Wisconsin

[ramblinwreck1378]

While we are at it, let's add athletic budget:
`
1. Clemson - 40 - 11 -$105 million
2. Auburn - 45 - 15 - $140 million
3. Oklahoma - 37 - 36 - $150 million
4. Wisconsin - 6 - 61 - $133 million
5. Alabama - 69 - 54 - $164 million
6. Georgia - 54 - 48 - $124 million

And GT's is $76 million. GT could do a lot more with an additional $57 million per year.

The difference between staff compensation is negligible between GT & Wisc (CPJ makes about $.3M more than Chryst, Wisc staff salary sum is about $.3M more than GT). Also, Wisc fields 8 more varsity sports than GT does, which requires more money for facilities, staff, uniforms, travel, etc, which impacts the budget.

So how does budget factor into them having more wins than us? It's not staff. It's not recruiting. It's not facilities attracting better players. What is it?

 

[Jmonty71]

I saw an interesting tweet last night that broke down the rosters of each team in the top 6 in terms of how many 4 and 5 stars they had. The list is as follows:

1. Clemson - 40
2. Auburn - 45
3. Oklahoma - 37
4. Wisconsin - 6
5. Alabama - 69
6. Georgia - 54

Obviously, the one that sticks out is Wisconsin with 6 (0 5* and 6 4*). So my question is this: what is Wisconsin doing that allows them to compete regularly with top tier programs with supposedly inferior talent? Don't say that their schedule this year was weak, because that's a cop out argument - anyone who goes undefeated in the regular season is a legit football program, even UCF. Also they were 10-3 last year and 11-3 the year before that, so this is sustained success.

Are their coaches that much better than ours? The talent piece of the equation is completely removed here - I thought this was interesting and was curious to get others' thoughts.

I think there is a lot more to this. They have a below average strength of schedule. Added to that, they have a lot broader of a fan base.. There is more money available for them. In my opinion, they play in a division that has only a few modern high powered offenses. So, there are a lot of variables that aren't included. Personally, I think OSU beats the snot out of them and becomes a team that just goes into the New Years 6 bowls.

 

[jeffgt14]

Of course, they have NO in-state competition for top players.

This part is huge. Of course they recruit to their system just like we do. They just have an easier time getting their top choices.

 

[JorgeJonas]

Wisconsin has a good program, but it’s at least worth exploring not just how many four star recruits they have, but the number their opponents have. When you have to play Miami, uga, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and even to a lesser extent Carolina, UVA, and Tennessee, your opponents have more than you do. To the contrary, Wisconsin played Michigan (with a backup quarterback), and then their competition drops like a rock to Iowa and Northwestern (who got drilled by Duke). We will find out Saturday when they face a team that has considerably more talent how good they really are. The last time they were in this position they lost 59-0.

As an aside, it’s awfully irritating for people to ask a question and then tell prospective responders that part of the answer is off limits.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I think some of you are missing my point in that they don't have as much talent as the factories but still compete year in and year out. They're 79-27 in the last 10 years - that's upper echelon type stuff. How do we elevate our program to that level?

Now - those of your talking about strength of schedule, I think they go 9-2 at a minimum against our schedule this year with losses to Clem and probably Georgia, putting them in the ACCCG. 9-2 is still a heck of a lot better than 5-6, so even though they aren't defeated, there's still a big gap in performance.

No. I addressed that by pointing out their SoS. It's not abvnormal for their SoS to be that low. We'd win a lot more games every year if we played their schedule.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

I’m a huge Chryst believer. If he stayed at Pitt I’m convinced Pitt would be a constant competitor for he coastal.

 

[RonJohn]

The difference between staff compensation is negligible between GT & Wisc (CPJ makes about $.3M more than Chryst, Wisc staff salary sum is about $.3M more than GT). Also, Wisc fields 8 more varsity sports than GT does, which requires more money for facilities, staff, uniforms, travel, etc, which impacts the budget.

So how does budget factor into them having more wins than us? It's not staff. It's not recruiting. It's not facilities attracting better players. What is it?

I haven't looked into Wisconsin's athletic budget. Are you saying that they spend $57 million per year on 8 minor varsity sports? That $57 million difference is 75% of GT's entire budget. As I said, I haven't looked into their budget, but I would find it hard to believe that with 175% of GT's budget they have the same support staff, recruiting analyzing staff, etc.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

It's not staff. It's not recruiting. It's not facilities attracting better players. What is it?

Why have you determined that these can't be answers?

For instance, what is the total salary of all Wisconsin coaches, not just the HC? How much do the assistants make? What is the total football budget? How many recruiting personnel are staffed at Wisconsin vs GT? What facilities does Wisconsin have that GT does/does not have?

I confess I don't know the answers to these questions as Wisconsin has never really been on my radar. What I don't do, however, is begin a debate by automatically disallowing potentially valid responses. That would suggest I had an agenda and wasn't actually seeking legitimate answers to questions.

 

[ramblinwreck1378]

Wisconsin has a good program, but it’s at least worth exploring not just how many four star recruits they have, but the number their opponents have. When you have to play Miami, uga, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and even to a lesser extent Carolina, UVA, and Tennessee, your opponents have more than you do. To the contrary, Wisconsin played Michigan (with a backup quarterback), and then their competition drops like a rock to Iowa and Northwestern (who got drilled by Duke). We will find out Saturday when they face a team that has considerably more talent how good they really are. The last time they were in this position they lost 59-0.

As an aside, it’s awfully irritating for people to ask a question and then tell prospective responders that part of the answer is off limits.

According to Sagarin, which has already been referenced in this thread, they had the number 13 SOS last year and went 11-3, with all three losses being of the one possession variety.

The reason I made the 'off limits' statement is because I think Wisc is a legit comp for us - it neutralizes the talent argument to a degree. I wanted people to have a legitimate discussion around the issue instead of people writing their success off as a product of its schedule.

 

[Techster]

LOL...the Wisconsin hate because they play above their recruiting is hilarious. Do they sometimes have an easier schedule? Sure, but they beat the teams they should beat. Let's not forget, the ACC has only recently been considered a strong conference. Remember how long it took for the ACC to win a BCS bowl game?

Wisconsin is one of those teams that have been consistent for close to 2 decades now. Their last losing record was in 2001. GT should admire their football model: Recruit underrated athletes, develop them in their system, and outplay their recruiting rankings. IMO, it's a program to be admired because of their consistency, and challenge recruiting to Wisconsin.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

According to Sagarin, which has already been referenced in this thread, they had the number 13 SOS last year and went 11-3, with all three losses being of the one possession variety.

The reason I made the 'off limits' statement is because I think Wisc is a legit comp for us - it neutralizes the talent argument to a degree. I wanted people to have a legitimate discussion around the issue instead of people writing their success off as a product of its schedule.

It's an anomaly. Starting in 2015 and working back through 2008. here is their SoS and record. Notice how their record drops when their SoS rises?
66 (10-3), 54 (11-3), 49 (9-4), 30 (8-6), 44 (11-3), 66 (11-2), 64 (10-3), & 52 (7-6)

I bet if we scheduled like they did, we'd win more games as well.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

LOL...the Wisconsin hate because they play above their recruiting is hilarious. Do they sometimes have an easier schedule? Sure, but they beat the teams they should beat. Let's not forget, the ACC has only recently been considered a strong conference. Remember how long it took for the ACC to win a BCS bowl game?

Wisconsin is one of those teams that have been consistent for close to 2 decades now. Their last losing record was in 2001. GT should admire their football model: Recruit underrated athletes, develop them in their system, and outplay their recruiting rankings. IMO, it's a program to be admired because of their consistency, and challenge recruiting to Wisconsin.

I have no problem with Wisconsin. I just don't think it's an apples to apples comparison. Their SoS is traditionally garbage, where ours is generally pretty stout. Also, the ACC was garbage during the BCS era narrative is tired and untrue. Records in bowl games are an absolutely horrible way to judge the strength of a conference.

 

[travgt01]

They almost always have studs on the OL/DL. That's the heart of a good football team, something which gt has been lacking. Mix that in with a great QB, maybe a great RB and you can contend for titles. I really have no idea how they've been doing it. They are truly an anomaly. Under recruit according to the star method, and under pay their coaches and still win big. Good for them. That is one dumbass party school though, so don't forget that part.

 

[Techster]

I have no problem with Wisconsin. I just don't think it's an apples to apples comparison. Their SoS is traditionally garbage, where ours is generally pretty stout. Also, the ACC was garbage during the BCS era narrative is tired and untrue. Records in bowl games are an absolutely horrible way to judge the strength of a conference.

I have no problem with questioning Wisconsin's legitamacy for a playoff spot this year. However, trying to knock them for consistency is laughable.

You must have a short memory about how weak the ACC was. Even head to head we did not fair well:

https://www.topdan.com/sports/college-football-conference-records/

 

[Techster]

They almost always have studs on the OL/DL. That's the heart of a good football team, something which gt has been lacking. Mix that in with a great QB, maybe a great RB and you can contend for titles. I really have no idea how they've been doing it. They are truly an anomaly. Under recruit according to the star method, and under pay their coaches and still win big. Good for them. That is one dumbass party school though, so don't forget that part.

They actually have a really good business school. I hear their ice fishing classes are pretty bomb as well....

 

[RedPete]

Must be that color red. All the fans want to wear it, All the kids want to be it. [emoji35]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JorgeJonas]

According to Sagarin, which has already been referenced in this thread, they had the number 13 SOS last year and went 11-3, with all three losses being of the one possession variety.

The reason I made the 'off limits' statement is because I think Wisc is a legit comp for us - it neutralizes the talent argument to a degree. I wanted people to have a legitimate discussion around the issue instead of people writing their success off as a product of its schedule.

I can understand that. I think the issue I have is that they lost to three of the four teams that you’d expect to have better talent than they do - Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State, though they beat LSU. I guess my point in this is that we play more teams annually that will have more talent than we do just about every year, so while they don’t have a ton of four star players, neither does their competition, so it’s a more equal playing field.

 

[ramblinwreck1378]

It's an anomaly. Starting in 2015 and working back through 2008. here is their SoS and record. Notice how their record drops when their SoS rises?
66 (10-3), 54 (11-3), 49 (9-4), 30 (8-6), 44 (11-3), 66 (11-2), 64 (10-3), & 52 (7-6)

I bet if we scheduled like they did, we'd win more games as well.

Would we? Remember, we lost to:

Duke (37) - Wisc Comp = Purdue (35) - W 17-9
Virginia (67) - Wisc Comp = Minnesota (61) - W 31-0
Tennessee (94) - Wisc Comp = Utah State (83) - W 59-10

 

[GTL]

They almost always have studs on the OL/DL.

Big, big 'ol farm boys.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

This part is huge. Of course they recruit to their system just like we do. They just have an easier time getting their top choices.

But our system doesn't send too many to the Pro level......