Is there "another level" of football?

[MWBATL]

You could not throw the bottom tiers together. The difference between Coastal Carolina and Georgia Tech is way bigger than the difference between Georgia and Georgia Tech.

I am not at all sure that is true. There may be a level of two below us, but the difference between us and the top levels are....huge.

 

[Big Philly]

It looks pretty smooth to me, like there are gradual differences between teams … It doesn't look like there are levels to me.

You shouldn't be surprised when the result conforms to the domain of analysis. A different system, the Elo ranking system is built on an assumption of normally distributed skill, so when the results come out looking pretty normally distributed it's not interesting to say "chess skill looks pretty normally distributed." (It's interesting to look at the deviation from normal)

Continuing with the ELO analogy, even though it is smooth it makes sense to talk about "levels" or "the next level" because they are relative rankings, a predictor of the result. Groups apply labels, like "Expert" to ranges of values 100 points wide. An opponent 100 points better than you is expected to beat you ~60% of the time. To get "on their level" you need to learn and do what they do.

An interesting line of questioning is "What does a model team that beats us 60% of the time look like? Followed by, what does it cost to create such a team?" If we did that then we would be on their level, those games would be coin flips... and we would still lose the majority of games to Clemson, Georgia, and Miami.

From where we are right now the simplest move is the same that it's been for the last 11 years, something that results in "playing above average defense", which we have done once in the last 11 years. Not even Top 25 defense, just above average. A comparable school, recruiting-ranking wise, that is punching way above their weight the last two years in FEI defensive performance is Iowa State. Matt Campbell/John Heacock took over at Iowa State in 2016 and their first year's defense was godawful. Worse than any defense we've had in the last 11 years. The last two years Iowa State has gone bowling by outperforming on defense (Rank 103 -> Rank 32 -> Rank 15). If we had Iowa State's defense paired with our offense, statistically, we would be in the ACC Championship game, no sweat. That would be some serious schematic and coaching alchemy, statistically we would be a team like Notre Dame, Washington, Mississippi State, or Missouri. With this range you can see it still matters who specifically do you have on your schedule? Mississippi State and Missouri have strong teams and a bunch of losses because their schedules are both Top 10 difficulty.

We wait with bated breath to see how CNW's defense plays out. Looking at median performance it's worse than last year, but with the variance of being borderline-top-ten at forcing turnovers and putting the ball back in the hands of our offense we are going bowling.

 

[Big Philly]

What I should say more simply is that FEI is fundamentally a Points per Drive analysis. The output domain being smooth per se is not interesting, it needs to be paired with costs. More discrete "levels" or "production functions" could be in the domain of costs. A revenue per day output for a standalone restaurant is going to be smooth, but there are discrete organization systems and price points that create clusters or levels.

 

[33jacket]

I see 4 step changes in your chart.....to me you can see drop offs suggesting some levels exist.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

I think the issue is that every year is probably a fairly smooth chart with teams moving up and down each year.

However, I have a feeling that if you were to take many years of this, you will start to see the movement up and down settle out and you may indeed see a few tiers.

 

[g0lftime]

The biggest reason is that the top teams recruit top players year after year. We don't, can't, seem to be able to get one top 20 class in any one year. I honestly believe PJ is a good coach in many ways but he just isn't able or willing to recruit at the level it takes to be really good. The kids in our program seem to be high character and able to succeed academically. When Mac Brown came to UNC he went to virtually every HS in the state to build recruiting bridges. It finally paid off and he owned the state before he jumped to Texas. PJ may not be willing to put out that effort. If he does it hasn't been obvious. He sure didnt have to do much at the academy. Those kids wanted to go there.

 

[slugboy]

Interesting. however, if you are looking at what GT spends AND IF I interpret your graph correctly, the revenue and expenses are for ALL athletics...so I don't think the comparison of FB FEI and total expenditures is an apples to apples comparison.People will tell you getting accurate data for FB only spending is difficult if not impossible.

I think the idea of levels is appropriate. Level 1 teams are in the hunt annually for the CFP and are disappointed when they don't make them. There are maybe 5-7 teams here. Level 2 is consistent or frequent top 25 teams (Michigan State, ND, Wisconsin, Auburn etc.) These teams can occasionally beat the level 1 teams and will occasionally be in the mix for the CFP. Level 3 are teams 25 to 50. Decent, competitive but are frequently and noticeably outclassed against the OSU's and Clemson's of the world. A good season for teams in this group are appearances in the top 25 or possibly top 10 at year end. This is where us and most of our ACC brethren currently reside.

