GT: Bucky at Buckeyes - 6:30 - ABC

[MikeIsGood]

There is exactly a 0% chance Wisconsin spent only 400k on recruiting.

Reported numbers like that can be massaged in any number of ways.

I certainly agree. But the only thing that "matters" here, I think, is how it compares to other programs. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing if we're making apples-to-apples comparisons, AFAIK.

It doesn't look good, either way, but this is also quite old news. I feel like there was a big to do about this, maybe, three years ago?

[Kerb Hohl]

Look, it sounds like I'm giving him every excuse I can, but that isn't the case. If we wanna go a different direction, fine.

I just don't understand the "we can just expand the recruiting boundaries" thing.

How?

There's a reason that North Dakota won't be surpassing California's economy anytime soon by just "scrounging up some cash" or whatever.

Everyone else gets the NIL benefits as well. Wisconsin can and will up its NIL spending but so will Texas and Ohio State. We're not going to suddenly pull players from the footprint of those schools by upping NIL money or something.

I don't know in what world Wisconsin will be suddenly offering a higher average NIL/salary whatever than Ohio State or Florida. To pull a kid from Cincinnati or Miami, they'd have to go well and beyond just matching those teams given you're asking a kid to relocate from Miami to Madison. It just isn't going to happen even with the new rules.

Wisconsin grosses and spends more than Florida. UW has deep pockets, it's time to stop acting like we're this po-dunk midwestern program without resources, that we're woefully outgunned by other programs. We're not. What we need to do is stop playing boring football and make our program a place where kids actually want to play. There needs to be a philosophical shift. Same goes for the Basketball program.

And let's not go with the Miami to Madison BS. We going to sit here and act like Ann Arbor, Columbus, South Bend, Auburn, and Tuscaloosa are these desirable locales? C'mon. As a college town, Wisconsin actually has enormous advantages over many of these places. College sports are not dominated by major markets and cities.

Act and recruit like we know all of this stuff. The program needs personality. Gen Z ain't looking at Wisconsin's "we got big white bois from farms and we're gonna run in the cold cuz that's big ten football" and buying it. Like it or not, that tradition doesn't sell.

Madison rules. I went there and loved it. I'm not a sure-fire NFL player from Georgia, though.

For some reason, college recruits love being only 300 miles from home instead of 1,500 and the warmer weather of Tuscaloosa is the kicker.

Evidence: 50+ years of history on this.

This is the same argument we've had for a few decades now. You want to go to a dynamic passing offense? Alrighty then, we better up the **** out of that spending.

Every single year. Every. Single. Year. Wisconsin puts out about 15 D1 players in state. Florida puts out thousands. Ohio's 50th best recruit from their state is better than Wisconsin's 4th best HS recruit.

You want to play spread football, you need to somehow go in and ransack those states. It's just not going to happen. I don't think you guys understand this. It's not. We're not going to pull a 5-star QB from Texas AND a bunch of NFL WRs from Ohio and California by somehow offering a 10% raise over Florida or Georgia, which is not going to happen anyways. Take a look at Tim Brewster's Minnesota to see how this turns out. Or maybe Frost at Nebraska.

It's a fun idea, but you've already said "Wisconsin spends more than Florida" and curiously we are not pulling all of the players from there. This is a strange pipe dream that people have.

Run a little bit more RPO with a dual threat QB? Sure. Just don't get your hopes up much higher than recent/current success.

[Kerb Hohl]

There is exactly a 0% chance Wisconsin spent only 400k on recruiting.

Reported numbers like that can be massaged in any number of ways.

I certainly agree. But the only thing that "matters" here, I think, is how it compares to other programs. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing if we're making apples-to-apples comparisons, AFAIK.

It doesn't look good, either way, but this is also quite old news. I feel like there was a big to do about this, maybe, three years ago?

Wisconsin's best 3-year run in school school history for recruiting are 2019-2021, the group of players that make up this team we're bitching about.

But maybe if we hire some "recruiting coordinators" like Michigan State we can also suck like them.

There is not a chance they only spent $400k on recruiting. They have some recruiting staff and use a private jet. That alone is at least a million dollars if correctly accounted for.

[Kerb Hohl]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=ZNMmPsZXu9niiOUMkfbm5A

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=ZNMmPsZXu9niiOUMkfbm5A

As reported by midranger, these numbers can always be fudged a bit. Wisconsin may have a donor that provides a private jet whereas Minnesota has to pay for one or something like that.

But let's take a look...just for fun! 2019 spending would mean the guys you closed in 2019 and setting up the 2020 and 2021 classes.

2019: 29th best recruiting class in the country including Logan Brown and Graham Mertz. Nebraska 17, Michigan State 31, Iowa 41, Minnesota 45. Yes, OSU was at 14, Penn State at 12, Michigan at 8.

