Football Scoop: Study: Five-stars are worth $650,000 per year; 2-star recruits cost his school $13,000 per year

Donate To GopherHole
Some guy said:
That’s the point.
People go to games to see Ohio State.
If the Bosa twins didn’t go to Ohio State and some other 2-4 star was playing instead...the stadium would still be packed.

There is a reason all the duke and Arizona basketball games will be sold out yet the G league team that gets the top prospect will still be playing in front of mostly empty arena.

the brands of universities sell tickets more than individual athletes do
Click to expand...
I very much agree with you.

I still do think that the correlation with winning and fandom exists, but on a long time scale. Like if Ohio State just started sucking ... finishing no higher than middle of the pack in the Big Ten .... eventually it would dry up. I think.

Then again, Nebraska hasn't been shit in national college football for 20 years, but they still sell out and probably still would get some of the highest national ratings for a big time TV non-conf game.

So maybe it would take a really long time. Gophers level? 40-50 years?



Recruiting in of itself as a factor, I think only matters because it in turn correlates with winning.
 


This isn’t a study. It’s a probability and statistics fubar. Ridiculous premise x ridiculous analysis = BS.

Gee whiz. Winning = more high end players + more $. I’ll give you that study for free.
 

MplsGopher said:
I very much agree with you.

I still do think that the correlation with winning and fandom exists, but on a long time scale. Like if Ohio State just started sucking ... finishing no higher than middle of the pack in the Big Ten .... eventually it would dry up. I think.

Then again, Nebraska hasn't been shit in national college football for 20 years, but they still sell out and probably still would get some of the highest national ratings for a big time TV non-conf game.

So maybe it would take a really long time. Gophers level? 40-50 years?



Recruiting in of itself as a factor, I think only matters because it in turn correlates with winning.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100%
 

highwayman said:
Winning = more high end players + more $. I’ll give you that study for free.
Click to expand...
No one was trying to "prove" that.

The academic novelty of it, was in trying to make a valid reasoning about what the parameter values were.
 


That is why Helmet schools are helmet schools.

an Ohio State gets the best players, so they win a lot of games and draw large crowds. and then the best players look at Ohio state, and say "gee, they win a lot of games, so I'll go there." It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

It would be interesting to see what happened if OSU for some reason was only getting 2* and 3* players for two or three recruiting cycles. But the odds of that happening are really tiny.

the other question is what would happen if a MN was able to pull in a bunch of 4* players and mix in a 5* or two.

but in general, it's a lot harder for a non-helmet school to become a helmet school than it is for a helmet school to fall out of that club.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom