Category Archives: Recruiting

LeBron James Recruiting for Ohio State Baskeball?

“For me, I can’t worry about what everybody says about me. I’m LeBron James, from Akron, Ohio. From the inner city. I’m not even supposed to be here,” said by LeBron James after winning the Finals MVP this past year.  There wasn’t a shout out to Ohio State, nope, just to his hometown.

Anyone who’s been following his career knows that he never went to college. So then why would Ohio State have his name above a locker in their new basketball facility?

Let me ask you this, if you were a top recruit and visiting Ohio State and saw LeBron James name slapped to the top of a locker wouldn’t you be a bit more interested in attending that school?

I know I would.

According to Ohio State officials the reasoning behind devoting a locker to the Miami Heat player is to display James’ Nike line that is worn by the Buckeyes that include shoes, jerseys and warm-ups. Ohio State has been wearing different versions of his gear since the end of the 2006-07 season, where as Kentucky and Miami started wearing his gear in 2011.

James has always deemed himself a huge Buckeye fan, having been raised just two hours away from the campus. He has frequently been seen at high-profile games decked out in scarlet and gray.  Had he not been drafted out of high school and immediately gone pro, he would’ve likely attended the school.

Of course, coaches and schools will do anything to attain the best recruits they can get, and dropping a name has never hurt anyone.  It’s a sly recruiting tactic, whether it will work or not remains to be seen.

When Ohio State head coach Thad Matta was asked, “does that LeBron guy have a chance to contribute for you guys this year?” all he had to say was, “I think he is going to have to earn his stripes.”

What is the Relationship Between Money Spent on Recruitment and Recruiting Class Rank?

Have you ever wondered if a relationship exists between the money spent on football recruitment and the subsequent recruiting class rank? In this post, we look at the top 25 public schools in both recruiting expenditures and recruiting class rank, as reported by Rivals.com. These numbers are from 2010-2011 NCAA financial disclosures and 2011 recruiting classes.

This first chart shows the top 25 public schools in recruiting expenditures for the year 2011. As you can see, the expenditures range from $1,135,211 to $433, 236, yet the class ranks range from 1st in the county to 118th.

School Recruiting Class Rank
Tennessee $1,135,211 13
Alabama-Tuscaloosa $980,882 1
Auburn $950,378 7
Georgia Tech $883,430 41
Arkansas $666,419 24
Georgia $623,224 5
Texas Tech $611,910 20
Florida $602,929 12
Oregon $590,683 9
Boise State $589,773 53
UNC $580,200 16
Texas $577,976 3
Michigan $577,663 21
New Mexico $545,867 81
Illinois $545,363 42
Army $511,840 118
Mississippi $495,233 19
Memphis $493,204 65
Clemson $490,305 8
Nebraska $478,554 15
Colorado $470,355 74
Iowa State $448,777 51
Kansas $442,911 34
Washington $440,931 23
Florida State $433,236 2

This second chart shows the top 25 class ranks, with their respective recruiting expenses.

School Class Rank* Recruiting Expense
Alabama-Tuscaloosa 1 $980,882
Florida State 2 $433,236
Texas 3 $577,976
Georgia 5 $623,224
Louisiana State 6 $302,882
Auburn 7 $950,378
Clemson 8 $490,305
Oregon 9 $590,683
Ohio State 11 $320,938
Florida 12 $602,929
Tennessee 13 $1,135,211
Oklahoma 14 $356,414
Nebraska 15 $478,554
Berkeley 17 $394,298
South Carolina 18 $132,758
Mississippi 19 $495,233
Texas Tech 20 $611,910
Michigan 21 $577,663
Washington 23 $440,931
Arkansas 24 $666,419
Virginia 25 $276,806

Both charts show that, at present, there is no real relationship between how much a school spends on recruitment, and how high their recruiting class ranks. For instance, even though Florida State had the 2nd best recruiting class in the nation, they were only ranked 25th in recruiting expenditures.  Yet, Army, which only had the 118th best recruiting class amongst public schools,  actually spent about 1.18 times more on recruiting than Florida State did.

*Omitted Class Ranks belong to Private Schools (USC-4, Notre Dame-10, Stanford-22)

Editor’s Note: There has been some confusion over why these numbers differ from previous posts, which used Department of Education data filed by each school. Those reports show recruiting in two categories: male and female. The numbers in this post are football-specific and obtained from NCAA disclosures filed by each school and obtained through public records requests.