The graph is our F+ ranking (our combined offensive, defensive, and special teams ranking). I used it because the human polls just go to 25 or 30.

If you’re thinking in levels, it’s probably because there are a lot of teams in between that you’re overlooking


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[stingem103]

The biggest reason is that the top teams recruit top players year after year. We don't, can't, seem to be able to get one top 20 class in any one year. I honestly believe PJ is a good coach in many ways but he just isn't able or willing to recruit at the level it takes to be really good. The kids in our program seem to be high character and able to succeed academically. When Mac Brown came to UNC he went to virtually every HS in the state to build recruiting bridges. It finally paid off and he owned the state before he jumped to Texas. PJ may not be willing to put out that effort. If he does it hasn't been obvious. He sure didnt have to do much at the academy. Those kids wanted to go there.

That’s not really a good comparison. UNC is like UGA in many ways. They are the state team and have plenty of ways to get kids in school there with a broad curriculum.

How many programs have to deal with what GT does? We are sandwiched right in between several top football programs including one in our own state.

We really need to start focusing out of state...only a few kids locally that are highly rated will listen to our pitch. I don’t see success for us taking the same approaches that these other programs take...need another angle.

 

[g0lftime]

That’s not really a good comparison. UNC is like UGA in many ways. They are the state team and have plenty of ways to get kids in school there with a broad curriculum.

How many programs have to deal with what GT does? We are sandwiched right in between several top football programs including one in our own state.

We really need to start focusing out of state...only a few kids locally that are highly rated will listen to our pitch. I don’t see success for us taking the same approaches that these other programs take...need another angle.

UNC doesn't recruit nearly as well as UGA. NC HS football is not even close to Georgia. Chapel Hill HS couldn't field a team this year and the other big HS in CH has had recent years with no team. UNC was most successful when they recruited in Virginia and GA.

 

[slugboy]

I compared Expenses vs F+. The numbers are weird because the private schools apparently give whatever kind of numbers they want to. Notre Dame claims $13 Million in Revenues and $12 Million in expenses, which is at least a venal sin to lie like that.

We're in the middle in results and spending. I suspect a lot of the data points below $50 million are schools giving bogus financial info to the NCAA because they can. If you're farther to the right, you're going to win a lot more.

The bottom right dot is Notre Dame. If they're only spending $12M across all their sports, {insert "I'm the Pope" or something silly here}

What I should say more simply is that FEI is fundamentally a Points per Drive analysis. The output domain being smooth per se is not interesting, it needs to be paired with costs. More discrete "levels" or "production functions" could be in the domain of costs. A revenue per day output for a standalone restaurant is going to be smooth, but there are discrete organization systems and price points that create clusters or levels.

Well, FEI and S&P+ (which F+ combines) both do a decent job forecasting how likely you are to win a game. I think S&P+ forecast us at 6 wins before the season. It's arguable that Wells was heavily responsible for that one game swing as a walk on kicker.

I think you'd see either clumping in the data if it was a bad model (I'm surprised not to see a lot more just from randomness), or the predictions would be lousy. The predictions are pretty good.

(FWIW, I used last week's ratings, and we're down about 10 places in the rankings since Saturday).

 

[CHE90]

There’s about $215M in outstanding debt which we pay about $13M/year to service. That’s a big slice.

Not sure if it’s still the case but 2020’s debt needs to be reserviced. That bond is like $25-30M. That’s going to take a chunk out of future revenue because there’s no way we’re getting the same terms as is 2012.

Someone can chime in because I think ACC network revenue kicks in around 2019. Estimates are $5M/yr at onset and as high as $15M/yr once the network matures. Hope the Finance guys have sharp pencils.

$13M to service debt of $215M of debt seems awfully high (6%) when the bulk of it was issued in 2011 and 2012.

 

[CHE90]

I think we’re the 5th most debt laden program in all the land. At least we’re not Berkeley. They’ve got double our debt.

Allegedly our debt is linked to pledged donor contributions so theoretically it doesn’t cut into operations budgets. There’s just not enough visibility in the annual financial statements for me to decipher it all. I’m used to the Finance CPAs doing their voodoo and handing me a summary quite frankly.

Bottom line: Radakovic spent a lot, Bobinski didn’t keep up with the Joneses in fundraising & Stansbury has a real crap sandwich on his hands. One the other side of the fence we’ve got the crowd looking to upgrade coaching & recruiting staffs, etc while the Titanic is taking on water.

