Private schools can't compete with the big state schools. Uh..

[Crusty]

NOT.
The argument is often made that the big state schools with government funds and huge alumni are impossible to compete with for smaller private schools. (Especially, in places where there is nothing to compete with college football for the entertainment dollar.) While it is undeniable that money and fan base are big advantage, the landscape continues to change with the continued rise of TV at the expense of game attendance. It can certainly be argued that playing in prime time TV is more important than filling a large stadium. More important to the program, the recruits and the school.

It is important to remember that there are only 13 private schools (20%) in the P5 + ND and BYU - total of 65 teams. Four (bold face) are currently in the top 25 - that is 31% of the private schools in the P5 are currently ranked. Of the 52 public schools in the P5, 21 or 40% are ranked.

1. Baylor
2. Boston College
3. BYU
4. Duke
5. Miami
6. ND
   
7. Northwestern
8. Southern Cal
9. Stanford
10. Syracuse
11. TCU
12. Vandy
13. Wake Forest

In recent years we have seen TCU, Duke, Baylor, ND, Vandy, SC, and Stanford all have great multiple season runs. It seems to be a prima facie case that private schools are and can continue to be competitive.it s

The more time goes by it seems clear that the most meaningful factor in college football success is coaching. Nothing else seems to be even a close second.

That's my opinion - of course, I could be wrong!

 

[Doctor44]

I think they certainly can compete with the power state schools, but it's tough. You need to be a wealthy private school to be able to keep up with the expenses of salaries, travel, paying lesser teams and facilities. Most private schools have basketball teams, but not football teams. The other thing that private schools can have is location. Miami is a hotbed for recruits so will always be relevant. USC has money and location. TCU and baylor have location

We have neither and are scrapping along based on our tradition and that people still believe in that tradition. They're have long been the arguments that we probably should have gone the way of the Ivy's and colgate. We keep hoping for a generous donor to help take up our cause and give us facilities.

It's going to be tough sledding for us, duke, vandy, and BC. That doesn't mean we give up, but sometimes that perspective is helpful. Same is true for state schools with little money and poor location.

 

[omniorange]

NOT.
The argument is often made that the big state schools with government funds and huge alumni are impossible to compete with for smaller private schools. (Especially, in places where there is nothing to compete with college football for the entertainment dollar.) While it is undeniable that money and fan base are big advantage, the landscape continues to change with the continued rise of TV at the expense of game attendance. It can certainly be argued that playing in prime time TV is more important than filling a large stadium. More important to the program, the recruits and the school.

It is important to remember that there are only 13 private schools (20%) in the P5 + ND and BYU - total of 65 teams. Four (bold face) are currently in the top 25 - that is 31% of the private schools in the P5 are currently ranked. Of the 52 public schools in the P5, 21 or 40% are ranked.

1. Baylor
2. Boston College
3. BYU
4. Duke
5. Miami
6. ND
   
7. Northwestern
8. Southern Cal
9. Stanford
10. Syracuse
11. TCU
12. Vandy
13. Wake Forest

In recent years we have seen TCU, Duke, Baylor, ND, Vandy, SC, and Stanford all have great multiple season runs. It seems to be a prima facie case that private schools are and can continue to be competitive.

The more time goes by it seems clear that the most meaningful factor in college football success is coaching. Nothing else seems to be even a close second.

That's my opinion - of course, I could be wrong!

Every single private school above listed, except for us, has finished in the Top 25 year end poll at least once since 2006. Which would seem to support your point about coaching being more indicative of success than any other factor.

But as pointed by Doctor44 some of those privates have the extra advantage of being located in recruiting rich states. When we were good, we counted a lot on NJ recruits that PSU didn't get. So that is also a factor.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[omniorange]

I think they certainly can compete with the power state schools, but it's tough. You need to be a wealthy private school to be able to keep up with the expenses of salaries, travel, paying lesser teams and facilities. Most private schools have basketball teams, but not football teams. The other thing that private schools can have is location. Miami is a hotbed for recruits so will always be relevant. USC has money and location. TCU and baylor have location

We have neither and are scrapping along based on our tradition and that people still believe in that tradition. They're have long been the arguments that we probably should have gone the way of the Ivy's and colgate. We keep hoping for a generous donor to help take up our cause and give us facilities.