Georgia Tech’s Recruiting Expenses

Previously, BusinessofCollegeSports.com showed you which schools spent the most on recruiting per data obtained from the Department of Education.  In reporting this data, BusinessofCollegeSports.com noted that imperfections exist within the data, but that the Department of Education data was the only publicly available source listing recruiting expenses for public and private institutions.

After that report was published, BusinessofCollegeSports.com followed up with several schools in an effort to obtain more accurate records of their recruiting expenses.  Georgia Tech Athletics’ Chief Financial Officer, Frank Hardymon, graciously detailed Georgia Tech’s recruiting expenses for BusinessofCollegeSports.com

Per data obtained from the Department of Education, Georgia Tech’s recruiting expenses were the 7th highest of all BCS schools in 2010-11.  In that year, Georgia Tech had total recruiting expenditures of $1,489,599.00, spending $1,173,904.00 on recruiting for its men’s sports and $315,695.00 on its women’s sports.  Georgia Tech’s total recruiting expenditures put it only behind those of Tennessee, Auburn, Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia and Florida, when comparing data submitted to the Department of Education.

Hardymon was able to provide logical explanations as to why Georgia Tech’s recruiting expenses appeared higher than most other BCS schools.  In simplest terms, every school reports things differently.  Hardymon explained, “Everybody reports things differently.  Every school has different ways of doing accounting, so they show expenses under different categories.” 

Additionally, Hardymon explained that the items the Department of Education asks to be reported are not the same as what is required to be reported to the NCAA.  Thus, it is possible that a school’s revenues and expenses may appear to be different on each report.  “You can end up with two completely different bottom lines, which can lead people to question the quality of your accounting if you have two different totals,” said Hardymon. 

Furthermore, according to Hardymon, the Department of Education does not want athletics departments to report losses.  Thus, while the Department of Education report depicts many athletics departments having zero net income in 2010-11, it is possible that many of these athletics departments actually suffered a loss in 2010-11.  “Their theory is, if you had a loss, you’re still an operating entity, so somebody must have covered it for you.  They have us report the loss as if the school floated us the difference,” said Hardymon.  For athletics departments like Georgia Tech, which are a separate corporation from their university counterpart, this presents an issue, as the athletics department is solely responsible for any losses it incurs.

Hardymon noted that Georgia Tech is “very inclusive on recruiting” in terms of what the athletics department shows as a recruiting expense on its reports to the Department of Education and NCAA.  Part of Georgia Tech’s ability to inclusively report its recruiting expenses, is the result of the accounting system Georgia Tech uses.  Hardymon explained, “We are able to code a lot of things as recruiting.  So anything—even if it isn’t an immediate recruiting expense, but is going to turn into one, like buying envelopes, stationary and postage to be sent to recruits—is going to be listed as a recruiting expense.”   

Georgia Tech’s inclusiveness in reporting its recruiting expenses is likely what made its expenses the seventh-highest of all BCS schools in the Department of Education report.  While the Department of Education report only reports recruiting expenses as lump sum numbers, Hardymon provided BusinessofCollegeSports.com with an inside look of what some of the $1,489,599.00 spent by Georgia Tech on recruiting went toward.

First, the football program undertook an initiative to update the materials it distributes externally.  “Football makes a pretty strong commitment to communicate in writing with potential recruits,” said Hardymon.  According to Hardymon, “this initiative created $300,000.00 in expenses for the Athletic Association, which were categorized in football recruiting.”  It is important to note that the entire $300,000.00 was expensed towards recruiting in 2010-11, although some of the materials will be used for years beyond 2010-11.  Hardymon asserted that when “office-type expenses,” like the football program mailers were removed from Georgia Tech’s recruiting expenses, Georgia Tech’s recruiting expense total fell below $1 million.  Hardymon believes that this number is a more accurate representation of Georgia Tech’s recruiting expenses when compared to those of other programs.

The bulk of Georgia Tech’s recruiting expenses went towards travel costs.  In 2010-11, Georgia Tech spent $1,007,897.00 total on airfare, meals, hotels, entertainment, transportation, and development for on and off-campus recruiting.  The big-ticket item in Georgia Tech’s travel expenses for recruiting, though, is airfare expenses incurred by both basketball programs and the football program.  Hardymon said that while Georgia Tech does use a charter airline company, the company is relatively inexpensive and that the coaches also largely use commercial airlines to travel.  

