The cards are stacked against a lot of teams and there is very little to overcome that.

Rotonda Jim

Recruit
Sep 3, 2003
90
108
33
When the Miami of Ohio coach suggested that "paying Ohio State is like a third grader going to recess and then watching them (OSU) get the first 85 picks, he was correct. This statement also applies to the Hoosiers and I now think the problem is not solvable. The talent imbalance in the country is so skewed that it is almost stupid to have the season. You can build a weight room, expand tutoring, give all the players a lounge with their own TV's hire nutritionists and psychologists and pretty up your stadium but none of that will work unless you have the players. The Hoosiers start off every year with their best hopes being to get up to ninth or tenth in the Big Ten recruiting wars. It hurts that Indiana high school football is mediocre and we lose most ot the best kids to Purdue, Notre Dame or to other Big Ten Schools. The reality is that coaching is also not that important if you lack the players. I lived in Cleveland during the era when Bill Belichick was the head coach and Saban was the defensive coordinator with the Browns. The Browns were mediocre at best at that time. No, the coaches were not the problem. The problem was that the NFL has rules to make everybody end up 8 and 8. College football lacks a system to create equity. Whoever has the best recruiting class will be in the Top 25 or even Top 10 as long as they maintain the ranking of their top class.So the end result is, blowouts, mismatches and boring football. How anybody could sit through the entire game at Ohio State is sickening when you think about it but yet they had 105,000 folks to witness the slaughter. No, I have no solutions. I am just pointing out that the golden age of college football is gone unless you just want to take the top 10 and have them play it down and just then watch the rest of the schools give up football or play in empty houses for useless trophies. I cannot blame fans for not attending games where their team does not have a chance to win. That is a sad admission to make. My time, money and energy is better spent elsewhere.
 

Andy06

Benchwarmer
Apr 23, 2017
393
722
93
There is definitely a chasm between the "haves" and "have nots." It's easier to overcome in basketball than football.

The easy solution (and this would also help with title 9), is decrease the number of scholarships. Each team has 11 starters on offense and defense. You don't need 85 scholarships to field a team. Bump it back to 60, and all of a sudden, 25 guys that are on the bench at Alabama, Clemson, OSU, etc...are playing at IU, PU, Illinois.
 

td75

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Aug 16, 2003
11,870
10,436
113
There is a real and growing problem in the game. Most people will simply counter with "recruit better players" but it's not quite that easy or that simple.

Ohio State football is similar to Kentucky in basketball, they will annually trot out a professional team. The difference is that a team full of hard working kids that can actually shoot the basketball, can occasionally knock off the stacked/professional Kentucky bball team.

Football works a little different in that closing that wide talent gap can't be done the same way as a sharp shooting bball team can. Probably the best way to beat Ohio State is prove to them that you can run the ball on their defense. Wisconsin, which recruits three star players across the board, can potentially beat Ohio State because of their ability to actually run the football which in turn controls the play clock.

Indiana needs to recruit better players but also develop the talent they do sign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13 and 82IU

mushroomgod_1

All-Big Ten
Apr 9, 2012
4,111
3,609
113
When the Miami of Ohio coach suggested that "paying Ohio State is like a third grader going to recess and then watching them (OSU) get the first 85 picks, he was correct. This statement also applies to the Hoosiers and I now think the problem is not solvable. The talent imbalance in the country is so skewed that it is almost stupid to have the season. You can build a weight room, expand tutoring, give all the players a lounge with their own TV's hire nutritionists and psychologists and pretty up your stadium but none of that will work unless you have the players. The Hoosiers start off every year with their best hopes being to get up to ninth or tenth in the Big Ten recruiting wars. It hurts that Indiana high school football is mediocre and we lose most ot the best kids to Purdue, Notre Dame or to other Big Ten Schools. The reality is that coaching is also not that important if you lack the players. I lived in Cleveland during the era when Bill Belichick was the head coach and Saban was the defensive coordinator with the Browns. The Browns were mediocre at best at that time. No, the coaches were not the problem. The problem was that the NFL has rules to make everybody end up 8 and 8. College football lacks a system to create equity. Whoever has the best recruiting class will be in the Top 25 or even Top 10 as long as they maintain the ranking of their top class.So the end result is, blowouts, mismatches and boring football. How anybody could sit through the entire game at Ohio State is sickening when you think about it but yet they had 105,000 folks to witness the slaughter. No, I have no solutions. I am just pointing out that the golden age of college football is gone unless you just want to take the top 10 and have them play it down and just then watch the rest of the schools give up football or play in empty houses for useless trophies. I cannot blame fans for not attending games where their team does not have a chance to win. That is a sad admission to make. My time, money and energy is better spent elsewhere.

