Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2020 15:27:23 GMT -6
Could they attract 5 stars? If the 5 star is x,y, z probably. But could they do things to make the enrollment at an academy more appealing to potential recruits? Absolutely. Could they set up things to get not so attractive academic students? Yup. Could they pay to recruit the country? Absolutely. Could they pay for the coaching? Just silly to say they couldn’t. Could they be Alabama. No. Could they compete in a power 5 conference. Absolutely. They just choose not to. And I am not supporting the loosening of standards nor railing against as I dont care. My point is they choose to be where they are. And I will say with a lot of confidence that most of the power 5 schools are in that boat.
162 million dollars to be a very average national program...that is a shame. Do a lot with what they get not with what they have.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 21, 2020 19:51:58 GMT -6
Of course not and Pithy said so in his message. I think that the problem here is defining "least".
Good point.
I would say access to high-end recruits is on the top of the list when defining the term "least" in this situation.
And that's why I agree with those who say that schools like Wisconsin and Iowa don't do "the most with the least". They may not get the five stars but it's not because there's any reason, such as academics or facilities, that they can't. As for the D.3's, deciding who does the most with the least is tricky. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Dec 21, 2020 21:22:38 GMT -6
I'm going to assume that the 'doing the most with the least' references individual player natural abilities and talent; and not access to government funding or other political/economic connections. As the OP wrote, "...these top teams often have the most talent year in and year out..." So when one writes the academies do more with less what is being implied is they do more winning with less naturally gifted players, when compared to other D1 FBS schools. Where are the resources for most institutions, especially in the power 5 and the academies. They have the resources. What they lack is the want to win. The perfect example of this is Oregon. The money is there to recruit and build facilities. And the money is there to do it, whether they do it or not. Colorado was Oregon in the early 90’s. Most with less is a falsity. They are choosing to do more with less. Who is doing the most with what they have is more appropriate. Regardless of the semantic turn, the point still remains. The question is who is able to do the most with the least amount of naturally talented or gifted players. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 23, 2020 9:54:02 GMT -6
Could they attract 5 stars? If the 5 star is x,y, z probably. But could they do things to make the enrollment at an academy more appealing to potential recruits? Absolutely. Could they set up things to get not so attractive academic students? Yup. Could they pay to recruit the country? Absolutely. Could they pay for the coaching? Just silly to say they couldn’t. Could they be Alabama. No. Could they compete in a power 5 conference. Absolutely. They just choose not to. And I am not supporting the loosening of standards nor railing against as I dont care. My point is they choose to be where they are. And I will say with a lot of confidence that most of the power 5 schools are in that boat. 162 million dollars to be a very average national program...that is a shame. Do a lot with what they get not with what they have. No they can't make themselves "more appealing". These are the MILITARY academies and not public institutions. If you don't understand what that entails, then you shouldn't be posting about the topic. If you do understand (which I'm certain you do) then you're only posting to p-ss people off and not actually contribute to the discussion. Here's your reality on this board, pithy. I don't dislike you because of a difference of opinion. I dislike you because you don't contribute much to the board other than discourse. Your posts typically have no foundation in fact, reality or experience which just muddies this site up with bullchit. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 23, 2020 11:27:32 GMT -6