 The numbers provided by Hardymon related to Georgia Tech’s recruiting expenses, along with his explanations as to why different athletics department’s expenses may seem vastly different, provided great insight into the budgetary concerns of a top athletics department.

Recruiting Success Has a Last Name: M-E-Y-E-R

What began as a run of the mill class for Ohio State has evolved into one of the top five classes in the country under the direction of new coach Urban Meyer. The facts speak for themselves:

Before Meyer? 13 commits prior to 11/22/11, a period of 17 months.

After Meyer? 12, in a period of nine weeks. This is as many commitments on 11/22 or later as Ohio State has had in the last three years (’09-’11) combined.

Before Meyer? An average of 3.39 stars per player.

After Meyer? 4.0 stars per player.

Before Meyer? A class ranked in the 20′s nationally, according to ESPNU’s Quint Kessenich.

After Meyer? A class ranked 3rd by Scout.com, 4th by Rivals.com, 5th by 247sports.com, and 6th by ESPN.com.

Even more impressive is the fact that in college football, an abbreviated first recruiting period often lends itself to a lower recruiting class ranking in year one. Meyer’s first class in Gainesville was ranked 15th, followed by 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 11th, and 2nd, respectively, according to Rivals.com’s year-by-year team recruiting rankings. If that pattern retains its shape in Columbus, expect “Titletown, USA” to have a new home.

And how about the fact that Meyer is credited this season with “flipping” six players who were previously committed elsewhere?

While historical “fringe stats” such as this are not kept on file, that has to be some sort of “irritate your competition” record, no? Steve Wiltfong, national recruiting reporter covering the Big 10 for 247sports.com, says it’s no fluke. “Urban works as hard or harder than any coach in college football. Some coaches say they’re the closer. Meyer is the starter, the middle-relief ace, and the closer.”

How does Meyer compare to recent other big name faces in new places?

Butch Davis at North Carolina opened with the #31 class in his first class of 2006 before climbing to #9 in ’09. Bill Snyder, the only coach who has won consistently in Manhattan, Kansas in this generation, capitalized on the excitement of his return with a class ranked #27 in 2008, but has managed to win with some sub-top 50 classes since. Steve Spurrier opened with less fanfare, with a class ranked #35 in 2004, yet over time has improved the reputation of Gamecock football and today the typical South Carolina class is between #15-20.

Urban Meyer has been called the best recruiter in the nation. To serve as an assistant to him, one must be willing to spend countless hours, days, and months travelling around the midwest and the country in search of the nation’s top talent. Nine hour car trips. Overnights in towns you’ve never heard of. Red-eye flights that even Visine can’t correct.

That is the expectation for employment and performance at The Ohio State University under new head coach Urban Meyer. It’s an internal drive that’s led Meyer on a journey to a 104-23 career record, including 7-1 in bowl games and two national championships. It’s also one that’s brought him to a virtual collapse, chest pains, near blackouts, hospital visits, and a resignation for health and family reasons at an uncommon age (46).

But Meyer is now refreshed and reinvigorated. He knows to challenge the present SEC domination in college football, the SEC athletes must be matched by those in Columbus. After all, “If you’re not a good recruiter, you have no value on our staff,” Meyer said.

Meyer was officially introduced as the next coach of Ohio St. on 11/28, and online reports confirming Meyer’s decision began to be leaked on 11/22. Adolphus Washington, who committed to the Buckeyes on 11/22/11, went so far as to mention Meyer in his announcement.

Meyer, seemingly, is in a class accompanied by he, Nick Saban, and nobody else. Certainly, Ohio State and its football program has recovered about as nicely from the indiscretions of Terrelle Pryor, Jim Tressel and company as possible. An interesting dichotomy is forming among college football fans. Those who can’t stand when the same powerhouse teams win big every year (this author raises hand), and those who love the traditional powers returning to their rightful perch on the top of the college football landscape, believing that it truly is in the best interest of the sport.

And with Meyer at the helm, the typically cloudy climate of Columbus seems poised for some sunshine. Pressed in an “on-the-spot” question as to whether Ohio State has a crystal ball in its future under Meyer, Wiltfong didn’t hesitate. “I do think they will (win a national title). Absolutely.”

Marc Ryan is a sports talk radio personality in Pensacola, Florida. You can follow him on Twitter: @marcryanonair.

