Is Arkansas Athletics Really Getting a Good Return on Investment?

[NaturalStateReb]

I NEVER thought of athletics as a ROI on MY investment. The ROI is for the school and what they get in return. Last time I checked they get a lot of publicity and also in our case the athletic department gives back in dollars to,the school. THAT is what I like. Those schools where their athletic department constantly runs a deficit are the ones' that aren't getting a good ROI.

My bigger question is, "could Arkansas spend less and get about the same results?"  I think it probably could.  Mississippi State obviously is spending less to get similar, and perhaps, better, results.  I think they're an interesting case study.  Proximity to recruits might be good, but there are a lot of downsides at Starkville that the program has overcome.

What does your formula say about State, Pork?

[Kevin]

it is a great investment to anyone working in the athletic department. it just keeps growing.

[Pork Twain]

My bigger question is, "could Arkansas spend less and get about the same results?"  I think it probably could.  Mississippi State obviously is spending less to get similar, and perhaps, better, results.  I think they're an interesting case study.  Proximity to recruits might be good, but there are a lot of downsides at Starkville that the program has overcome.

What does your formula say about State, Pork?

Well crap...give me a minute

The smaller the bar, the better you are.  For the annual finish, I only went back to when aTm and Mizzou joined the SEC to keep the data applicable.

Since 1950 Arkansas had the following win totals in football
02 wins - 2
03 wins - 4
04 wins - 7
05 wins - 7
06 wins - 5
07 wins - 5
08 wins - 11
09 wins - 11
10 wins - 8
11 wins - 3
12 wins - 0

Since joining the SEC Arkansas had the following win totals in football
02 wins - 0
03 wins - 2
04 wins - 5
05 wins - 2
06 wins - 2
07 wins - 3
08 wins - 5
09 wins - 3
10 wins - 2
11 wins - 1
12 wins - 0

[Fatty McGee]

I NEVER thought of athletics as a ROI on MY investment. The ROI is for the school and what they get in return. Last time I checked they get a lot of publicity and also in our case the athletic department gives back in dollars to,the school. THAT is what I like. Those schools where their athletic department constantly runs a deficit are the ones' that aren't getting a good ROI.

Sure they are. It's just a different ROI than you're thinking of.

[Poker_hog]

First off I am not about poor lil ole Arkysaw.  I think we can and will do better, I just do not expect that based off the data that is available.  I believe we are on average, the 4/5 team in the west and 8-10 best team in the SEC.  I think we will have some really good years and some really bad years with a lot of average sprinkled in there.

You speak of too many variables, yet you are choosing to only look at one.  I am not picking and choosing anything and I take the presented variables into account.  You guys just want to look at revenue and nothing else and as we see, if you only counted revenue, aTm would be killing everyone.  Revenue does not and never has directly correlated to wins.  I include many variables that for some reason you are choosing to omit.  In a vacuum things would be much better for us but for some reason you are failing to take into account that we are usually playing many of the SEC teams that are 1-8th in revenue without looking at where we finish in recruiting, coaches salaries and stadium capacity and recruiting when attempting to correlate bang to buck.  If we never had to play another SEC team, we would likely finish about #16 or better every single year. 

When I am looking at bang for the buck, I take as much into consideration as I can.  I say based on the fact that our university has T revenue, pays out U to our HC, pays out V to our assistants, finishes W in recruiting on average, has X population and Y population density (which affect school sizes and in-state recruiting depth), produces Z 3/4/5* recruits and has to play all of the teams that finish ahead of it in every one of these categories, what is the real expected outcome H.  It would roughly look like this, get the average of T, U, V. W. X. Y and then T+U+V+W+X+Y+Z=the average of H.  If those are close, you are close. T=9, U=8, V=10, W=9, X=10, Y=10, Z=9 (9+8+10+9+10+10+9)=9.28 and H=9  Based on our conf standings in various categories, we should realistically be expected to finish 9.28 in the conf and we have averaged 7th since 2004.  Once you take that number and attempt to convert it to the national level you lose important information when you fail to factor in that our national finish will be the result of how we were able to finish in our own conference and that number is not 16, because 1-8 in our own conf have lowered our national standing with every loss they hand us.

Do a little trend analysis and tell me if there are any numbers here that you continue to see pop out and I will even help out.