We need the ACC deal to pay off. We need basketball to become relevant again so they start generating revenue. We need Stansbury’s $125M challenge to come to fruition so we can follow it up quickly with a $250M one right behind it. We need to pray for undeserved good fortune on the gridiron & basketball courts. We need interest rates to quit rising. We need a healthy economy so people can afford to go to games. We need to ply them with interesting game day offerings, and if we can better opponents even if we lose.

Hate to post such a doom & gloom scenario but we really are boxed in without a lot of room to maneuver. Like our country, we need a spending diet and hope revenues keep increasing.

Actually, as long term debtors, we want inflation and interest rates to keep rising. It will make DRad look like a genius! (Not that i want him to look like a genius, but it would help our finances) Inflate the debt away!

 

[LibertyTurns]

Actually, as long term debtors, we want inflation and interest rates to keep rising. It will make DRad look like a genius! (Not that i want him to look like a genius, but it would help our finances) Inflate the debt away!

Except we have a $20M or $30M payment due 2020 if I remember correctly. I’m assuming we’re going to rollover and refinance that over 30yrs as last cash on hand was something like $6.5M. I’m guessing we’re paying 6 or 6.5% interest now based on the annual interest stated in the annual report. That was 6 years ago at the lowest rates we’ve ever had. I’m thinking the same type of loan/bond would be 8-9% now. That’s just an educated guess based on how much my company’s interest rate has gone up over the same period.

You are correct. The other $180M or so are financed at a low rate as well. A couple of Jimmy Carter years could take a major bite out of that, but then again you’d be dealing with soaring expenses in every other area of the operation. My preference obviously is keep rates low and overall expenses down. We don’t need multiple issues where we’ve only got one.

 

[tsrich]

UNC doesn't recruit nearly as well as UGA. NC HS football is not even close to Georgia. Chapel Hill HS couldn't field a team this year and the other big HS in CH has had recent years with no team. UNC was most successful when they recruited in Virginia and GA.

That's cherry picking. NC has healthy HS football. It doesn't produce at the same level as GA, but it's in the top 10. The issue in NC is more that there are 4 power-5 schools and like 10 div 1 schools sifting thru that base. UGA has fewer competitors and no other GA school competes in terms of fandom.

You are correct that UNC has never recruited at the levels UGA is right now, very few schools have.

To the large topic, a better recruiter might move us up a bit, but we'll never be consistently top 20. We have to many structural issues. I do wish our administration and staff committed more to recruiting, but simply changing offenses and coaches isn't going to change things all that much. We have academic restrictions, degree limitations, $$ limitations, and a smaller fanbase that doesn't attend as well as many schools above us in the rankings. We need to start attacking those structural issues if we really want to see consistent improvement on the field. Changing coaches isn't going to do it.

 

[Animal02]

Spending per football player not including scholarships.
2005 and
2015

In 2005 Tech was spending 99% of what the mutts were 2015 it was 65%
We spend 57% of what Clemson did in 2015
We spent 36% of what Alabama did in 2015
While Tech increased spending 42%, the conferences average increase ranged from 70-132%

And people think it is a head coach problem

Clemson University
— $217,782
Florida State University+134% from 2005-2015
$103,755 $242,477
Georgia Institute of Technology+42% from 2005-2015
$87,349 $123,907
North Carolina State University at Raleigh+228% from 2005-2015
$46,467 $152,213
University of Louisville+98% from 2005-2015
$66,187 $131,239
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill+133% from 2005-2015
$62,012 $144,696
University of Virginia-14% from 2005-2015
$152,842 $131,292
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University+52% from 2005-2015
$106,007 $160,659
Auburn University+88% from 2005-2015
$150,647 $283,024
Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College+165% from 2005-2015
$76,909 $203,945
Mississippi State University+174% from 2005-2015
$48,992 $134,004
The University of Alabama+227% from 2005-2015
$105,006 $343,715
The University of Tennessee+172% from 2005-2015
$95,064 $258,238
University of Florida+187% from 2005-2015
$112,415 $322,291
University of Georgia+117% from 2005-2015
$88,309 $191,212
University of Kentucky+153% from 2005-2015
$44,475 $112,415

Atlantic Coast Conference Median+70% from 2005-2015
$87,349 $148,455
Big 12 Conference Median+95% from 2005-2015
$77,881 $152,202
Big Ten Conference Median+97% from 2005-2015
$90,292 $177,573
Pacific-12 Conference Median+88% from 2005-2015
$75,996 $142,711
Southeastern Conference Median+132% from 2005-2015
$87,975 $203,945


Source http://spendingdatabase.knightcommission.org

 

[ibeattetris]

If I just responded off the cuff, I'd say there are multiple levels, and Alabama is at one level, and Clemson and UGA are at a next level, then teams 4-10 or 12 are at another, then other groups. So, I thought I'd look

Here's F+ (combined FEI and S&P+)
View attachment 4570
It looks pretty smooth to me, like there are gradual differences between teams. This is one of the better ratings for Tech, putting us at #47. Others are less flattering.