Notre Dame Recruiting Expenses

In terms of recruiting expenses, the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame put up a good fight when stacked against other programs’ spending.  In 2010-11, Notre Dame spent a grand total $2,070,316.00 on recruiting.  This amount was the third-highest in the NCAA, and the highest in the Big East, the conference in which Notre Dame is a member.

Seeing that Notre Dame spent $376,114.00 more than the next highest recruiting spender (Alabama) in the NCAA, leads one to wonder what exactly the $2,070,316.00 was spent on.

Tom Nevala is Notre Dame’s Senior Associate Athletics Director for Business Operations and Youth Programming.  In his Business Operations role, he oversees all financial matters for Notre Dame’s athletic department.  Nevala was willing to help provide insight into how Notre Dame’s large recruiting budget is spent.

When asked how the athletic department’s budget is structured in a given year, Nevala provided the following insight:

“There are two components to what a team believes their budget should be:  What it has been and what is newly required going forward.  We participate in the university’s budget process.  We have to seek approval for our budget.  We have a net revenue target that we have to meet for the campus.  Our budget only grows if we get approval to grow and we can meet the revenue target.  Teams put forth their budget requests, and if we can meet those two things, we grant their budget accordingly,” explained Nevala.

Nevala’s explanation pointed to a significant factor for Notre Dame’s extensive recruiting budget:  the fact that Notre Dame athletics drives a significant portion of the university’s revenue.

According to Nevala, the Notre Dame athletics department is committed to providing $20 million worth of revenue to the university.  This $20 million is additional to the amount of money the athletics department spends to fund all of the department’s scholarships.  The $20 million worth of revenue provided by the athletics department to the university is used by the university to fund other students’ financial aid and to cover operating expenses.  As for where the athletics department obtains the revenue from, Nevala explained that, “The revenue mainly comes from football ticket sales.  We also have the benefit of a strong broadcasting relationship and fundraising,” said Nevala.

The athletics department’s ability to turn over $20 million worth of revenue to the university as a result of its football team’s success is arguably a reason why nearly one-half of Notre Dame’s entire recruiting budget is spent by the football team.

In 2010-11, Notre Dame’s $2,070,316.00 recruiting budget was spent as follows:

Team Recruiting Expenses Percentage of Total Recruiting Expenses
Football $1,008,028.00 48.7%
Men’s Basketball $304,252.00 14.7%
Women’s Basketball $198,021.00 9.6%
All Other Men’s Teams $300,328.00 14.5%
All Other Women’s Teams $259,687.00 12.5%

The link below is a pie chart depicting just how much of Notre Dame’s recruiting budget is spent by particular teams:

Notre Dame Recruiting Expenses

While the fact that 48.7 percent of Notre Dame’s entire recruiting budget was spent by the football team may seem outrageous to some, several factors must be taken into consideration.  First, unlike sports like basketball where only a handful of student-athletes are recruited during a given year, a school can be recruiting upwards of fifty or more football players in a given recruiting year.  Nevala also noted that travel expenses are higher depending upon when a recruit visits Notre Dame.  For instance, hotel prices in South Bend, Indiana, where Notre Dame is located, skyrocket when the Fighting Irish are playing a home football game.  If a football recruit is visiting for a game, this factor increases the cost of recruiting him.

While Nevala confirmed that the vast majority of recruiting expenses incurred by every Notre Dame team are travel related, he also explained that it’s possible that Notre Dame’s recruiting expenses appear significantly higher than other those of other schools, because Notre Dame is comprehensive in how it defines recruiting expenses.  According to Nevala, Notre Dame tries “to capture everything recruiting related” when reporting its figures to the Department of Education.  Examples he used included coach’s cellular telephone bills, subscriptions to recruiting newsletters, meals, and recruiting brochures.

Furthermore, Nevala indicated that Notre Dame’s recruiting expenses may be higher than other schools’ because of the athletics department’s focus upon recruiting the best talent nationally.  “We’re in a pretty unique situation here.  While we’re a Big East conference member, across the board, all of our sports are competing nationally.  That puts a different approach into recruiting nationally.  We also fund all of our sports’ scholarships, so that tends to lead to a little bit more national recruiting,” noted Nevala.

With its ability to generate a significant amount of revenue for the university, historical recognition as an athletics powerhouse and its desire to bring the best talent found nationwide to South Bend, one thing is for sure:  Notre Dame’s recruiting expenses will continue to lead the NCAA.

