As we all know, recruiting is a major part of college sports. Name recognition, NCAA Tournament success, number of draft picks from the team, and program culture are all determining factors for the nation’s top recruits. But, there is another important variable that is often left out of the conversation: money.
Major programs across the country are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to put themselves in the mix for program changing talent. From flights to hotels to meals to gas, hitting the recruiting trail can be extremely burdensome financially.
So, does spending more money in recruiting actually result in getting better players?
Recently, Stadium examined 53 college basketball programs and found that there is less of a correlation between spending and getting recruits than you may think. This contrasted from the results in college football which demonstrated a clear connection between recruiting budgets and roster talent.
For example, Oklahoma State and Texas A&M each spent about $462, 000 on basketball recruiting in the fiscal year of 2018. Of the 53 schools studied, these programs spent the 8th and 9th most but had little success to show for it. Meanwhile, North Carolina managed to get by with $159,501 and pulled in a top 15 recruiting class.
Final Four teams’ Texas Tech and Michigan State fell somewhere in the middle. The Red Raiders spent $350,731 on recruiting (16th most) and the Spartans spent $276,103 (29th most).
This seems to illustrate that recruiting spending is extremely important for up-and-coming programs and much less important for blueblood programs with recent success. While there is less of a correlation between spending and signing recruits in college basketball then college football, spending still matters.
Of the seven schools that spent $500,000 or more on recruiting in 2018, six of them managed to enroll a top 25 recruiting class. Two of these six schools are in the Big Ten (Indiana and Illinois).
These numbers are from 2018? Can you think of anything that may have happened in 2018 that may have triggered increased spending? Yes, I know Crean was spending a lot on recruiting, but when a coach first takes over a program, do you not see good reasons why spending on recruiting would skyrocket? It seems pretty logical to me, but….
This article was utterly worthless.
Best teams: Purdue, MSU, Wisc, Mich, MD
Teams that spent the least: Purdue, MSU, Wisc, Mich, MD.
I wonder if having the best coaches means anything?
You’re hitting on the point of the article. Despite spending on recruiting, that seems to have no correlation to the on-court product and success. (At least scoped to the recent years in the Big Ten)
Ok, but lets count the Nike money working behind the scenes. And then lets add the agent bribes. You see why Kentucky, Texas, Kansas, LSU, Arizona, Oregon and UCLA aren’t officially at the top?