also note that the schools with larger budgets are larger schools -- presumably with more students in the athletic programs beyond football. There's probably some disparity in the Football budgets as well, but the facilities for the players are comparable. Specifically Baylor, which I did graduate from, has excellent player facilities, and even commented on by coaching staffs from opposing teams. I used them for an example because I'm familliar with their facilities, but you could probably find the same thing at Tech, Missouri, or any of the Division 1-A schools, top of the heap or not. But, the point is I don't think players compare Athletic Budgets when selecting schools. Even if Baylor had golden urinals (school colors green and gold ), and UT sent it's players out to the pasture with BEVO, the top recruits would go to UT because it has a reputation for fielding consistently strong teams. The ability to get top recruits helps them continue to field strong teams, and keep the cycle going.
On higher academic standards, There are only so many eligible 300 pounders.....being smart....they tend to group up at one or two schools such as Stanford. This leaves Rice out of luck unless their are five eligible 300 lbers in texas come out that aren't good enough for UT's or A&M's teams.