Conference Recruiting Expense Series: Top 51-100 Spenders

Today BusinessofCollegeSports.com will wrap up its Confernce Recruiting Expense Series.  Yesterday, BusinessofCollegeSports.com posted the top-50 spenders in terms of recruitment expenses.  Today, we’ll list numbers 51 through 100.  Be sure to visit BusinessofCollegeSports in coming weeks, as we will delve deeper into specific schools with surprising recruitment expense amounts.

Schools Conference Total Recruitment Expenses Men’s Recruitment Expenses Women’s Recruitment Expenses
51.  South Carolina SEC $859,063 $497,213 $361,850
52.  Texas A&M Big 12 $855,788 $555,563 $300,225
53.  Maryland ACC $826,352 $538,497 $287,855
54.  Pittsburgh Big East $818,175 $530,723 $287,452
55.  Connecticut Big East $801,080 $515,666 $285,414
56.  Oregon State Pac-12 $789,665 $549,846 $239,819
57.  UNLV Mountain West $771,530 $554,461 $217,069
58.  Wisconsin Big Ten $765,384 $448,624 $316,760
59.  Wake Forest ACC $759,648 $597,618 $162,030
60.  Northwestern Big Ten $755,004 $499,730 $255,274
61.  Utah Pac-12 $753,608 $497,391 $256,217
62.  Boston College ACC $749,409 $563,383 $186,026
63.  TCU Mountain West $731,517 $493,981 $237,536
64.  Mississippi State   $723,217 $477,868 $245,349
65.  Arizona State Pac-12 $723,111 $500,083 $223,028
66.  West Virginia Big East $723,009 $462,785 $260,224
67.  Rutgers Big East $718,843 $495,170 $223,673
68.  Oklahoma State Big 12 $680,123 $482,596 $197,527
69.  Tulsa Conference USA $656,576 $471,693 $184,883
70.  Rice Conference USA $647,194 $447,140 $200,054
71.  Georgetown Big East $644,203 $457,733 $186,470
72.  Washington State Pac-12 $611,759 $370,911 $240,848
73.  Cincinnati Big East $603,395 $392,288 $211,107
74.  USF Big East $597,311 $423,030 $174,281
75.  New Mexico Mountain West $582,283 $435,937 $146,346
76.  Colorado State Mountain West $575,719 $411,818 $163,901
77.  Utah State WAC $567,215 $405,695 $161,520
78.  Hawaii WAC $562,480 $348,783 $213,697
79.  Eastern Michigan MAC $562,271 $378,397 $183,874
80.  Miami (Ohio) MAC $542,281 $383,947 $158,334
81.  Marshall Conference USA $536,702 $390,190 $146,512
82.  UCF Conference USA $530,365 $334,079 $196,286
83.  East Carolina Conference USA $523,437 $340,355 $183,082
84.  UTEP Conference USA $517,999 $356,997 $161,002
85.  Houston Conference USA $499,430 $344,423 $155,007
86.  St. John’s Big East $498,354 $311,518 $186,836
87.  Western Kentucky Sun Belt $487,447 $349,431 $138,016
88.  Providence Big East $478,887 $280,057 $198,830
89.  Central Michigan MAC $476,907 $336,674 $140,233
90.  Wyoming Mountain West $474,568 $332,013 $142,555
91.  Denver Sun Belt $451,405 $230,427 $220,978
92.  SMU Conference USA $444,732 $290,043 $154,689
93.  South Alabama Sun Belt $439,614 $308,886 $130,728
94.  Ohio MAC $430,690 $296,483 $134,207
95.  Tulane Conference USA $425,361 $305,021 $120,340
96.  Florida International Sun Belt $420,873 $331,056 $89,817
97.  Akron MAC $417,492 $267,595 $149,897
98.  Buffalo MAC $414,567 $283,833 $130,734
99.  New Mexico State WAC $411,905 $293,298 $118,607
100.   UAB Conference USA $409,490 $234,669 $174,821

 

Conference Recruiting Expense Series: Top-50 Spenders

Last week, BusinessofCollegeSports.com showed readers just how much schools spend on recruiting.  The following is a list of the top-50 spenders in terms of total recruiting expenses for both men’s and women’s sports.  We’ll list numbers 50-100 tomorrow!