Revenue
16th Nationally
9th in the SEC

Stadium capacity
16th Nationally
9th in the SEC

Head Coaching Salaries
17th Nationally
8th in the SEC

Assistant Coaching Salaries
17th Nationally
10th in the SEC

Recruiting rankings (Avg 2004-2016)
26th Nationally
9th in the SEC

In-State 3/4/5* Players Produced (Avg 2011-2015)
22nd Nationally
9th in the SEC

State Population (out of 11 SEC States)
32nd Nationally
10th in the SEC

State Population Density (out of 11 SEC States)
35th Nationally
10th in the SEC

Annual Finish (Avg 2000-2016)
7th in the SEC

Again you're trying to make the stats fit your agenda.  Most schools in the conference have other instate power 5 conference competing for recruits.  We don't.  And while instate recruiting is probably still at a disadvantage we are right next to some fertle recruiting grounds.  If we just got the top recruits out of Louisiana that lsu doesn't want we'd see a significant jump in our annual rankings.

And you're putting the cart before the horse on stadiums/revenues/salaries.  People show up when you're winning.  Not the other way around.  We didn't build bud Walton and then start winning.  I'd say our fan support is excellent considering the on field results.

[Pork Twain]

Again you're trying to make the stats fit your agenda.  Most schools in the conference have other instate power 5 conference competing for recruits.  We don't.  And while instate recruiting is probably still at a disadvantage we are right next to some fertle recruiting grounds.  If we just got the top recruits out of Louisiana that lsu doesn't want we'd see a significant jump in our annual rankings.

And you're putting the cart before the horse on stadiums/revenues/salaries.  People show up when you're winning.  Not the other way around.  We didn't build bud Walton and then start winning.  I'd say our fan support is excellent considering the on field results.

Stop saying that just because it makes you feel better.  Show me anywhere that I have included or excluded data to make things look better for my stance.  The numbers are what they are and it is up to the individual to take whatever they want to away from it.  The question was asked if we are getting the best bang for our buck.  Based on the factual data I listed, do you think we are?  If you are not willing to do objective historical data analysis, then don't waste your time trying.

Again I am not making the stats do anything.  I am just presenting them as they are.  There is nothing I listed above that is my opinion, all based off of current data.  Of all the things I listed, an additional in-state school only impacts recruiting and has nothing to do with anything else.  Alabama and Mississippi both have two power five schools.  Between 2011-2015 Alabama produced 277 3/4/5 star players and Mississippi produced 182 compared to Arkansas' 89.  Only looking at that though would be ignoring out of state recruits those schools can pull in based off of qualitative data as opposed to quantitative data (i.e. school history, location, prestige).  Our recruiting base is very sad compared to our peers in the SEC. 

Are we the only external state that is recruiting from Louisiana?

Where have I said anything about which needs to come first or anything about our fanbase?  I am only discussing what has happened in the past and can be backed up by hard data, I am in no way attempting to predict what is or should be to come.

[Poker_hog]

Stop saying that just because it makes you feel better.  Show me anywhere that I have included or excluded data to make things look better for my stance.  If you are not willing to do objective historical data analysis, then don't waste your time trying.

Again I am not making the stats do anything.  I am just presenting them as they are.  There is nothing I listed above that is my opinion, all based off of current data.  Of all the things I listed, an additional in-state school only impacts recruiting and has nothing to do with anything else.  Alabama and Mississippi both have two power five schools.  Between 2011-2015 Alabama produced 277 3/4/5 star players and Mississippi produced 182 compared to Arkansas' 89.  Only looking at that though would be ignoring out of state recruits those schools can pull in based off of qualitative data as opposed to quantitative data (i.e. school history, location, prestige).  Our recruiting base is very sad compared to our peers in the SEC. 

Are we the only external state that is recruiting from Louisiana?

Where have I said anything about which needs to come first or anything about our fanbase?  I am only discussing what has happened in the past and can be backed up by hard data, I am in no way attempting to predict what is or should be to come.

Not questioning you data.  I do have major problem with your interpretation that we are "where we belong".  That is excuse making.  College athletics is about coaching.  We have several that are underperforming.  Would we be better with another coach? maybe maybe not.  But once it becomes evident that a coach can't win big, it's time to move on and hope we hire the next Nolan Richardson or bobby petrino.