It's going to be tough sledding for us, duke, vandy, and BC. That doesn't mean we give up, but sometimes that perspective is helpful. Same is true for state schools with little money and poor location.

I'd say Wake more so than Duke. Duke has the $$$ to be competitive if they wish to be and North Carolina, the Tidewater area, and access to Florida has enough recruits to keep them competitive, if they have the will for it.

Coaching is the main key. Look at Cincinnati, which doesn't have near the resources of most of the privates listed, but who have had Dantonio, Kelly, Butch Jones, and now Tuberville as their coaches since 2004.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Doctor44]

I've always been a big proponent that we need to try to develop D1 talent. SU should try to improve high school football in the area. We should be able to get a handful of kids out of Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Binghamton, Rochester and Buffalo every year. There's D1 talent in their somewhere, we just need to develop it earlier.

 

[Doctor44]

I'd say Wake more so than Duke. Duke has the $$$ to be competitive if they wish to be and North Carolina, the Tidewater area, and access to Florida has enough recruits to keep them competitive, if they have the will for it.

Coaching is the main key. Look at Cincinnati, which doesn't have near the resources of most of the privates listed, but who have had Dantonio, Kelly, Butch Jones, and now Tuberville as their coaches since 2004.

Cheers,
Neil

Not sure if you were implying this, but Cincy is a public school. #2 behind ohio state, but they certainly dont get the money that OSU does.

 

[Crusty]

I think they certainly can compete with the power state schools, but it's tough. You need to be a wealthy private school to be able to keep up with the expenses of salaries, travel, paying lesser teams and facilities. Most private schools have basketball teams, but not football teams. The other thing that private schools can have is location. Miami is a hotbed for recruits so will always be relevant. USC has money and location. TCU and baylor have location

We have neither and are scrapping along based on our tradition and that people still believe in that tradition. They're have long been the arguments that we probably should have gone the way of the Ivy's and colgate. We keep hoping for a generous donor to help take up our cause and give us facilities.

It's going to be tough sledding for us, duke, vandy, and BC. That doesn't mean we give up, but sometimes that perspective is helpful. Same is true for state schools with little money and poor location.

With respect to location, it is hard to say that TCU Baylor and Miami have location and imply that Duke does not. If Vandy has a location disadvantage then UT must have as well. More importantly, playing time mitigates some (not all) of the location advantage. Vandy enhanced the point with respect to coaching. Also, Baylor was nothing for decades before they got a great coach.

As far as facilities are concerned, we have competitive facilities and plenty of money coming in from the ACC.

Look at Texas and tell me coaching is not, by far, the largest determinate of success. Coaching gets us back into the game.

 

[Crusty]

I've always been a big proponent that we need to try to develop D1 talent. SU should try to improve high school football in the area. We should be able to get a handful of kids out of Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Binghamton, Rochester and Buffalo every year. There's D1 talent in their somewhere, we just need to develop it earlier.

Talk to the Legislature. Without spring football nothing will improve much.

 

[omniorange]

Not sure if you were implying this, but Cincy is a public school. #2 behind ohio state, but they certainly dont get the money that OSU does.