School Conference Total Recruitment Expenses Men’s Recruitment Expenses Women’s Recruitment Expenses
1.  Tennessee SEC $2,296,023 $1,878,771 $417,252
2.  Auburn SEC $2,117,645 $1,530,917 $586,728
3.  Notre Dame Big East $2,070,316 $1,612,608 $457,708
4.  Alabama SEC $1,694,202 $1,339,537 $354,665
5.  Georgia SEC $1,540,743 $1,039,220 $501,523
6.  Florida SEC $1,501,899 $1,065,716 $436,183
7.  Georgia Tech ACC $1,489,599 $1,173,904 $315,695
8.  Arkansas SEC $1,480,557 $1,060,500 $420,057
9.  Michigan Big Ten $1,480,357 $1,039,948 $440,409
10.  Texas Big 12 $1,470,389 $989,370 $481,019
11.  Marquette Big East $1,461,373 $1,289,560 $171,813
12.  Kansas Big 12 $1,454,154 $1,033,618 $420,536
13.  North Carolina ACC $1,337,338 $949,396 $387,942
14.  Illinois Big Ten $1,328,931 $962,345 $366,586
15.  Duke ACC $1,313,378 $967,282 $346,096
16.  Oklahoma Big 12 $1,263,567 $837,890 $425,677
17.  Kentucky SEC $1,260,065 $865,254 $394,811
18.  Oregon Pac-12 $1,235,968 $922,653 $313,315
19.  Nebraska Big Ten $1,234,097 $888,165 $345,932
20.  Texas Tech Big 12 $1,184,799 $892,436 $292,363
21.  Florida State ACC $1,156,982 $749,499 $407,483
22.  Baylor Big 12 $1,138,946 $755,226 $383,720
23.  Ohio State Big Ten $1,134,013 $782,735 $351,278
24.  Minnesota Big Ten $1,130,963 $741,471 $389,492
25.  Louisville Big East $1,128,645 $786,574 $342,071
26.  Penn State Big Ten $1,128,129 $681,284 $446,845
27.  Washington Pac-12 $1,089,582 $776,098 $313,484
28.  Arizona Pac-12 $1,080,250 $733,394 $346,856
29.  Stanford Pac-12 $1,079,437 $771,567 $307,870
30.  Clemson ACC $1,069,565 $796,648 $272,917
31.  North Carolina State ACC $1,069,192 $722,995 $346,197
32.  Vanderbilt SEC $1,068,482 $792,574 $275,908
33.  Virginia ACC $1,045,893 $730,358 $315,535
34.  Syracuse Big East $1,045,212 $655,055 $390,157
35.  Iowa State Big 12 $1,022,016 $769,272 $252,744
36.  UCLA Pac-12 $993,663 $711,415 $282,248
37.  USC Pac-12 $992,414 $680,645 $311,769
38.  Ole Miss SEC $982,959 $694,038 $288,921
39.  Virginia Tech ACC $981,067 $650,651 $330,416
40.  Memphis Conference USA $961,150 $759,844 $201,306
41.  Purdue Big Ten $954,543 $684,920 $269,623
42.  Michigan State Big Ten $941,157 $653,640 $287,517
43.  Iowa Big Ten $931,989 $592,776 $339,213
44.  LSU SEC $927,990 $574,182 $353,808
45.  California Pac-12 $919,410 $630,158 $289,252
46.  Indiana Big Ten $899,047 $558,442 $340,605
47.  Miami ACC $897,271 $591,872 $305,399
48.  Colorado Pac-12 $885,421 $633,190 $252,231
49.  Kansas State Big 12 $882,902 $648,599 $234,303
50.  Missouri Big 12 $861,859 $621,949 $239,910

Conference Recruitment Expense Series: WAC

The final conference to be evaluated in BusinessofCollegeSports.com’s Conference Recruitment Expense Series is the WAC.  In the near future,  the WAC will expand to add new members.  What sort of recruiting budgets will these new members have to adopt to be competitive in the WAC?

Recruitment expense data from the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt conferences have been posted.  On Monday, a spreadsheet listing the top-50 spenders in terms of recruiting will be listed, sorted by total recruitment expense budget, amount spent per team on average and amount spent per player on average.