Could they attract 5 stars? If the 5 star is x,y, z probably. But could they do things to make the enrollment at an academy more appealing to potential recruits? Absolutely. Could they set up things to get not so attractive academic students? Yup. Could they pay to recruit the country? Absolutely. Could they pay for the coaching? Just silly to say they couldn’t. Could they be Alabama. No. Could they compete in a power 5 conference. Absolutely. They just choose not to. And I am not supporting the loosening of standards nor railing against as I dont care. My point is they choose to be where they are. And I will say with a lot of confidence that most of the power 5 schools are in that boat. 162 million dollars to be a very average national program...that is a shame. Do a lot with what they get not with what they have. No they can't make themselves "more appealing". These are the MILITARY academies and not public institutions. If you don't understand what that entails, then you shouldn't be posting about the topic. If you do understand (which I'm certain you do) then you're only posting to p-ss people off and not actually contribute to the discussion. Here's your reality on this board, pithy. I don't dislike you because of a difference of opinion. I dislike you because you don't contribute much to the board other than discourse. Your posts typically have no foundation in fact, reality or experience which just muddies this site up with bullchit. Wait a minute. I have a hard time believing that I'm saying this but pithy's right. The academies have the material resources to compete (They already recruit nationwide) if they wanted to lower their standards. They shouldn't and they don't. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 23, 2020 11:45:21 GMT -6
No they can't make themselves "more appealing". These are the MILITARY academies and not public institutions. If you don't understand what that entails, then you shouldn't be posting about the topic. If you do understand (which I'm certain you do) then you're only posting to p-ss people off and not actually contribute to the discussion. Here's your reality on this board, pithy. I don't dislike you because of a difference of opinion. I dislike you because you don't contribute much to the board other than discourse. Your posts typically have no foundation in fact, reality or experience which just muddies this site up with bullchit. Wait a minute. I have a hard time believing that I'm saying this but pithy's right. The academies have the material resources to compete (They already recruit nationwide) if they wanted to lower their standards. They shouldn't and they don't. I think what coachcb was trying to state though is that they "can't" do that because of their operations as a federal military academy. If we want to say that they "could" do such things, then one could argue that other schools "could" pay off their players and cover it up. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 23, 2020 11:49:32 GMT -6
Wait a minute. I have a hard time believing that I'm saying this but pithy's right. The academies have the material resources to compete (They already recruit nationwide) if they wanted to lower their standards. They shouldn't and they don't. I think what coachcb was trying to state though is that they "can't" do that because of their operations as a federal military academy. If we want to say that they "could" do such things, then one could argue that other schools "could" pay off their players and cover it up. Yeah but I think that pithy's taking crap here because he's pithy and he almost always deserves it. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 23, 2020 11:56:40 GMT -6
I think what coachcb was trying to state though is that they "can't" do that because of their operations as a federal military academy. If we want to say that they "could" do such things, then one could argue that other schools "could" pay off their players and cover it up. Yeah but I think that pithy's taking crap here because he's pithy and he almost always deserves it. Yes, but in this case, the "could" isn't really a possibility, and I also doubt he has a solid grasp of the financial processes of West Point/Annapolis/Colorado Springs/Kings Point/or New London. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 23, 2020 12:17:23 GMT -6
Niumatalolo over at the Naval Academy can't very well call up the Chief of Naval Operations and state;
"Hey, I know we only accept 9% of applicants and we have a stringent admission requirements including a letter of recommendation from a state or federal representativ. But there's a stud 5-star QB with a 2.2 GPA and a 22 on his ACTs that I really want to pick up. Can we make that work? Oh and he really doesn't actually want to be in the military, so can we waive his service contract?"
Im not going to deal in semantics on this one; given the nature of what they do, the academies can't drop their admission standards to accommodate athletics. They can only accept about 1200 kids per year and those are some of the best and brightest in the nation. As it should be; they're training the generations who run our military.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2020 16:56:52 GMT -6
Its the federal government. They spend money on bridges to nowhere. Its not a feckless body with no real power, like the ncaa. The notion that the federal government cannot get around this standard, that standard, or this or that is, yet again, silly. They do not need to compromise on anything, just make it up and voila, 3 state institutions that are far better, at athletics than they currently are, better uses of there resources, getting far more out of their players. The HS equivalent would be IMG.
