Recruiting expense by university

[CL82]

I saw this on the Cuse board and thought it was interesting.

An Analysis Of College Basketball Recruiting Costs (athleticdirectoru.com)

Take a look at the 2005-2020 graphic at the bottom of the page. UConn has been toward both the bottom and the top of the list.

 

[uconngb]

I saw this on the Cuse board and thought it was interesting.

An Analysis Of College Basketball Recruiting Costs (athleticdirectoru.com)

View attachment 67587
Take a look at the 2005-2020 graphic at the bottom of the page. UConn has been toward both the bottom and the top of the list.

Does this take into account bags of cash handed out??

 

[Ewekon]

Does this take into account bags of cash handed out??

My exact thought when seeing IL so high.

 

[uconnfan68]

I saw this on the Cuse board and thought it was interesting.

An Analysis Of College Basketball Recruiting Costs (athleticdirectoru.com)

View attachment 67587
Take a look at the 2005-2020 graphic at the bottom of the page. UConn has been toward both the bottom and the top of the list.

Only non-P5.

 

[uchusky32]

Does this take into account bags of cash handed out??

No, that report is more elusive and buried deeper than Jimmy Hoffa

 

[CL82]

Only non-P5.

?

 

[ColchVEGAS]

Does UConn's $500k get transferred to Rutgers making them second on this list at over $900k?

 

[bendm]

?

UConn is the only school on the list not on the p5

 

[HooperScooper]

My initial reaction is this is about where I expected UConn would be. My other reaction is some of these schools, namely Nebraska and Penn State, are not getting much bang for their buck.

 

[auror]

Note that the data is only available for public schools. Duke would likely be #1 or right near Kentucky.

 

[freescooter]

My guess is it probably varies year to year. Lower when you only have 1-2 slots to fill. Higher when you are filling 3/4? I’d like to see year over year.

 

[freescooter]

?

AAC is considered a major. Big East isn’t listed because they don’t report as private colleges.

 

[uconnfan68]

Only non-P5.

Sorry, I should have read the link… much more info. AAC schools there.

 

[freescooter]

Actually I have to wonder if it will make much sense to recruit high school kids much longer. Why not concentrate on transfers since you get proven talent. If you are lucky they stay 2 years. No such thing as building a program any more.

 

[BGesus4]

I’m surprised they counted up all the ones for Louisville’s

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Actually I have to wonder if it will make much sense to recruit high school kids much longer. Why not concentrate on transfers since you get proven talent. If you are lucky they stay 2 years. No such thing as building a program any more.

You're teeing up so many balls on this one that I can just keep scrolling, and make some popcorn later if anybody takes the bait(s).

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

My initial reaction is this is about where I expected UConn would be. My other reaction is some of these schools, namely Nebraska and Penn State, are not getting much bang for their buck.

I'll add that because it's 2019 data, UConn is counted as AAC.

Also, the #2 listed AAC school is East Carolina, which shows greater expenditures than UNC. Now there's a bang-for-your-buck head-scratcher.

 

[CL82]

I'll add that because it's 2019 data, UConn is counted as AAC.

Also, the #2 listed AAC school is East Carolina, which shows greater expenditures than UNC. Now there's a bang-for-your-buck head-scratcher.

Yep, it's quirky data. I think that # of players recruited is likely to be a significant factor so saying X school pays more than Y school in any given year is probably not all that informative. Also, schools that don't need to cast a wide net will probably have a lower recruiting expense numbers due based on higher offer to acceptance ratio.

As I noted in the OP over the last 20 years UConn has been toward the top and bottom of the list.

 

[Palatine]

Is this men's and women's?

 

[freescooter]

I'll add that because it's 2019 data, UConn is counted as AAC.

Also, the #2 listed AAC school is East Carolina, which shows greater expenditures than UNC. Now there's a bang-for-your-buck head-scratcher.

Three things come to mind.
1. There is a difference between spending and doing so effectively
2. It might be more difficult to convince players to come to East Carolina, or most other places for that matter, than UNC.
3. It could indicate that ECU is actually finally making an effort to recruit.

 

[freescooter]

Yep, it's quirky data. I think that # of players recruited is likely to be a significant factor so saying X school pays more than Y school in any given year is probably not all that informative. Also, schools that don't need to cast a wide net will probably have a lower recruiting expense numbers due based on higher offer to acceptance ratio.

As I noted in the OP over the last 20 years UConn has been toward the top and bottom of the list.

Only thing I’d add is some schools may elect to limited extent of recruiting to say the Northeast, or Southern California area. Probably applies mostly to mid majors but it might be a factor.

 

[MDHuskFan]

Only thing I’d add is some schools may elect to limited extent of recruiting to say the Northeast, or Southern California area. Probably applies mostly to mid majors but it might be a factor.

That’s the one thing that slightly surprised me about our spending, specifically when all of our recruits seem to be NE guys