Came across these articles yesterday and thought they were timely. "The University of Tennessee routinely outspends every school in the country on football recruiting, according to data compiled by USA Today from reports by the schools on NCAA-mandated financial statements. Tennessee topped the nation in football recruiting expenditures in four of the past five years for which spending reports are available. The data covers the 2008-09 school year through the 2012-13 school year. Recruiting expenses include transportation, lodging and meals for recruits and recruiters on official and unofficial visits, per NCAA guidelines. Annually, over that period, Tennessee spent nearly $1.3 million, 36 percent more than any other university. No other school averaged a seven-figure expenditure.....Overall, SEC schools took the top three spots in the country when it comes to football recruiting expenditures. Alabama finished third behind Tennessee and Auburn. Arkansas and Georgia also made the top-10 list of the highest spenders, finishing seventh and ninth, respectively." http://www.tennessean.com/story/spo.../tennessee-vols-football-recruiting/22678771/ "Last year, 23 of the 123 FBS programs exceeded the alleged ceiling of 25 signees. Tennessee topped the chart with 32. National signing day has become national over-signing day. Of the top 15 programs in the current recruiting rankings by Rivals.com, four have more than 25 commitments. Spoiler alert: All four are SEC schools — Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina and Mississippi State." http://www.tennessean.com/story/spo.../22328301/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=
tennessee has the right idea. for college football being such big business, we should be 7 figures. im pretty disappointed. and ut have never had much in state. they get most everyone from surrounding states.
And also why LSU doesn't have to spend as much in recruiting. Louisiana has a good crop almost every year and east Texas has more talent than A&M and Texas can lock up. LSU visits every player it wants to as much as it needs to, but the airline bill is much smaller.
Why? There is simply no direct relation between the recruiting budget and quarterback recruiting, icehole. We signed quarterbacks from California, Florida, Georgia, and Pennsylvania recently. LSU is doing all the travel it needs to recruit top-10 talent. There is money there if they need more.
What's not mentioned, but I believe we'll see a correlation, is these schools who have to spend more on transportation very well may be able to pay their players more when the cost of attendance stipends come through.
when we sign a top flight qb, then we've spent enough. til then, save me your travel expenses. cut a check. get a qb.
This data is more about easy access to players then it is budgets. TAMU spent 30% less than us, about 175K less. But mostly that is because they can recruit almost a complete 5* team within a 3 hour drive radius of their campus. UT has more money than anyone, and there is more where that came from if they need it. Their budget is 30K less than ours. Just like TAMU they don't need more. This article is interesting statistically, but that's all it is.