|
|
|
|
Post by CS on Dec 27, 2020 12:53:20 GMT -6
Its the federal government. They spend money on bridges to nowhere. Its not a feckless body with no real power, like the ncaa. The notion that the federal government cannot get around this standard, that standard, or this or that is, yet again, silly. They do not need to compromise on anything, just make it up and voila, 3 state institutions that are far better, at athletics than they currently are, better uses of there resources, getting far more out of their players. The HS equivalent would be IMG. You’re correct that the US government could in fact do more than any institution there is if they chose to do so. However, they don’t choose too. So by the standards they do require the academies don’t get the caliber of athlete the major P5 schools get. Therefore the coaches have to compete with the players they are able to get and they do that better than most IMO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 12:59:13 GMT -6
Its the federal government. They spend money on bridges to nowhere. Its not a feckless body with no real power, like the ncaa. The notion that the federal government cannot get around this standard, that standard, or this or that is, yet again, silly. They do not need to compromise on anything, just make it up and voila, 3 state institutions that are far better, at athletics than they currently are, better uses of there resources, getting far more out of their players. The HS equivalent would be IMG. You’re correct that the US government could in fact do more than any institution there is if they chose to do so. However, they don’t choose too. So by the standards they do require the academies don’t get the caliber of athlete the major P5 schools get. Therefore the coaches have to compete with the players they are able to get and they do that better than most IMO. I understand the realities. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Dec 27, 2020 13:02:14 GMT -6
You’re correct that the US government could in fact do more than any institution there is if they chose to do so. However, they don’t choose too. So by the standards they do require the academies don’t get the caliber of athlete the major P5 schools get. Therefore the coaches have to compete with the players they are able to get and they do that better than most IMO. I understand the realities. Then why argue a moot point? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 13:04:10 GMT -6
I understand the realities. Then why argue a moot point? Doesn’t mean I give them a break on doing most least. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Dec 27, 2020 13:05:56 GMT -6
Then why argue a moot point? Doesn’t mean I give them a break on doing most least. The COACHES do more with less. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 13:12:35 GMT -6
Doesn’t mean I give them a break on doing most least. The COACHES do. we are not robots. Or at least most of us are not. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Dec 27, 2020 13:17:28 GMT -6
we are not robots. Or at least most of us are not. I’m actually trying to understand you here. Are you saying that the coaches choose to be at the academies therefore negating the fact that they do more with less? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 27, 2020 15:17:06 GMT -6
we are not robots. Or at least most of us are not. I’m actually trying to understand you here. Word of advice. Don't try. I tried to give the benefit of the doubt several years (and multiple screen names for pithy ) ago. While I do now realize that often the broken language and syntax is caused by using a cell phone, it is still not advisable to try to understand most of his aptly named "pithy" replies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 16:13:55 GMT -6
we are not robots. Or at least most of us are not. I’m actually trying to understand you here. Are you saying that the coaches choose to be at the academies therefore negating the fact that they do more with less? Both the institutions and the coaches. You don’t credit for doing more with less when you have resources and refuse to use them. You don’t credit as a coach when you take that job. You don’t get credit when you are responsible for the self imposed shortcomings. Resources at power 5 and the academies are not the issue. So coaches who go to an academy or a Vanderbilt, or a Minnesota? You don’t get credit for doing more with less. It’s like taking a hc job in high school where there are very few if any teaching dedicated to those who coach. What do you expect? Same thing with taking a job where you have no facilities. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 27, 2020 16:30:01 GMT -6
I’m actually trying to understand you here. Are you saying that the coaches choose to be at the academies therefore negating the fact that they do more with less? Both the institutions and the coaches. You don’t credit for doing more with less when you have resources and refuse to use them. You don’t credit as a coach when you take that job. You don’t get credit when you are responsible for the self imposed shortcomings. Resources at power 5 and the academies are not the issue. So coaches who go to an academy or a Vanderbilt, or a Minnesota? You don’t get credit for doing more with less. It’s like taking a hc job in high school where there are very few if any teaching dedicated to those who coach. What do you expect? Same thing with taking a job where you have no facilities. Dude... just....wow. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Dec 27, 2020 16:41:35 GMT -6
I’m actually trying to understand you here. Are you saying that the coaches choose to be at the academies therefore negating the fact that they do more with less? Both the institutions and the coaches. You don’t credit for doing more with less when you have resources and refuse to use them. You don’t credit as a coach when you take that job. You don’t get credit when you are responsible for the self imposed shortcomings. Resources at power 5 and the academies are not the issue. So coaches who go to an academy or a Vanderbilt, or a Minnesota? You don’t get credit for doing more with less. It’s like taking a hc job in high school where there are very few if any teaching dedicated to those who coach. What do you expect? Same thing with taking a job where you have no facilities. I will agree that the academies as an organization can’t really claim doing more with less because they choose to have less. However, they also choose to have a football team and that team has to have coaches. So someone has to coach those teams with the restrictions placed on them. So I don’t see how you can argue that the coaches don’t do more with less. A job needs to be done and they do that job really well |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Dec 27, 2020 16:45:27 GMT -6