2020: Wisconsin at #27 nationally. OSU 5, Michigan 10, PSU 15 as we'd expect. Nebraska 20, Iowa 35, Minnesota 38, MSU 44

2021: Wisconsin #16 nationally. OSU 2, Michigan 13, Nebraska 20, PSU 21, Iowa 24, Minnesota 38, MSU 46.

So what are we really arguing here? We've proven that the amount spent doesn't really correlate to recruiting rankings. Recruiting rankings generally correlate to football results, except for Nebraska, who is pulling overrated players.

It seems that the teams with the built-in advantages and history (PA, MI, OH have 10x the football talent WI has) seems to actually correlate to recruiting and football success.

If one wants to argue that these spending numbers are legit and Wisconsin could pull the best players from MI, OH, and PA by just spending a little bit more money (I'm calling BS on this), then by all means, have fun. Doesn't seem to be working for Minnesota or Iowa if those numbers are to be trusted.

[ReasonablySober]

Let's look at Michigan.

2019: 2/26 commitments from Michigan
2020: 4/23 from Michigan
2021: 6/22 from Michigan
2022: 1/22 from Michigan

Now Wisconsin.

2019: 3/19 commitments from Wisconsin
2020: 7/20 from Wisconsin
2021: 6/21 from Wisconsin
2022: 5/15 from Wisconsin

Struggling to see what built in advantages Michigan has over Wisconsin. It isn't the talent in their backyard. It isn't history that any recruit is going to care about (or their parents, for that matter). Wisconsin has been better over the last 30 years. Could it simply be that Michigan spends more on big time coaches and recruiting? Yea, that's probably it.

[Kerb Hohl]

A lot of Wisconsin fans sure seem to have a little brother syndrome. Even watching that video above with Temple and a couple national writers, you come away with the impression that Wisconsin should be content with the occasional bout of national relevance, instead of aiming for consistent top ten finishes.

Since their first ten win season in 1993, the Badgers have had 13 ten win seasons. The only schools since then with more ten win seasons are Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Georgia, Florida, FSU and Virginia Tech.

It'd be nice if people stopped making excuses for why Wisconsin can't be elite.

For the 2022 class:

Virginia: 58 D1 players (all of these guys are going to PSU right now)
Ohio: 79 D1 players
Alabama*: 91 D1 players
Georgia: 182 D1 players
Oklahoma**: 32 D1 players
Florida: 291 D1 players

Wisconsin: In a banner year, 20 D1 players

* - Alabama is also nestled between Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, and isn't far from Florida
** - Oklahoma pulls most of its roster from Texas

We're on like the 10th year of having this argument between each other on here, but the reason Wisconsin has won all of those games is by not listening to you guys and trying to be something they're not. They have a bunch of 5-star linemen from WI and the upper midwest and run the ball. If they try to turn into Penn State or Florida (in their good times), they will have to somehow steal all of the recruits from those teams, which are nowhere near Wisconsin.

[Kerb Hohl]

Let's look at Michigan.

2019: 2/26 commitments from Michigan
2020: 4/23 from Michigan
2021: 6/22 from Michigan
2022: 1/22 from Michigan

Now Wisconsin.

2019: 3/19 commitments from Wisconsin
2020: 7/20 from Wisconsin
2021: 6/21 from Wisconsin
2022: 5/15 from Wisconsin

Struggling to see what built in advantages Michigan has over Wisconsin. It isn't the talent in their backyard. It isn't history that any recruit is going to care about (or their parents, for that matter). Wisconsin has been better over the last 30 years. Could it simply be that Michigan spends more on big time coaches and recruiting? Yea, that's probably it.

Dude, it's because they have way more to choose from.

It's a regional recruiting game. Michigan/Ohio, where Michigan pulls from, has 10-20x the top players in those states.

Michigan gets to take all of the 4 and 5 star kids from at home and are 2nd choice if they step into Ohio and are up there if they go to Pennsylvania.

Simply by geography alone, Michigan has more guys to choose from. They do pull a handful of better guys from TX and FL.

[Kerb Hohl]

If it was as easy as you guys think to just "spend a bit more money" and take players from historically good teams in historically good states, why have they not already done this?

And where is the money going? BA's salary used to be a point of concern but Chryst is a low salary B10-wise and I mean, they spend some $ on volleyball probably, but where do you think the money is being squirrelled away if they easily have it and are choosing not to spend it on recruiting?

We've watched Zook, Frost, and Brewster come in and destroy those programs for probably a decade by trying to be the flashy spread offense recruiting teams.