[Pork Twain]

Not questioning you data.  I do have major problem with your interpretation that we are "where we belong".  That is excuse making.  College athletics is about coaching.  We have several that are underperforming.  Would we be better with another coach? maybe maybe not.  But once it becomes evident that a coach can't win big, it's time to move on and hope we hire the next Nolan Richardson or bobby petrino.

I am not trying to turn this into another coaching debate, that has been beaten to death.  When you are asking, is what I am getting worth what I am paying, you have to at least attempt objectivity.  All things being equal, if team X ranks about 9 in every measurable conference category, and you say their results should be much better than that, that is not objectivity, that is opinion.  I am only showing that based on our resources and our investment, our return is about average.

I will make this super easy for you.  Show me any data set that indicates we should expect to consistently finish 1-7 in the SEC.

[Poker_hog]

I am not trying to turn this into another coaching debate, that has been beaten to death.  When you are asking, is what I am getting worth what I am paying, you have to at least attempt objectivity.  All things being equal, if team X ranks about 9 in every measurable conference category, and you say their results should be much better than that, that is not objectivity, that is opinion.  I am only showing that based on our resources and our investment, our return is about average.

You seem to think being middle teir in a conference prevents you from a good national program.  That's simply not true.  Look at sec baseball. I bet you the 9th best program in the sec is still top 20 in the country.  Same with woman's BB.

[Inhogswetrust]

Well said and much easier said than what I was trying to say.

Thank you. Also to be considered are all the athletes that get a college education they might not get otherwise while playing in sports they love while entertaining me as a fan and fellow alum is the best ROI. Every time I see a student graduate that played sports I know my ROI is fine!

[Pork Twain]

You seem to think being middle teir in a conference prevents you from a good national program.  That's simply not true.  Look at sec baseball. I bet you the 9th best program in the sec is still top 20 in the country.  Same with woman's BB.

You seem to think that being middle tier in the SEC allows you to be a top 20 program in the country.  That's simply not true.  Well I am looking at us vs our peers in the SEC, not vs every team in the Div I, hence the continual use of SEC rank.  I prefer not to compare football to other sports because they are just not comparable, but I will humor you.

Top 25 Football Programs
1 Bama
2 LSU
5 Florida
10 Georgia
14 Auburn
17 Tennessee
25 Texas A&M

Top 25 Baseball Programs
1 Vandy
3 Florida
5 LSU
9 South Carolina
12 Arkansas
14 Texas A&M
18 Ole Miss
21 Mississippi St

Top 25 Women's Basketball Programs
2 Tennessee
6 Texas A&M
12 Kentucky
16 Vandy
20 LSU
23 Georgia

Top 25 Men's Basketball Programs
4 Kentucky
9 Florida
19 Tennessee
21 Arkansas

Top 25 Softball Programs
1 Florida
3 Bama
9 Tennessee
10 Auburn
11 LSU
15 aTm
17 Mizzou
19 Georgia

Top 25 Soccer
23 Kentucky

Top 25 Women's Volleyball
11 Florida
18 Missouri
24 Kentucky

Top 25 Men's Tennis
5 Georgia
8 Texas A&M
14 Ole Miss
16 Vandy
17 Florida
19 Miss St

Top 25 Gymnastics Programs
1 LSU
3 Florida
4 Bama
6 Mizzou
12 Arkansas
13 Auburn
14 Kentucky

We can go ahead and every sport if it makes you feel better but a s general rule, #9 in the SEC is not going to get you top 20, even if every sport was exactly the same.

[Inhogswetrust]

Sure they are. It's just a different ROI than you're thinking of.

I know. However my ROI to be entertained by a lot of athletes while spending money I'd spend on some other form of entertainment is not a ROI to me. I never expect a ROI on discretionary spending to be entertained in a financial way. It's like going to a casino expecting to make money. That's dumb.

[Poker_hog]

You seem to think that being middle tier in the SEC allows you to be a top 20 program in the country.  That's simply not true.  Well I am looking at us vs our peers in the SEC, not vs every team in the Div I, hence the continual use of SEC rank.  I prefer not to compare football to other sports because they are just not comparable, but I will humor you.

Top 20 in baseball
1 Vandy
3 Florida
5 LSU
9 South Carolina
12 Arkansas
14 Texas A&M
18 Ole Miss
21 Mississippi St
9th best - 28 Bama
54 Kentucky
62 Auburn
66 Missouri
70 Georgia

http://d1baseball.com/analysis/top-100-programs-by-the-numbers/

Women's basketball
2 Tennessee
6 Texas A&M
12 Kentucky
16 Vandy
20 LSU
23 Georgia
42 Florida
50 Auburn
9th best - 51 Arkansas
62 Miss St

http://www.swishappeal.com/2012/11/2/3524410/ncaa-womens-basketball-top-100-programs-recruiting-infractions

Top Men's basketball Programs
4 Kentucky
9 Florida
19 Tennessee
21 Arkansas

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dominant-mens-college-basketball-programs-2016-3/#no-25-university-of-oklahoma-1

We can go ahead and every sport if it makes you feel better but a s general rule, #9 in the SEC is not going to get you top 20, even if every sport was exactly the same.

I obviously don't follow wbb, but baseball proves my point.  Teams in the middle teir range from 12 to 28.  So it's very posible to be average sec program yet a very good notional program.

[Pork Twain]

I obviously don't follow wbb, but baseball proves my point.  Teams in the middle teir range from 12 to 28.  So it's very posible to be average sec program yet a very good notional program.

You are right, there is one sport it is true in, so it is possible.  The fact that it is continually not true in the other sports means it is highly unlikely.  I went ahead and added a few more, so 1 out of 9.  That there is some bad good ole odds.

Now you show me one piece of real data that validates that we should be anywhere other than where we have been since we arrived in the SEC.

[Poker_hog]

Now you show me one piece of real data that validates that we should be anywhere other than where we have been since we arrived in the SEC.

Wth?  We've been all over the map in the 2 major sports since we arrived in the sec.  We've won a national title and runner up in basketball.  We've had a top 5 finish in football.  We've also been outside the top 100 in basketball.  And probably outside the top 60 in football.  I don't know exactly where you think we should be.  But the last 5 years has been particularly bad in both sports.  From your posts I get the impression that you think the last 5 years should be the norm.  One NCAA tournament win and one 8 win football season is not an acceptable level of winning for the current coaches.

[Pork Twain]

Wth?  We've been all over the map in the 2 major sports since we arrived in the sec.  We've won a national title and runner up in basketball.  We've had a top 5 finish in football.  We've also been outside the top 100 in basketball.  And probably outside the top 60 in football.  I don't know exactly where you think we should be.  But the last 5 years has been particularly bad in both sports.  From your posts I get the impression that you think the last 5 years should be the norm.  One NCAA tournament win and one 8 win football season is not an acceptable level of winning for the current coaches.

Programs are often judged on the whole of their work, not just short spurts.  Look at the numbers, average them out and see what you get.  What does Arkansas look like as a whole since it entered the SEC?

Basketball is the easiest sport to compete in because there is so much talent out there and the college rosters are so small.  I would not judge a school off of basketball alone. 

That is not the impression you should get.  I think we can do better and have, but I think it takes time to build a team through consistency and I think that you have to look at it on a Bell Curve.  There will be a lot of 6-8 win seasons a few 5 or less win seasons and an equally represented number of 9+ win seasons.

You still have not provided any real data, just a lot more opinion...

[Poker_hog]

That is not the impression you should get.  I think we can do better and have, but I think it takes time to build a team through consistency and I think that you have to look at it on a Bell Curve.  There will be a lot of 6-8 win seasons a few 5 or less win seasons and an equally represented number of 9+ win seasons.

You still have not provided any real data, just a lot more opinion...

Here's some data for you.  Houston Nutt exceeded your low expectations.  Even he had more big years than losing records. 

[TebowHater]

I don't think the institutional support figure is accurate. Either that, or UA lied like crazy when proposing stadium. It was said over and over again that we take no institutional support and even actually donate back to UA.

[ricepig]

I don't think the institutional support figure is accurate. Either that, or UA lied like crazy when proposing stadium. It was said over and over again that we take no institutional support and even actually donate back to UA.

It's all in how you "define" your numbers. We don't collect student athletic fees, but if you divide all the university's cost amongst all of the students, then the student-athletes will get their prorated share. It's kind of like the old saying, "liars figure, and figures lie".

[Pork Twain]

Here's some data for you.  Houston Nutt exceeded your low expectations.  Even he had more big years than losing records. 