The data was obtained from the Department of Education.  Although this data is not perfect, it is the only data available for both public and private institutions.  Furthermore, the data provided is for the 2010-11 school year.  Additionally, it should be noted that the “Amount Per Player” column was calculated using the total amount of student-athletes at a given school.  The Department of Education data does not disclose how many student-athletes a school recruited in a given year.  Thus, using the data alone, it is impossible to calculate how much it cost a school to recruit a specific class.

Schools Men’s Sports Recruitment Expenses Average Per Team Average Per Player
Fresno State $183,423.00 $30,570.50 $857.12
Hawaii $348,783.00 $49,826.14 $1,509.88
Idaho $245,717.00 $49,143.40 $1,328.20
Louisiana Tech $218,907.00 $43,781.40 $1,209.43
Nevada $199,185.00 $39,837.00 $1,021.46
New Mexico State $293,298.00 $48,883.00 $1,451.97
San Jose State $219,655.00 $36,609.17 $950.89
Utah State $405,695.00 $81,139.00 $2,018.38

 

Schools Women’s Sports Recruitment Expenses Average Per Team Average Per Player
Fresno State $102,951.00 $10,295.10 $441.85
Hawaii $213,697.00 $21,369.70 $800.36
Idaho $121,353.00 $17,336.14 $926.36
Louisiana Tech $83,028.00 $11,861.14 $734.76
Nevada $107,479.00 $13,434.88 $411.80
New Mexico State $118,607.00 $13,178.56 $590.08
San Jose State $78,733.00 $7,873.30 $399.66
Utah State $161,520.00 $23,074.29 $928.28

The WAC school which spent the highest amount on recruiting for its men’s sports programs was Utah State, which spent $405,695.00 in 2010-11.  Not far behind, was Hawaii, which spent $348,783.00.  Arguably, a bulk of Hawaii’s expenses was allocated toward travel expenses.

Hawaii led the way in recruitment expenses for its women’s sports teams in 2010-11.  Hawaii spent $213,697.00 on recruiting for its women’s sports teams in 2010-11.

Be sure to visit BusinessofCollegeSports.com on Monday to see a list of the top-50 recruitment expense spenders!

Conferece Recruitment Expense Series: Sun Belt Conference

Next up in BusinessofCollgeSports.com’s Conference Recruitment Expense Series is the Sun Belt Conference.

Yesterday, recruitment expense data from the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12 and Conference USA was posted.  Today, data for the MAC, Mountain West, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt, and WAC will be posted.  On Monday, a spreadsheet listing the top-50 spenders in terms of recruiting will be listed, sorted by total recruitment expense budget, amount spent per team on average and amount spent per player on average.

The data was obtained from the Department of Education.  Although this data is not perfect, it is the only data available for both public and private institutions.  Furthermore, the data provided is for the 2010-11 school year.  Additionally, it should be noted that the “Amount Per Player” column was calculated using the total amount of student-athletes at a given school.  The Department of Education data does not disclose how many student-athletes a school recruited in a given year.  Thus, using the data alone, it is impossible to calculate how much it cost a school to recruit a specific class.

Schools Men’s Sports Recruitment Expenses Average Per Team Average Per Player
Arkansas State $204,772.00 $40,954.40 $965.91
Arkansas – Little Rock $134,606.00 $33,651.50 $1,547.20
Denver $230,427.00 $28,803.38 $1,371.59
Florida Atlantic $195,797.00 $24,474.63 $619.61
Florida International $331,056.00 $66,211.20 $1,622.82
Louisiana – Lafayette $255,716.00 $42,619.33 $1,111.81
Louisiana – Monroe $76,809.00 $15,361.80 $424.36
Middle Tennessee $288,982.00 $48,163.67 $1,102.98
North Texas $142,082.00 $35,520.50 $835.78
South Alabama $308,886.00 $38,610.75 $1,250.55
Troy $141,298.00 $20,185.43 $554.11
Western Kentucky $349,431.00 $49,918.71 $1,474.39

 

Schools Women’s Sports Recruiting Expenses Average Per Team Average Per Player
Arkansas State $104,456.00 $14,922.29 $941.05
Arkansas – Little Rock $99,490.00 $14,212.86 $1,047.26
Denver $220,978.00 $24,553.11 $1,567.22
Florida Atlantic $64,437.00 $8,054.63 $379.04
Florida International $89,817.00 $11,227.13 $615.18
Louisiana – Lafayette $84,788.00 $14,131.33 $694.98
Louisiana – Monroe $50,469.00 $7,209.86 $442.71
Middle Tennessee $85,986.00 $12,283.71 $661.43
North Texas $88,848.00 $11,106.00 $499.15
South Alabama $130,728.00 $14,525.33 $1,107.86
Troy $95,288.00 $11,911.00 $685.53
Western Kentucky $138,016.00 $17,252.00 $908.00

The Sun Belt Conference school which spent the most on recruiting for its men’s sports teams in 2010-11 was Florida International.  Florida International spent $331,056.00 on recruiting for its men’s sports teams in 2010-11.  It may be worth noting Florida International hired a big-name men’s basketball coach in Isiah Thomas in April 2009.