Should have been clearer. My point was that $$$ to get good coaches (which I think is the main factor in being competitive) should not be an excuse that Syracuse uses seeing how Cincy, which doesn't spend anywhere near what we do on athletics has been able to go out and get good coaches. True they know they will have to replace said coach after three years, but SU to me has always been more concerned about getting a coach who will stay longer rather than acccept the fact that for football we will never be a destination school. Once we accept that fact, we will be better off freeing us up to hire the young up and comers or proven veterans who need a second chance even though if successful they will move on in three years.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Crusty]

Should have been clearer. My point was that $$$ to get good coaches (which I think is the main factor in being competitive) should not be an excuse that Syracuse uses seeing how Cincy, which doesn't spend anywhere near what we do on athletics has been able to go out and get good coaches. True they know they will have to replace said coach after three years, but SU to me has always been more concerned about getting a coach who will stay longer rather than acccept the fact that for football we will never be a destination school. Once we accept that fact, we will be better off freeing us up to hire the young up and comers or proven veterans who need a second chance even though if successful they will move on in three years.

Cheers,
Neil

Where do all the good coaches come from? It seems that a great many of them come through the MAC. I wonder where else.

My impression is that the NE smaller schools play great basketball and not so much football so there is not such a great farm system.

 

[Doctor44]

Should have been clearer. My point was that $$$ to get good coaches (which I think is the main factor in being competitive) should not be an excuse that Syracuse uses seeing how Cincy, which doesn't spend anywhere near what we do on athletics has been able to go out and get good coaches. True they know they will have to replace said coach after three years, but SU to me has always been more concerned about getting a coach who will stay longer rather than acccept the fact that for football we will never be a destination school. Once we accept that fact, we will be better off freeing us up to hire the young up and comers or proven veterans who need a second chance even though if successful they will move on in three years.

Cheers,
Neil

I kind of have the opposite view. We shouldn't aspire to the fast risers, which leave the program with new coaches every 4-6 years and instability and the unknown thereafter. I think someone like pasqualoni is better. I'd prefer a coach who can year in and year out provide a solid bowl team and every few years we're more competitive than that, but who isn't looking to leave. I hope that Shafer can be this guy.

I think it would drive me crazy to see new coaches every few years and having to roll the dice that a new coach can be successful every few years.

 

[omniorange]

Where do all the good coaches come from? It seems that a great many of them come through the MAC. I wonder where else.

My impression is that the NE smaller schools play great basketball and not so much football so there is not such a great farm system.

Well at least Cincy's relatively young ones seem to come through the MAC - but they play in the MAC region. Still two of the three proved themselves first as head coaches in the MAC, not as coordinators. If you elevate a coordinator to their first head coaching position, I suspect most of the successful ones were coordinators at a P5 level, not a G5 one.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Crusty]

I kind of have the opposite view. We shouldn't aspire to the fast risers, which leave the program with new coaches every 4-6 years and instability and the unknown thereafter. I think someone like pasqualoni is better. I'd prefer a coach who can year in and year out provide a solid bowl team and every few years we're more competitive than that, but who isn't looking to leave. I hope that Shafer can be this guy.

I think it would drive me crazy to see new coaches every few years and having to roll the dice that a new coach can be successful every few years.

Perhaps, but that is easier said than done. I'll settle for competent coaches with upside and recruiting skills. Probably more than anything else - recruiting skills.

 

[omniorange]

I kind of have the opposite view. We shouldn't aspire to the fast risers, which leave the program with new coaches every 4-6 years and instability and the unknown thereafter. I think someone like pasqualoni is better. I'd prefer a coach who can year in and year out provide a solid bowl team and every few years we're more competitive than that, but who isn't looking to leave. I hope that Shafer can be this guy.

I think it would drive me crazy to see new coaches every few years and having to roll the dice that a new coach can be successful every few years.

There are plusses and drawbacks to both approaches. Settling in on someone long term, even if successful, usually means you will hang on to them much longer than you probably should have. If you go in expecting to have to replace your coach every three years or so, keeps the AD on their toes and focused on the here and now and what's going on in terms of coaching and you don't mind pulling the trigger on a new coach sooner than expected.

Louisville is another example of where the every three years seems to be working for them even with the disaster of Kragthorpe in the run of Smith, Petrino, Kragthorpe, Strong, and now back to Petrino. Anyone doubt that they will be looking for another coach in a couple of years?

Cheers,
Neil