We, as well as all the other have nots like RU, Maryland, Purdue, Illinois, do seem to put an incredible amount of $, time, and effort into achieving less than thrilling results. As an example, I count 32 adults, including 5-6 GAs, that have staff positions solely related to football. That's a lot of activity.

Here's the thing.......football keeps the entire AD afloat. Michigan, OSU, PSU Nebraska and to a lesser extent, Wisconsin & MSU subsidize us so that they can continue to have teams they can whip up on. In exchange, we agree to spend a lot of $ and put a lot of effort into trying to stay above the Mendoza line. As an IU fan, I like to see basketball & the non-revenue sports have success. That's difficult to do when football is really bad. So overall, I think it's worth the investment of time, $ and effort to just have a seat at the table when the $ is divided.

I don't see how anyone can be an college football fan and only care what happens to IU....I have other teams to root for (the BT teams other than Purdue when they play OOC), and teams to root against (Purdue & ND lead the pack, but there are always other bad guys). When it comes to IU, you just have to enjoy the game enough for its own sake, enjoy being back on campus et al. If all you care about is the winning and losing it will drive you crazy. Get some satisfaction out of just supporting the school
 

vesuvius13

All-American
Gold Member
May 11, 2017
5,072
12,408
113
The key for IU is to recruit solidly and find several special players to change the game. PU found one in Moore and IU has some that can become those type of players. UM has been the team OSU is now but has fallen on tough times for them so it doesn't last forever. Football is cyclical and the tide will turn if schools care enough to give their teams a chance to succeed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC, td75 and 76-1

IndyIUFan66

Senior
Jun 23, 2013
2,878
5,140
113
There is definitely a chasm between the "haves" and "have nots." It's easier to overcome in basketball than football.

The easy solution (and this would also help with title 9), is decrease the number of scholarships. Each team has 11 starters on offense and defense. You don't need 85 scholarships to field a team. Bump it back to 60, and all of a sudden, 25 guys that are on the bench at Alabama, Clemson, OSU, etc...are playing at IU, PU, Illinois.
I’d say a bit higher say 72 scholly’s each, (18 a class) but still that would free up 13 players from all the powerhouses downward and I’d all but guarantee that among the bottom 13 scholarship players at all the top 10 ranked teams (130 players just right there, 260 if said Top 20 schools!) that spread out among other schools it would indeed make ALL D-1 schools better as some of the players signing at power 5 schools would be going MAC type and guess what, the cupcake games might get harder too as low B10 players would be playing down too.

Which by the way could still mean every team has 3 full starting units Off & Def + 6 more players. (And then any walk ons). More than enough.

Would think NCAA Presidents might appreciate having 13 less full rides available to use that mo et elsewhere too?

85 to 72...my new NCAA mantra! Say it with me!
 

IndyIUFan66

Senior
Jun 23, 2013
2,878
5,140
113
Also if you were limited to 72 scholarships schools might be a bit more judicious of their early signings but if schools like IU really wanted someone they could commit to them still and a high 3, low 4-star might sign with IU to be locked in if OSU or UM were hesitant to commit “but interested.” The musical chairs of only 18 slots would get tight quickly.

Still think OSU would get 18 4 & 5 star players, but their last 5-6 typical class recruits might be in IU’s top 10 (ie Samson James types). 5 Sampson James level players a class could stack nicely in 4 years and you then have 20 4-stars now in your roster!

Where’s Bernie Sanders football math when you need it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13

IUCX9

Sophomore
Nov 30, 2018
765
1,397
93
There is definitely a chasm between the "haves" and "have nots." It's easier to overcome in basketball than football.

The easy solution (and this would also help with title 9), is decrease the number of scholarships. Each team has 11 starters on offense and defense. You don't need 85 scholarships to field a team. Bump it back to 60, and all of a sudden, 25 guys that are on the bench at Alabama, Clemson, OSU, etc...are playing at IU, PU, Illinois.
I like the idea of going to 60 scholarships. That would also take care of the transfer and budding free agent market in CFB.

It would also benefit G5 and FCS programs and definitely increase parity across the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IndyIUFan66

Andy06

Benchwarmer
Apr 23, 2017
393
722
93
I’d say a bit higher say 72 scholly’s each, (18 a class) but still that would free up 13 players from all the powerhouses downward and I’d all but guarantee that among the bottom 13 scholarship players at all the top 10 ranked teams (130 players just right there, 260 if said Top 20 schools!) that spread out among other schools it would indeed make ALL D-1 schools better as some of the players signing at power 5 schools would be going MAC type and guess what, the cupcake games might get harder too as low B10 players would be playing down too.