The Sun Belt Conference school which spent the most on recruiting for its women’s sports teams in 2010-11 was the University of Denver.  Denver expended $220,978.00 to recruit student-athletes for its women’s sports programs in 2010-11.

Conference Recruitment Expense Series: SEC

There’s no need to beat around the bush:  The SEC’s recruiting budgets blow every other conference’s out of the water.  The SEC is home to six schools that spent over one-million dollars on recruiting student-athletes for its men’s sports teams.

Yesterday, recruitment expense data from the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12 and Conference USA was posted.  Today, data for the MAC, Mountain West, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt, and WAC will be posted.  On Monday, a spreadsheet listing the top-50 spenders in terms of recruiting will be listed, sorted by total recruitment expense budget, amount spent per team on average and amount spent per player on average.

The data was obtained from the Department of Education.  Although this data is not perfect, it is the only data available for both public and private institutions.  Furthermore, the data provided is for the 2010-11 school year.  Additionally, it should be noted that the “Amount Per Player” column was calculated using the total amount of student-athletes at a given school.  The Department of Education data does not disclose how many student-athletes a school recruited in a given year.  Thus, using the data alone, it is impossible to calculate how much it cost a school to recruit a specific class.

Schools Men’s Sports Recruitment Expenses Average Per Team Average Per Player
Alabama $1,339,537.00 $191,362.43 $4,801.21
Arkansas $1,060,500.00 $176,750.00 $4,158.82
Auburn $1,530,917.00 $218,702.43 $5,798.93
Florida $1,065,716.00 $152,245.14 $3,765.78
Georgia $1,039,220.00 $148,460.00 $3,806.67
Kentucky $865,254.00 $108,156.75 $2,800.17
LSU $574,182.00 $82,026.00 $1,858.19
Mississippi State $477,868.00 $79,644.67 $1,982.85
Ole Miss $694,038.00 $115,673.00 $2,953.35
South Carolina $497,213.00 $62,151.63 $1,897.76
Tennessee $1,878,771.00 $268,395.86 $7,089.70
Vanderbilt $792,574.00 $132,095.67 $4,238.36
Schools Women’s Sports Recruitment Expenses Average Per Team Average Per Player
Alabama $354,665.00 $35,466.50 $1,318.46
Arkansas $420,057.00 $46,673.00 $2,154.14
Auburn $586,728.00 $58,672.80 $2,793.94
Florida $436,183.00 $43,618.30 $1,888.24
Georgia $501,523.00 $50,152.30 $1,885.42
Kentucky $394,811.00 $43,867.89 $2,218.04
LSU $353,808.00 $39,312.00 $1,734.35
Mississippi State $245,349.00 $35,049.86 $1,858.70
Ole Miss $288,921.00 $36,115.13 $1,992.56
South Carolina $361,850.00 $40,205.56 $1,345.17
Tennessee $417,252.00 $46,361.33 $1,977.50
Vanderbilt $275,908.00 $34,488.50 $1,713.71

In a surprising twist, the school which spent the most on recruiting for its men’s teams in 2010-11 was not Alabama, Auburn or LSU, but rather, Tennessee.  The Vols spent $1,878,771.00 on recruiting student-athletes for its men’s sports teams in 2010-11.

The SEC programs which spent at least $1 million on recruiting student-athletes for their men’s sports programs were:  Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee.  Interestingly, LSU, which participated in this year’s BCS National Championship Game was one SEC school whose men’s sports recruitment expenses did not top $1 million.  LSU spent $574,182.00 on recruiting for its men’s sports teams in 2010-11.

The school which spent the most on recruiting student-athletes for its women’s sports programs was Auburn.  Auburn expended $586,728.00 to recruit student-athletes for its women’s sports teams in 2010-11.