Of course it’s a huge factor but some might think it’s everything. So if it is someone explain Indiana I doubt they have scads of money out there buying 5 star players. Clearly not the case. So how did they become one of the best college football teams in the country in 2 short years at a school that thought basketball was the only sport???
So is it all Money and NIL?
- Thread starter longtimer
- Start date
HawkPowerlifter
Well-Known Member
College football's top 50 programs ranked by NIL efforts
Separating the haves and have nots across college football.
247sports.com
Here's link. Last year Indiana was 28th. Shockingly Iowa is at #16. I'm not surprised Oregon is tops at just shy of one billion!! I may not be a Cignetti fan. But you cannot deny, he seems to be a heckuva coach. I think once you get past the Top 10 programs, the disparity isn't as stark. But Indiana has definitely shelled out some funds to bolster the football program. The spending totals include sponsorships and etc too so it's a bit skewed.
Top 10 NIL College Football Teams: Just 4 Schools Pass $200K Mark, Colorado Misses the Cut | College Sports Network
Only four programs average over $200K per player in NIL: Texas, Oregon, Michigan, and Bama. Colorado's close, but not quite top-tier—yet.
collegefootballnetwork.com
I also thought this was interesting that only a few teams average per player disbursements.
Nothing like being a 2nd teamer making $200K.....
Fryowa
Administrator
Any team can have lightning in a bottle for a period of time. It's about being able to sustain it.
Some things to note about Indiana...
1) Yes they went 10-2 last year but the only "big time" game they won was a terrible unranked Michigan team. The rest of their schedule was dog shit and they got throttled by OSU and ND as expected. Very similar to Iowa 2015.
2) The Oregon win was huge and I'll concede that. But the rest of this year they've beaten Illinois who have shown they were extremely overrated, and Iowa by a whisker. The rest are Old Dominion, Kennesaw State, and Indiana State which is a non-major right up there with UMass. They have the easiest remaining schedule in the B1G by a country mile...MSU, UCLA, Maryland, floundering Penn State with no QB, Wisconsin, and Purdue. Come on...
Indiana might be the next big thing but I'm holding off for now. They have had the advantage of a VERY soft schedule the past two years, and only have 1 marquee win. Even Iowa beat a leviathan back in 2018.
Let's not go declaring Indiana as the new big boy in the room just yet.
Absolutely. The same has been said of Ferentz and either Parker. Same has been said of various Boise St., UCF, and Liberty coaches. And Bill Snyder. And Mangina...err...Mangino. And various others. You could add Matt Cambell. Dan McCarney or even better Gene Chizik. But, he also dispels that myth a bit since his best performance was with less.
Amen. How many times have we seen Boise St. being 'the next best thing'? Granted, sometimes their coach/coaches get cherry picked. But, I mean, look at USC? I bet Wisconsin has more BCS appearances, but never the "national title" type hopes. Take the Pete Carroll years out of USC and a school with access to all kinds of money....(as evidenced by the Pete Carroll Professional Football League). They can have a 10-3 season with a Rose Bowl loss and follow it up with an 11-3 with a Cotton Bowl win. And then go 5-7. Riley's first year was a doozy. The second one...not so much. What about Florida St. and Miami? Maybe not Miami. They're a bit more like Nebraska. One time...great, but completely out of the 'elite' running. FSU arguably has had recent sniffs. And like all Florida schools, they have no shortage of being able to pick players from the entire US in a way that Indiana....and even OSU can't. Florida schools have the highest rates of out-of-state players outside the academies and Notre Dame. And yet, nobody thinks of them as any kind of year-over-year achiever of expectations. I mean, heck. Where's LSU these days?
You gotta figure, every two seasons....what...80% of the starters are completely different? Some years maybe more. Some years, maybe less. It should be way easier for USC. No way Indiana is going to sustain anything. The best they can hope for is being like Wisconsin was for many years. Or even Iowa for that matter. OSU is the bride. PSU is the bridesmaid. Wisconsin is (was) an usher. Iowa is the guestbook attendant. In this scenario, Michigan is the groom's sidechick who thinks she's way hotter than she is and sometimes comes in and disrupts the ceremony. I don't have enough data on USC/Washington/Oregon. They're guests at the moment.
Fry noted that Indiana was 0-2 last year against teams ranked at the end of the season. This year they will be 1-0, unless Iowa can sneak in somehow by the end of the year. And let's see where Oregon actually winds up.
Like anything in regards to sports it's all encompassing. Talent coached up is what wins so those who can combine those two things the best is who sustains winning. PSU atm is an example of how the $ isn't everything... Texas as well even though I know they just beat Oklahoma they aren't what they are expected to be. Things can go off the rails pretty fast with an injury here and there too. But yeah $ is and will be a factor for attracting talent now that's a given
Best example. Mack Brown had quite a run. Until he didn't.
Sarksian has had 2 years with 10+ wins.
This year? 10 wins gonna be hard, even with a bowl win. On paper, it's 7 wins. So, 8 or 9?
Still a very good year. But, at that point...."underachieving". And not unheard of to have a second 7 win season. And maybe a 5 win season. Before maybe turning the corner. Difference is, they can turn a corner way easier than an Indiana.
