While watching an otherwise boring afternoon of sports on Saturday with my brother, Ramon Mondesi, the topic of college coaches came up. We had to talk about something other than that stinker of an ACC Championship (with about 100 fans in attendance) we were watching.
Ramon noted that for the Big East being such a lowly, second-tier football conference, there seems to be quite a large demand for their coaches. Michigan State just hired Mark Dantonio to replace the face-slapping John L. Smith. Miami desperately wanted Greg Schiano. Alabama is hot to trot for Rich Rodriguez. Bobby Petrino actually told the Oakland Raiders, a quasi-NFL team, "no" last year.
Big East haters (which frequent this site) will immediately spring up and say, "You see, it's really not a big conference. If it were, would these coaches even want to leave?"
I hear your point. I doubt WVU has the coaching budget of Alabama, and I don't think football is as important a part of Rutgers' culture as it is to Miami. I'm sure Cincinnati could not afford to pay Mark Dantonio the same kind of cash that Michigan State could fork over.
While a big budget is an important factor in the success of a program, it is not the be-all and end-all. In fact, I just read a great Peter Keating article in Oct 9 ESPN the Magazine (page 12) about the high cost of winning. Schools are paying for powder-puff games, coach buyouts, fat contracts, and bigger stadiums. The result? "There is no correlation between winning percentages and the amount spent on building the football or men's hoops programs", according to the author's recap of a 2003 study by Competition Policy Associates.
In the article, Keating points out that Colorado has borrowed $8 million to buy out the contracts of former football coaches, Iowa paid I-AA Montana $650,000 to schedule a game against the Hawkeyes this season, and Tennessee will dish out $750,000 for a game against Louisiana-Lafayette next year. Do you see Colorado, Iowa, or Tennessee in the BCS picture this year?
The point is that Schiano, Dantonio, Petrino, and Rodriguez have built solid programs at their respective schools. Beyond those four, the other Big East coaches have more than held their own, for the most part.
Jim Leavitt's South Florida Bulls didn't even exist in 1996, they didn't join D1 until 2001, and they didn't join a conference until 2003. Now they sit at 8-4 after knocking off former national championship contender WVU. QB Matt Grothe has thrown for 2,495 yards/14 TD and run for 607 yards/9 TD...and he's just a freshman. They could be the sleeper of 2007.
Randy Edsall's UConn Huskies didn't jump to D1 until 1999 and didn't join a conference until 2004. While they have won just a few games this season, I would consider them an up-and-coming threat. They have a very young team, with 45 freshmen and 23 sophomores. And they certainly had enough firepower to get past Pitt (yes, I know, "who hasn't"), but it was a gutsy comeback nonetheless.
Dave Wannstedt has yet to get that signature victory, but his biggest W to this point has been in the recruiting wars. The fruits of his labor will probably not be visible until 2008, but I have been very impressed at how successful he's been attracting some blue-chippers to the university. If he can endure a tough 2007 schedule, with roadies against WVU, Louisville, Rutgers, Michigan State, and Virginia, and keep any kind of momentum, this team will be dangerous.
Syracuse has struggled for a few years now. Gregg Robinson certainly has his work cut out, but he has some nice recruits on the way. However, I'm not going to say Syracuse has anything resembling a good program right now just to support my argument. Every conference has their dogs, and Syracuse is the dog of the Big East.
The Big East is a better conference than they get credit for. They're a convenient target for criticism by the media and fans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the lowly Big East team not knock off the big, bad SEC team in the Sugar Bowl last year?
For Big East detractors, I'm sure you are fans of a team that is in a rival big-six conference. Let's use Penn State as an example. If Ohio State, Michigan, and, say, Purdue, pull out of the Big 10, that would be a big loss, right? All of a sudden, your conference is weakened. But you still have some big-time programs: Penn State, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa, et al. You then replace the three schools with comparable replacements. Maybe they're not as sexy as the teams you lost, but they're all solid programs with good coaching. Sure, it takes a little time for them to fully integrate, but they join the league and do well. Wouldn't you be upset if the NCAA took away your conference's BCS status? And wouldn't you be a little defensive if the entire nation took shots at the conference on a daily basis?
The Big East lost Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College. Their combined record this year was 25-11. They gained Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida. Their combined record this year was 26-10, with victories over then-#17 Miami, then-#3 WVU, then-#7 Rutgers, and then-#7 WVU. In head-to-head meetings, Louisville beat Miami, 31-7, and Va Tech downed Cincy, 29-13. At the very least, you have to admit these are comparable programs. But I doubt you will. That's why I hate college football. Nerds such as myself will dig up statistics and try to prove why we're as good as you. And you'll disagree, and provide your own list of why the Big East sucks.
The power thats be who are in charge of this must watch this play out and laugh and laugh and laugh. Laugh all the way to the bank, that is. They could care less who is in the national championship or any bowl game. As long as those ginormous paydays keep coming in, the NCAA will continue in their ways as one of the most hypocritical organizations in the country. Dan Patrick and John Saunders and Mike Lupica can debate the BCS till they're blue in the face, and it won't make a lick of difference. The payout this year will be bigger than ever. In their eyes, they've done a fantastic job.