What did the SEC look like when HDN was the HC?  You know that matters, right?

[Poker_hog]

What did the SEC look like when HDN was the HC?  You know that matters, right?

Haha.  If you don't think we can accomplish Nutt level success there's no point in discussing this with you. 

[Pork Twain]

Haha.  If you don't think we can accomplish Nutt level success there's no point in discussing this with you. 

He was 42-38 in the SEC, so sure, I think we can be slightly above average in the SEC

[buldozer]

Show me anywhere that I have included or excluded data to make things look better for my stance. 

The thing that screams data manipulation is all the various years averaged to come up with your various average answers. If you were not including or excluding data, you would have looked at a static number of years in all instances...... for example the years CBB has been coach or some other number of years that fit the analysis. But regardless the number of years analyzed would not vary in each category in order to arrive at the answer. Statistics 101


Recruiting rankings (Avg 2004-2016)

In-State 3/4/5* Players Produced (Avg 2011-2015)

Annual Finish (Avg 2000-2016)

[Pork Twain]

The thing that screams data manipulation is all the various years averaged to come up with your various average answers. If you were not including or excluding data, you would have looked at a static number of years in all instances...... for example the years CBB has been coach or some other number of years that fit the analysis. But regardless the number of years analyzed would not vary in each category in order to arrive at the answer. Statistics 101

Or it could be something as simple as only going back as far as one could find reliable data for each category or not wanting to go through every recruiting year myself back to 2000 to identify where each and every player came from and deciding instead to utilize an existing study, but whatever makes it easier for you to swallow.  By all means do the research, compile the data, analyze it an prove wrong.

Statistics 101?  You think I was doing statistics up there, maybe you should retake the class.  I was just compiling data and putting it in a chart and doing a few simple averages.

Again I did not manipulate data but I am not going to make stuff up and I actually do have a life and do not have the time to dig deep enough in the data to satisfy some, because some have shown that no amount of data will convince them.

[Fatty McGee]

College athletics is about coaching.

This is wrong.  College athletics is about talent.  Recruiting matters far more than coaching, and recruiting is largely a function of location.

[Inhogswetrust]

This is wrong.  College athletics is about talent.  Recruiting matters far more than coaching, and recruiting is largely a function of location.

There have been several schools over the years not in great recruiting hotbeds that have done very well. One in particular has done good over a long period of time............Nebraska.
Lately Oregon, Boise State and West Virginia have done well. The bay area of California is not known as great high school footballers yet Stanford does well. Where the coaching matters is in being a great recruiter AND a good X and O's guy. A lot of people forget that recruiting effectively is a HUGE part of coaching. I remember when a certain pro HOF player I know was not playing football until our high school coach talked him into it. That is the same as recruiting. Even IF in a recruiting hot bed the coach STILL has to recruit well and then get the players to play good for them.

[Pork Twain]

Yawn emoji

[Poker_hog]

This is wrong.  College athletics is about talent.  Recruiting matters far more than coaching, and recruiting is largely a function of location.

So why is Michigan paying jim harbaugh $9 mill/year?  Are they just stupid?  They could have got John L smith for a tenth of that,

[Pork Twain]

So why is Michigan paying jim harbaugh $9 mill/year?  Are they just stupid?  They could have got John L smith for a tenth of that,

Talent matters more, but a good coach still matters.

[Fatty McGee]

So why is Michigan paying jim harbaugh $9 mill/year?  Are they just stupid?  They could have got John L smith for a tenth of that,

Because he's an amazing recruiter.  Here's what I'm talking about though as to why recruiting matters most:

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/2/5/5382140/recruiting-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right

"'Big Six' Conference Teams by Recruiting Class
• FIVE-STAR: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas.

Note that, since 2003, the eleven teams in the "five-star" group have combined for 21 appearances in the BCS Championship game, compared to one appearance by any of the 64 teams listed below. (The lone exception in that span, Oregon, just barely missed the cut for five-star status.) The only "five-star" teams that never played for a title in the BCS era are Georgia and Michigan; among the rest, only Notre Dame failed to make a repeat trip.

• FOUR-STAR: Arkansas, California, Clemson, Miami, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ole Miss, Oregon, Penn State, South Carolina, Stanford, Tennessee, Texas A&M, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Washington.

• THREE-STAR: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisville, Maryland, Michigan State, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, TCU, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt, Virginia, West Virginia.

