|
Replies: 22
| visibility 1
|
CU Guru [1346]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3868
Joined: 11/19/11
|
Question on Swinney comment on changing recruiting rules
Feb 7, 2013, 3:39 PM
|
|
I get that the new rules opens up recruiting activity making all schools have to get 'busier' to keep up to some degree with the 'rich' schools - rich from an athletic money standpoint.
But how does the cost of hiring 1, 2, or 3 people to manage all that (if really needed) compare with the other costs associated with building good programs, good facilities, etc.? Are we talking about $250k to $500k per year, versus millions to build and improve facilities, bring in good or better coaching and conditioning talent, etc.?
I'm just pointing out that if it takes hiring a person or a few people, (big 'if'), that isn't the biggest problem mid-level or smaller schools face in getting the best recruits. How much did our indoor practice facility cost, for example?
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6982
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: Question on Swinney comment on changing recruiting rules
Feb 7, 2013, 3:44 PM
|
|
Yeah the cost really don't compare until you start talking about recruiting facilities being built for the larger programs. We are talking about a yearly cost instead of a one time payment but yeah I would guess salaries in the 100k to 300k range. Some of this is already in place with Brad Scott and Woody McCorvey.
It will be interesting to see how the NCAA distinguishes between true recruiting coaches and other admin positions. The larger schools will be able to create huge staffs if not regulated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2212]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2646
Joined: 10/25/02
|
Re: Question on Swinney comment on changing recruiting rules
Feb 7, 2013, 3:46 PM
|
|
I think you are underestimating the cost of this.
This department could literally cost $10,000,000 a year without much effort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2212]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2646
Joined: 10/25/02
|
Re: Question on Swinney comment on changing recruiting rules
Feb 7, 2013, 3:48 PM
|
|
Full Time Marketing Department - 2 Million
100 recruiters - 1 kid each in the next 4 classes at 50,000 a pop is 5,000,000
Building to house them in $1,000,000
We've not even got into the IT to support them and infrastructure cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6937]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 22594
Joined: 5/4/03
|
Re:Lets just get out. Heck of a lot cheaper. It is,
Feb 7, 2013, 4:28 PM
|
|
certainly, not worth that kind of money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19210]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16717
Joined: 9/2/08
|
Get out of what? The ACC?
Feb 7, 2013, 4:36 PM
|
|
You know those SEC teams will be spending it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1346]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3868
Joined: 11/19/11
|
Why does allowing unlimited contact increase..
Feb 7, 2013, 5:24 PM
[ in reply to Re: Question on Swinney comment on changing recruiting rules ] |
|
..marketing costs (requiring an entire department). What school will allow 100 NEW employees of any type on the payroll in good or bad times. Today, with most public schools, I think they would have a hard time justifying hiring many additional people even if on the athletic payroll. What President wants to fight the battle of stagnant academic spending while flagrant athletic spending (note I use the word flagrant)?
My point is that Swinney points only to increased effort/time in making contact and the fact it likely leads to an additional head or more. I don't see how that translates into a measurable increase in marketing. The result from some big marketing effort would be needed regardless of how many phone calls, texts, tweets, FB postings, etc., you felt you needed to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19210]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16717
Joined: 9/2/08
|
This whole thing is a game changer. Part of it is the cost
Feb 7, 2013, 3:46 PM
|
|
and the other part is the time involved. It may mean paying for and building new housing for our players, or a new weight room, or a new whatever. That's the catch--what is going to be the physical things you need to keep up with the Jones. The other part is two fold. One part is monitoring, creating and sending out social media tweets, messages, posters, videos, etc to support the recruiting process. It will be 24/7 and these folks will need staff. As will the folks who will be hired to evaluate high school kids, collect film, etc. You will have to pony up lots of dollars to stay elite. JMHO.
Message was edited by: AThomas®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 7/1/97
|
Re: This whole thing is a game changer. Part of it is the cost
Feb 7, 2013, 3:56 PM
|
|
it sure is a game changer! it is also A MONEY PIT!! this will soon wreck the NCAA!! how do college presidents approve something this stupid??
crooked boosters(Bama,c$$t,Ga.,LSU.. list goes on and on)will pour mils into this rathole!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6226]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8863
Joined: 5/30/01
|
My question is...
Feb 7, 2013, 3:59 PM
|
|
Why the he!! isn't there any early signing period already? It's ridiculous. Basketball has one-- it works great-- so why doesn't football?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1346]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3868
Joined: 11/19/11
|
Does BB early signing have stipulations?
Feb 7, 2013, 6:20 PM
|
|
If you can stipulate the player be ready - meaning not injured, etc., I'm with you on how it could clear up some of the drama and even some of the expense and effort. It might make more recruits cautious, but that's not a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1774]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2495
Joined: 8/22/01
|
The SEC is opposed to an early signing period...