Fleck might be considered something good here but they are still a power running team with OL and defense being featured, they just run some RPO. They recruit worse than Wisconsin if we are to believe the rankings. I also have a hard time believing they'll ever get in OSU's stratosphere. They'll cap out at best where Wisconsin has.

[ReasonablySober]

If it was as easy as you guys think to just "spend a bit more money" and take players from historically good teams in historically good states, why have they not already done this?

And where is the money going? BA's salary used to be a point of concern but Chryst is a low salary B10-wise and I mean, they spend some $ on volleyball probably, but where do you think the money is being squirrelled away if they easily have it and are choosing not to spend it on recruiting?

We've watched Zook, Frost, and Brewster come in and destroy those programs for probably a decade by trying to be the flashy recruiting teams.

Fleck might be considered something good here but they are still a power running team with OL and defense being featured, they just run some RPO. They recruit worse than Wisconsin if we are to believe the rankings. I also have a hard time believing they'll ever get in OSU's stratosphere. They'll cap out at best where Wisconsin has.

Dude. Wisconsin is a historically good team. That's literally the entire point. The problem is the program doesn't act like it. They don't spend the money that historically great programs do, and they don't recruit the athletes historically great programs do. You yourself have advocated for switching to a more modern offense in just the last couple pages of this thread. So don't act like you aren't coming around to the exact thing I've been saying for the last half dozen seasons.

[Kerb Hohl]

If it was as easy as you guys think to just "spend a bit more money" and take players from historically good teams in historically good states, why have they not already done this?

And where is the money going? BA's salary used to be a point of concern but Chryst is a low salary B10-wise and I mean, they spend some $ on volleyball probably, but where do you think the money is being squirrelled away if they easily have it and are choosing not to spend it on recruiting?

We've watched Zook, Frost, and Brewster come in and destroy those programs for probably a decade by trying to be the flashy recruiting teams.

Fleck might be considered something good here but they are still a power running team with OL and defense being featured, they just run some RPO. They recruit worse than Wisconsin if we are to believe the rankings. I also have a hard time believing they'll ever get in OSU's stratosphere. They'll cap out at best where Wisconsin has.

Dude. Wisconsin is a historically good team. That's literally the entire point. The problem is the program doesn't act like it. They don't spend the money that historically great programs do, and they don't recruit the athletes historically great programs do. You yourself have advocated for switching to a more modern offense in just the last couple pages of this thread. So don't act like you aren't coming around to the exact thing I've been saying for the last half dozen seasons.

They are a historically good team by taking fat guys and LB-types from Wisconsin combined with a good RB from the east coast or FL that they can pull.

To run an actual spread you need receivers and an elite QB. Where are we going to get those guys? It would require a complete change of DNA, the DNA that literally has made them an elite team.

You are somehow acknowledging what has made Wisconsin an elite team for 30 years by your own estimation and telling them actually that's a bad idea, try the thing that probably isn't going to work for your circumstances.

I'd also argue to some degree we either lucked into this or tried with Graham Mertz - and here we are.

They could run some RPO, that won't happen this year.

[skones]

Dude, it's because they have way more to choose from.

It's a regional recruiting game. Michigan/Ohio, where Michigan pulls from, has 10-20x the top players in those states.

Michigan gets to take all of the 4 and 5 star kids from at home and are 2nd choice if they step into Ohio and are up there if they go to Pennsylvania.

Simply by geography alone, Michigan has more guys to choose from. They do pull a handful of better guys from TX and FL.

You're not making any sense. When you have the pockets Wisconsin does, there is no such thing as "regional." Let's take a deeper dive into Michigan recruiting, specifically the top talent.

2019
5 star from California
4 stars from Georgia (x4), Florida (x3), California (x2), Illinois, Ohio, Connecticut, Nevada, New Jersey, Massachusetts, DC, ONLY ONE from Michigan

2020
4 stars from Illinois, Maryland (x2), Florida, New Jersey (x3), Massachusetts (x2), California (x2), Hawaii, two from Michigan.

2021
4 stars from Florida (x3), California, Tennessee, New Jersey, Connecticut, 4 from Michigan

2022
4 stars from Maryland, Colorado, Florida, Illinois (x2), Oregon, Texas, California, Louisiana, Tennessee, one from Michigan

That's 54 recruits over four years that are four stars or higher and less than 15% of them come from in house. Look at these states, these aren't "geography alone" advantages and it's plain as day. About 40 of these guys you can't make a case at all for "regional" and I didn't even include Illinois in that, a state which Wisconsin should have a decisive "regional" advantage anyway.

Wisconsin's overall profits have increased exponentially and their spend hasn't increased in a proportional manner. This apologist woe is me regional disadvantage is a buncha malarkey. In fact, Wisconsin nabbed 9 recruits that were 4 stars or higher from in-state. That's one more than Michigan did over the same time span.