I’m actually trying to understand you here. Word of advice. Don't try. I tried to give the benefit of the doubt several years (and multiple screen names for pithy ) ago. While I do now realize that often the broken language and syntax is caused by using a cell phone, it is still not advisable to try to understand most of his aptly named "pithy" replies. I can’t help it |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 16:50:30 GMT -6
Both the institutions and the coaches. You don’t credit for doing more with less when you have resources and refuse to use them. You don’t credit as a coach when you take that job. You don’t get credit when you are responsible for the self imposed shortcomings. Resources at power 5 and the academies are not the issue. So coaches who go to an academy or a Vanderbilt, or a Minnesota? You don’t get credit for doing more with less. It’s like taking a hc job in high school where there are very few if any teaching dedicated to those who coach. What do you expect? Same thing with taking a job where you have no facilities. I will agree that the academies as an organization can’t really claim doing more with less because they choose to have less. However, they also choose to have a football team and that team has to have coaches. So someone has to coach those teams with the restrictions placed on them. So I don’t see how you can argue that the coaches don’t do less with more. A job needs to be done and they do that job really well It’s not that the coaches that can’t coach. Or that they are bad coaches. It’s both sides choice. To me a better choice would be a liberty u, cc, a Nevada, A Boise state, a Georgia southern... |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 27, 2020 17:17:49 GMT -6
I will agree that the academies as an organization can’t really claim doing more with less because they choose to have less. However, they also choose to have a football team and that team has to have coaches. So someone has to coach those teams with the restrictions placed on them. So I don’t see how you can argue that the coaches don’t do less with more. A job needs to be done and they do that job really well It’s not that the coaches that can’t coach. Or that they are bad coaches. It’s both sides choice. To me a better choice would be a liberty u, cc, a Nevada, A Boise state, a Georgia southern... All of those schools have budgets greater than what the teams in the 2020 CFP spend for their total athletic programs. Those schools just choose not to spend that money on athletics. They should not get any credit for that.... That is what your argument sounds like. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Dec 27, 2020 17:19:10 GMT -6
I will agree that the academies as an organization can’t really claim doing more with less because they choose to have less. However, they also choose to have a football team and that team has to have coaches. So someone has to coach those teams with the restrictions placed on them. So I don’t see how you can argue that the coaches don’t do less with more. A job needs to be done and they do that job really well It’s not that the coaches that can’t coach. Or that they are bad coaches. It’s both sides choice. To me a better choice would be a liberty u, cc, a Nevada, A Boise state, a Georgia southern... Liberty pays Hugh Freeze 3 mil a year. Monken at Army doesn’t even make 1 mil |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 17:51:18 GMT -6
It’s not that the coaches that can’t coach. Or that they are bad coaches. It’s both sides choice. To me a better choice would be a liberty u, cc, a Nevada, A Boise state, a Georgia southern... Liberty pays Hugh Freeze 3 mil a year. Monken at Army doesn’t even make 1 mil and libert is winning what recruiting battle? And monken stays at army why? How much more could army pay? Not should necessarily, but could? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 27, 2020 18:10:31 GMT -6
Liberty pays Hugh Freeze 3 mil a year. Monken at Army doesn’t even make 1 mil and libert is winning what recruiting battle? And monken stays at army why? How much more could army pay? Not should necessarily, but could? Whatever battle they want to. Liberty has nearly unlimited resources as the largest Christian school on the planet, and skyrocketing growth. Enrollment has grown upwards of 300% in the last decade and the Universities Operating revenue dwarfs the athletic budgets of the schools in the CFP. So, your argument is that Liberty could, if they wanted, easily outspend Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama etc...when it comes to athletics. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Dec 27, 2020 18:26:15 GMT -6
Liberty pays Hugh Freeze 3 mil a year. Monken at Army doesn’t even make 1 mil and libert is winning what recruiting battle? And monken stays at army why? How much more could army pay? Not should necessarily, but could? Well liberty out recruits all the academies. And all of the schools you listed do as well. So at least by star rankings they are coaching better football players than the academies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 18:51:30 GMT -6
and libert is winning what recruiting battle? And monken stays at army why? How much more could army pay? Not should necessarily, but could? Well liberty out recruits all the academies. And all of the schools you listed do as well. So at least by star rankings they are coaching better football players than the academies. and I put that on the academies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 18:54:04 GMT -6
and libert is winning what recruiting battle? And monken stays at army why? How much more could army pay? Not should necessarily, but could? Whatever battle they want to. Liberty has nearly unlimited resources as the largest Christian school on the planet, and skyrocketing growth. Enrollment has grown upwards of 300% in the last decade and the Universities Operating revenue dwarfs the athletic budgets of the schools in the CFP. So, your argument is that Liberty could, if they wanted, easily outspend Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama etc...when it comes to athletics. they could. But liberty isn’t part of the power 5 yet. They do more with what they have than say the academies or most of the power 5 schools. |
|
