It ain't the coaches, fellas

[Bosler]

Oh, we can get talent. All it takes is money. This isn't 1989. We need to get NIL/revenue sharing to pay players. Maybe we need new coaches -- 130 teams are always looking for better coaches, so the competition is stiff there too -- but we absolutely need better talent. And that's doable.

Maybe we can't raise the money, maybe we don't want to, but that's a whole different issue.

(ETA: And, Indiana? Cignetti looks like a good coach. His QB is also making $2mm a year.)

 

[ragtimejoe1]

(ETA: And, Indiana? Cignetti looks like a good coach. His QB is also making $2mm a year.)

How does Indiana rank in the b1g for nil expenditures. Did they have a huge jump relative to peers the last 2 years as well?

Real question; not snarky. I don't know the answer. If they went bottom of b1g to top 3 in nil spending, then i agree that explains a lot.

 

[Bosler]

How does Indiana rank in the b1g for nil expenditures. Did they have a huge jump relative to peers the last 2 years as well?

Sure, that's a legit question. A quick search landed me here: https://frontofficesports.com/how-indiana-quietly-became-a-big-spender-in-football/

I didn't go any farther. Good data on this stuff is hard to find.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Sure, that's a legit question. A quick search landed me here: https://frontofficesports.com/how-indiana-quietly-became-a-big-spender-in-football/

I didn't go any farther. Good data on this stuff is hard to find.

I've read that one and a few others on Indiana. It does lack b1g nil rankings which is hard to pin down. Id expect oregon, osu, mi, and psu to be clearly in the top and northwestern clearly at the bottom. I would guess Indiana became competitive with the upper middle of the conference. I think there's a few key items in the article you posted:

1) importance of top down buy-in at a university for a competitive football team. We severely lack in this area, imo. This was also a characteristic of bsu's rise.

2) athletic dept budget solidly in the upper middle of peers. It mentioned the first time their budget was above the median.

3) competitive with peers for nil, but it looks to me like they are probably upper 3rd for the qb so they are also strategic.

4) great coaching staff. They also spent on assistant salaries which helped. Something we need to look at.

It looks like you need competitive (not top) budgets and the right people. Both are attainable at WYO, but back to #1...

 

[307bball]

I feel like lack of talent is being used as a way to deflect blame from coaches. It's entirely possible to not have top talent and not have a good coach at the same time. The current Wyoming squad is not loaded with talent... and it's not well coached. Is this controversial?

Wyoming has definitely had higher talent in relation to it's conference peers in the past and it can again if we have the right coach....It's a firable offense to not have a talented team as a head coach...it's one of the ways that you lose your job. Again...you might not suck if you have a good coach but nobody is winning a chip without talent no matter how good of a coach you have.

 

[307bball]

Just to illustrate the connectedness between coaching and talent level, During Nick Saban's tenure at Alabama, 44 players were 1st round selections in the NFL draft...during that time, they lost 29 times....they had more 1str round players than losses!!! Nutty.