It doesn't look like there are levels to me. It looks like there is a massive climb from us to the top 25, much less the top 5 playoff caliber teams. But it's all made up of individual teams, and not any real "levels".

Is it money? I think that's a big part of it. Here's the 2016-2017 NCAA Athletic Finances. We're #51, so we're not really punching much above our weight, if we are punching above it at all.

Rank... School ……. Revenue ……….. Expenses
1...…...Texas ….…...$214,830,647... $207,022,323
5...…..Alabama......$174,307,419 ….$158,646,962
6...…..Georgia....….$157,852,479 ... $119,218,908
17...…Kentucky.....$130,706,744.... $125,333,866
26......Clemson …. $112,600,964 ... $111,126,235
35.North Carolina..$96,551,626 ….. $96,540,823
39....Virginia...…….$92,865,175 ….. $100,324,517
40..OK State...…….$91,644,865 ….. $89,833,094
51...Georgia Tech... $81,762,024...... $84,852,123
59...South Florida..$49,960,338 ..... $48,227,500

So, comparing $$$ to outcomes, Clemson punches WAY above their weight class, and so does Oklahoma State. Not really us.

If it's a $$$ problem, then we need to get smarter at how we spend our money and get more in.

At any rate, we have 46 teams to climb over to get to the top, and Clemson just has one or two. Just to get into the top 25, we've got 22 teams to climb over, and 26 teams to climb over in terms of budget and fan revenue.

So, this is where we are.

I wonder where the discrepancy in numbers comes from. https://www.syracuse.com/orangefoot...ollege_football_where_does_syracuse_rank.html
I imagine things like paying off our building debt may count in the USA today one?

 

[HurricaneJacket]

We currently have the least money from TV of the P5 conferences. The ACC network should move us well past the Pac12 and about the same as the Big12 on a per school basis. We are not going to close the gap with the SEC or Big10 and they already have had such a huge head start.

TStan's plan seems to be small projects every year and a big one every few such as the lobby, locker room, and the recruiting drive leading up to the 2020 Edge Center remodeling. Things like a new lobby are all small potatoes when you look at the #s posted above, but they go a long way just to keep us even with some teams and generate buzz. Hopefully we do something besides the broadcast facility for 2019 before the big 2020 Edge Center renovation happens. Maybe another recruiting drive or maybe something with the weight room. Clearly the money is out there for this stuff, the Athletic Department just needs to drum it up.

Edit: $900,000 a year is coming off the books after 2019 for Paul Hewitt's buyout.

Throw that 900k at the debt and lessen the load so that we have operating flexibility again.

 

[CuseJacket]

The conference championship game spreads seem to speak to a level 1 and level 2 that @slugboy mentions in the OP:

• Washington (-5.5) vs. Utah
• Oklahoma (-7.5) vs. Texas
• Alabama (-13) vs. Georgia
• Ohio State (-14) vs. Northwestern
• Clemson (-25.5) vs. Pittsburgh

 

[LibertyTurns]

Throw that 900k at the debt and lessen the load so that we have operating flexibility again.

Agree but $900k barely rings the register when you’re talking 9 figures. It’s like making an extra mortgage payment on your house when you’re 5 years in. You still owe another 299 payments.

What we will likely do if we can is take our bonds and stretch them over a longer time frame so each year the debt service is less than it is now. Our timing is poor though because interest rates are rising so you don’t get the leverage out of that move that you got 5 years ago when we did it last. Other bad news is if we’re trying to free up cash to spend, we can’t take on a bunch of new debt which makes that vanish. That’s why Stansbury’s after thee $125M.

Unfortunately we leveraged hard & either we were so far in the tank compared to the competition after the 90’s (mostly likely) or we squandered it (mostly unlikely). Similar analogy is like the Russians tried to do in the 80’s. They were rotting from within & Reagan unleashed a massive amount of defense spending. They spent everything they had to maintain relevancy, failed & lost significant ground strategically. Sound familiar?