• TWO-STAR: BYU, Cincinnati, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, N.C. State, Northwestern, Purdue, South Florida, Utah, Washington State, Wisconsin.

• ONE-STAR: Boise State, Boston College, Central Florida, Connecticut, Duke, Iowa State, Kansas State, Memphis, SMU, Syracuse, Temple, Wake Forest."

. . . .

. It's a landslide. On the final count, the higher-ranked team according to the recruiting rankings won roughly two-thirds of the time, and every "class" as a whole had a winning record against every class ranked below it every single year.

[Fatty McGee]

There have been several schools over the years not in great recruiting hotbeds that have done very well. One in particular has done good over a long period of time............Nebraska.
Lately Oregon, Boise State and West Virginia have done well. The bay area of California is not known as great high school footballers yet Stanford dose well. Where the coaching matters is in being a great recruiter AND a good X and O's guy. A lot of people forget that recruiting effectively is a HUGE part of coaching. I remember when a certain pro HOF player I know was not playing football until our high school coach talked him into it. That is the same as recruiting. Even IF in a recruiting hot bed the coach STILL has to recruit well and then get the players to play good for them.

Sure they still have to recruit well, but it's a fact that distance from home is the most important factor in a recruit's choice.

That's not to say a school can't have an upswing, but for consistent winning that matters most.

[NuttinItUp]

Because he's an amazing recruiter.  Here's what I'm talking about though as to why recruiting matters most:

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/2/5/5382140/recruiting-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right

"'Big Six' Conference Teams by Recruiting Class
• FIVE-STAR: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas.

Note that, since 2003, the eleven teams in the "five-star" group have combined for 21 appearances in the BCS Championship game, compared to one appearance by any of the 64 teams listed below. (The lone exception in that span, Oregon, just barely missed the cut for five-star status.) The only "five-star" teams that never played for a title in the BCS era are Georgia and Michigan; among the rest, only Notre Dame failed to make a repeat trip.

• FOUR-STAR: Arkansas, California, Clemson, Miami, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ole Miss, Oregon, Penn State, South Carolina, Stanford, Tennessee, Texas A&M, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Washington.

• THREE-STAR: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisville, Maryland, Michigan State, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, TCU, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt, Virginia, West Virginia.

• TWO-STAR: BYU, Cincinnati, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, N.C. State, Northwestern, Purdue, South Florida, Utah, Washington State, Wisconsin.

• ONE-STAR: Boise State, Boston College, Central Florida, Connecticut, Duke, Iowa State, Kansas State, Memphis, SMU, Syracuse, Temple, Wake Forest."

. . . .

. It's a landslide. On the final count, the higher-ranked team according to the recruiting rankings won roughly two-thirds of the time, and every "class" as a whole had a winning record against every class ranked below it every single year.

You realize that info is from February 2014 and is highly dated now?

Clemson is in the 4-star group, for instance.

[Fatty McGee]

You realize that info is from February 2014 and is highly dated now?

Clemson is in the 4-star group, for instance.

I do, but I don't think the point changes.  I would bet the win ratios for each group are the same.

Clemson's recruiting success and corresponding wins only amplify the point.

More recent confirmation:

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/signing-day-recruiting-rankings-5-stars-rashan-gary-derrick-brown-demetris-robertson-020116

"There are outliers on both ends — recent powers Michigan State, Stanford and Baylor have far exceeded expectations based on their recruiting rankings, while Texas, Florida and USC have woefully underachieved.

But if we assume the correlations here are generally true from year-to-year, consider these odds.

Power 5 teams (of which there are 65) that consistently recruit Top 20 classes have a 60 percent chance of becoming a Top 20 program and a 35 percent chance of regularly inhabiting the Top 10.

By contrast, Power 5 teams that finish outside the Top 20 in recruiting have a lower than 18 percent chance of fielding Top 20 teams and just a 6.7 percent chance of reaching the Top 10."

[NuttinItUp]

I do, but I don't think the point changes.  I would bet the win ratios for each group are the same.

Clemson's recruiting success and corresponding wins only amplify the point.

You are likely right. I would just like to see an updated list/numbers using recent data.

[Fatty McGee]

You are likely right. I would just like to see an updated list/numbers using recent data.

Edited with more recent info.