Feb 8, 2013, 7:12 PM
[ in reply to My question is... ] |
|
their coaches voted 9-3 against it a few years ago, and the conference will fight it hard. They know they have the upper hand now. Their advantage is about to increase. Case closed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19736]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17300
Joined: 8/18/05
|
If we handle it right, and I think we will, will be a huge
Feb 8, 2013, 8:49 PM
[ in reply to This whole thing is a game changer. Part of it is the cost ] |
|
advantage for us. Having Brad Scott and Woody McCorvey, as Dabo said, able to be more involved in recruiting is a very good thing. I would think 3-5 grad assistants will be added, including a tech person, just for this. Is actually a chance to keep guys in the program and build the family even better. Imagine a Daniel Rodriguez texting recruits down the road. High quality guys will be added and we will be extremely effective at this. One thing is for sure, the role of recruiting coordinator just became even more important and difficult. Will need to find the right balance with recruits so as not to have them feel overwhelmed or neglected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
Well let's look at that for a minute...
Feb 7, 2013, 3:47 PM
|
|
Coaches's salaries and upgrades to facilities are going to be there regardless, these higher end expenses already separate big money schools from the lower tiered schools. Whereas these are an added expense, and the lower tiered schools will not be able to spend as much, creating a bigger gap.
Even at the lower end of your estimate of $250k in added salaries, you're talking an extra million dollars every 4 years. The schools already struggling to keep up will have a tough time matching those amounts.
My guess is (and keep in mind this is just a guess) you will see bigger programs hiring people to only be responsible for calling and texting a certain group of recruits on a daily basis while keeping detailed records of every communication. Then it just expands from there. To add a communication department, with office space, technology, and everything else that is required would not be cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1346]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3868
Joined: 11/19/11
|
Re: Well let's look at that for a minute...
Feb 7, 2013, 5:28 PM
|
|
I don't disagree that IF the changes necessarily meant a large communications department was needed, the end result would be that more athletics-wealthy schools would have an upper hand. But there is no reason to believe that would happen for sure. If it does, no doubt the number of NCAA members who suffer will be much, much greater than those who benefit, and the mob will revolt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 414
Joined: 11/26/10
|
Re: Well let's look at that for a minute...
Feb 8, 2013, 6:33 PM
|
|
Dabo has already said it will further separate the have's and have not's. Let's just hope the have not's do revolt and soon.
I think this whole thing is crazy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4774]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 7611
Joined: 12/17/11
|
It seems like people already in the dept. would have added
Feb 7, 2013, 4:01 PM
|
|
duties... i.e. Brad Scoot whom he mentioned in the presser.
Not necessarily "new" hires.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19210]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16717
Joined: 9/2/08
|
I don't know if you are going to do it right and play with
Feb 7, 2013, 4:04 PM
|
|
the big boys I think it means creating directed positions for recruiting rather than shifting duites.
Message was edited by: AThomas®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Devotee [304]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 149
Joined: 10/4/03
|
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this
Feb 7, 2013, 4:55 PM
|
|
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but the new rule simply allows unlimited calls/texts/contact with recruits.
How does this translate into a need for some marketing department?
Let's say you've got 100 targest per upcoming class so around 400 total recruits you are actively contacting. Get 4 graduate assistants, a sprint unlimited family plan, a couple of laptops, and a steady supply of mountain dew and you're done!
Instead of getting Coach old a** dropping texts on these kids all day, you've got peers that speak their language.
4 dudes could easily handle doling out texts, likes, and tweets to 100 people if they have nothing else to do all day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 7/1/97
|
Re: Maybe I'm misunderstanding this
Feb 7, 2013, 5:17 PM
|
|
this is bargain job description.. those schools that EMPHASIZE football like Bama and the dirty c$$ts will pour $mils into this..with NO OVERSITE their crooked boosters will pay even more than they do now!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1346]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3868
Joined: 11/19/11
|
Excellent points! Players and students are already involved
Feb 7, 2013, 5:32 PM
[ in reply to Maybe I'm misunderstanding this ] |
|
Already other players and students are assigned any number of tasks with the recruits, so just add more.
The whole argument for heavy duty rules and control seems to hinge on a hypothetical.
Imagine if, for example, Bama spent $5 million while another school spent $250k and got the same results - meaning equal contact by students/players/etc. as those 'pros' hired by Bama. I think the AD at Bama would question if all that money was put to good use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 414
Joined: 11/26/10
|
Re: Maybe I'm misunderstanding this
Feb 8, 2013, 6:36 PM
[ in reply to Maybe I'm misunderstanding this ] |
|
What are you smoking? This will certainly require very professional work, not a bunch of grad assistants. Didn't you listen to what Dabo had to say about all of this? Don't you think he has a handle on what this will involve?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1346]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3868
Joined: 11/19/11
|
How much 'professional' contact could be needed?
Feb 9, 2013, 12:51 AM
|
|
I can buy the idea that some effort might be needed for oversight and coordination - from some level professional. But if this necessarily means there must be some huge increase in contact with each recruit like some suggest, why does it have to be a professional always or even a key coach each and every time? I mean, even on campus visits are they spending hours upon hours with the coaches, day after day? I don't think so. The ideas some have bounced around here make sense to me. IF to compete you have to stay in contact so much more under the new rules, using other students, and past athletes (like Jeff Davis or Levon Kirkland, etc.) is probably a plus. Why not even consider some hard core boosters - properly 'trained' and screened of course?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 22
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
