(07-17-2018 03:16 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Are we confusing cause and effect? It's clear that schools that do well in football derive big revenues from football. It's not at all clear that big revenues cause schools to do well in football, however. See Texas, University of. For that matter, see Clemson, University of.

Nah, Clemson didn't get good after pouring massive amounts of money into facilities, staff, etc.

(07-17-2018 02:42 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  I totally understand the "fear" of falling behind. I get that. But what seems to be a disconnect is the fact that programs won national championships prior to the influx. Per JR it was ticket sales, donor money etc that gave those programs the edge to be national championship caliber. Well, if that were true, why you don't see a ton of Texas national championships? Why the U as a small private university have done better than UF when it comes to football titles? FSU's success is amazing when you consider the fact that their alumni base and ticket sales couldn't compare to UF, BAMA, etc. FSU has always been behind the 8 ball in comparison to these programs yet, there are very few programs that had the run that FSU accomplished. And, i am not talking about the NC hardware. So, I get coaches salary, staff, advisers, recruiting budget, etc. But the return on those dollars certainly haven't generated a slew of programs competing for national championships. For all the money Texas brings in, 1 national championship in 24 years is not a great return. Same for Texas A&M, Michigan, Tennessee, Penn State. Hell, Ohio State took 32 years to win their first NC since 1970. They certainly had the advantage of high ticket sales, alumni base, fan base and donor dollars. All of those programs also have/had the benefit of being ranked high due to past reputation. Anyway, just a discussion.

The "U" had probably the cheapest recruiting cost of any school not named Houston or USC thanks to enough local h.s. talent to fill a championship roster - and they "discovered" this gold mine at a time when most schools were largely ignoring Miami high school football. Not any more! Sure, they can still win a trophy w/o going far from campus to recruit... but they'll have to fight off recruiters from dozens of other schools in order to sign that talent.

It's also worth noting that back in the 1980's and 90's Miami had some of the best coaching staffs in the nation - names like Shnellenberger, Johnson, Erickson, and Davis. The fact that they couldn't hold on to those coaches speaks volumes, IMO. Yes, Miami lost coaches to the NFL... but meanwhile teams like Alabama and Michigan have been able to hire coaches away from the NFL.

(07-17-2018 03:16 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Are we confusing cause and effect? It's clear that schools that do well in football derive big revenues from football. It's not at all clear that big revenues cause schools to do well in football, however. See Texas, University of. For that matter, see Clemson, University of.

No. The only thing which may be confusing is the fact that universities don't always do their best to compete in football, which flies in the face of economics theory and so is hard for some to grasp... but those who really want to win championships tend to be the ones who give it their all, within the limits of their resources.

Duke is a prime example: the Blue Devils used to win national championships, then they essentially stopped trying for awhile; now that they are trying again, they're also getting results - but the revenue picture has changed a great deal in the interim. Duke may never again have what it takes to win it all.

(07-17-2018 04:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The "U" had probably the cheapest recruiting cost of any school not named Houston or USC thanks to enough local h.s. talent to fill a championship roster - and they "discovered" this gold mine at a time when most schools were largely ignoring Miami high school football. Not any more! Sure, they can still win a trophy w/o going far from campus to recruit... but they'll have to fight off recruiters from dozens of other schools in order to sign that talent.

It's also worth noting that back in the 1980's and 90's Miami had some of the best coaching staffs in the nation - names like Shnellenberger, Johnson, Erickson, and Davis. The fact that they couldn't hold on to those coaches speaks volumes, IMO. Yes, Miami lost coaches to the NFL... but meanwhile teams like Alabama and Michigan have been able to hire coaches away from the NFL.

Not to mention the fact that Miami was cheating their ass off.