[Pork Twain]

You realize that info is from February 2014 and is highly dated now?

Clemson is in the 4-star group, for instance.

2014 is highly dated?

[Inhogswetrust]

2014 is highly dated?

No kidding. Heck some on here even think December of 2016 is dated since it was last year!

[Poker_hog]

Because he's an amazing recruiter.

Ok then we agree that recruiting is not "largely a function of location"

[Fatty McGee]

Ok then we agree that recruiting is not "largely a function of location"

Of course it is. You have to have the base to apply the skills.

Really though I can't explain why he gets that much. Or any coach of amateur sports does. It's not right.

[Poker_hog]

Really though I can't explain why he gets that much. Or any coach of amateur sports does. It's not right.

I think it's his market value.  But I agree with you.  I would be for salary caps on coaches salaries and anything else that made college sports less of a business.  Tighter restrictions on time student athletes spend on sport.  I'd also like to see pro sports require a college degree.

[NaturalStateReb]

Pork, what'd your formula say about State?

[NaturalStateReb]

Ok then we agree that recruiting is not "largely a function of location"

Largely, I don't know, but it's easier to get something from next door than in the next state. 

Proximity may not be determinative, but it helps.

[Poker_hog]

Largely, I don't know, but it's easier to get something from next door than in the next state. 

Proximity may not be determinative, but it helps.

It's one of many factors.  Look at Kentucky basketball.  Very few of their players are instate guys.

[Pork Twain]

Pork, what'd your formula say about State?

I will do all of the SEC W schools on Monday.  My love life is better when I don't crunch numbers at home

[NaturalStateReb]

I will do all of the SEC W schools on Monday.  My love life is better when I don't crunch numbers at home

Nothing says loving like spreadsheet formulas.  lol

[Pork Twain]

Nothing says loving like spreadsheet formulas.  lol

Glad I did not do this at home...

Here is what I have.

I removed population and in-state recruiting, because at the end of the day they are reflected in population density and recruiting rankings.  Like with any data set, you have to take into account the environment in which the study was conducted.  Some qualitative data that is not included here is the strength of the SEC at different points, teams joining (Mizzou & aTm), stadium expansions, coaches being hired (Saban LSU 2000-2004 and Saban Bama 2007-present) and internal and external stimuli that affected the UofA.  There is one major outliers in the Arkansas W/L record and that would be 2013, the year after JLS and the first year a 180 degree opposite scheme was installed.  Not an excuse just an outlier that affects the data, the last three years have seen us get closer to normal.  Here's to hoping next year gets us back to the 9/10 win total.

Based on the variables I utilized that were more reliable than not (Revenue, Stadium Capacity, HC pay, Ass Pay, Recruiting Rankings and Population Density), I ranked them according to their real numbers from 2000-now and came up with an, if all things were equal, here is where each team should be expected to finish and then compared that to where they actually finished after variables impacted them and they had to play each other (aka, all things are no longer equal).

Expected SEC finish:
3.5 LSU
3.5 aTm
3.6 Bama
4.3 Florida
4.6 Tenn
5.3 Georgia
6.1 Auburn
8.6 uSc
9.6 Ole Miss
9.8 Arkansas
10.1 Kentucky
10.5 Mizzou
11 Miss St

Actual Results (difference)
01 Bama
02 LSU
03 Georgia
04 Florida
05 Auburn
06 aTm
07 Tenn
08 Arkansas
09 uSc
10 Ole Miss
11 Mizzou
12 Miss St
13 Vandy (incomplete data due to being private)
14 Kentucky (-3.9)

Now how teams finished compared to where they were expected to finish and how much they are paying their coaching staff to get them there.

+2.6 Bama (1st - $12,259,395 )
+2.3 Georgia (8th - $8,428,600)
+1.8 Arkansas (9th - $8,038,100)
+1.5 LSU (2nd - $10,167,067)
+1.1 Auburn (4th - $9,185,750)
+0.3 Florida (6th - $8,799,034)
-0.4 uSc (11th - $6,954,900)
-0.4 Ole Miss (5th - $8,965,200)
-0.5 Mizzou (13th - $6,151,800)
-1.0 Miss St (10th - $7,495,000)
-2.4 Tenn (7th - $8,655,700)
-2.5 aTm (3rd - $9,811,000)
-3.9 Kentucky (12th - $6,917,500)