Which by the way could still mean every team has 3 full starting units Off & Def + 6 more players. (And then any walk ons). More than enough.

Would think NCAA Presidents might appreciate having 13 less full rides available to use that mo et elsewhere too?

85 to 72...my new NCAA mantra! Say it with me!
I would be ok with 72, still gives you the same concept.

It's funny you mention Bernie. I had a conversation last week with a friend about Bernie's support of the California Fair Pay for Play act. I would think the NCAA structure would be right up his alley. The few that earn the money (football and basketball) pay the way for the ones that don't (virtually all other sports).

Caveat: I don't vote party, I vote candidate. Both parties have positive and negative.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13

TR32

All-American
Nov 20, 2009
5,892
2,283
113
Indiana has finished above 0.500 in the conference only 16 times in 120 seasons, and the last time was 1993.

Indiana has no business playing in the Big Ten in football based on results.
 

82hoosier

All-American
Sep 7, 2001
7,044
4,586
113
They certainly have no business being in a division of the Big Ten that includes Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State. But these situations can develop when you have inferior facilities for over 100 years .
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13

Fro

Hall of Famer
Sep 2, 2001
14,164
1,861
113
They certainly have no business being in a division of the Big Ten that includes Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State. But these situations can develop when you have inferior facilities for over 100 years .
Michigan (2 P5), Ohio (1 P5), Penn State (2 P5) are all bigger states than Indiana which has 3 P5 programs.

You add to that Michigan and Ohio State being in major metro areas and East Lansing being in a metro area about 2-3x the size of Bloomington and that's where you get less sponsorship and less local fans to fill up the stadium. We have to draw from Indianapolis an hour away, which can be done with big historical success like Penn State has but people who aren't diehards aren't going to make the trip every week to watch us get creamed, and we don't have enough historical success to create a lot of diehards.
 

Rotonda Jim

Recruit
Sep 3, 2003
90
108
33
The key for IU is to recruit solidly and find several special players to change the game. PU found one in Moore and IU has some that can become those type of players. UM has been the team OSU is now but has fallen on tough times for them so it doesn't last forever. Football is cyclical and the tide will turn if schools care enough to give their teams a chance to succeed.
Football has never been cyclical at OSU. Have they even won less than 6 games since the 1940s?
 

fpeaugh

All-American
Sep 19, 2001
9,230
7,002
113
Smaller football schools like IU were handed the best gift they could ever receive with the BTN. OSU’s viewership essentially subsidizes our lack of a fan base. Their investment over all these years is now going equally to schools that never invested in football.

Fair or not this is the first time in 100 years that we now have the money to compete with the bigger schools. But unfortunately we don’t have an administration that cares about winning so they spend the money elsewhere. And fans who still go and support the program allow them to get away with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: td75 and vesuvius13

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
7,405
10,464
113
Smaller football schools like IU were handed the best gift they could ever receive with the BTN. OSU’s viewership essentially subsidizes our lack of a fan base. Their investment over all these years is now going equally to schools that never invested in football.

Fair or not this is the first time in 100 years that we now have the money to compete with the bigger schools. But unfortunately we don’t have an administration that cares about winning so they spend the money elsewhere. And fans who still go and support the program allow them to get away with it.
You should have just quit after your first paragraph, which made good points.

Your second paragraph is just rumor and gossip.
 

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
7,405
10,464
113
It’s an absolute fact that we’ve used tens of millions of those dollars for other purposes.
"But unfortunately we don’t have an administration that cares about winning so they spend the money elsewhere."

Not caring about winning is just BS. They most certainly want to win. They also want to have a university that doesn't sell it's soul for an athletic program.

So they give money to build a new building on campus to start a new academic program. This is while they are building a new end zone and volleyball/wrestling facility and had already added the NEZ, new softball and baseball stadiums, Cook Hall, and renovations to Assembly Hall. And a new building for the marching band.

If you want to go root for a football factory, there are schools that spend way more money than IU on athletics. If you want to root for a real university that doesn't sell out for athletics, then you have to support it's academic mission.
 

mushroomgod_1

All-Big Ten
Apr 9, 2012
4,111
3,609
113
I’d say a bit higher say 72 scholly’s each, (18 a class) but still that would free up 13 players from all the powerhouses downward and I’d all but guarantee that among the bottom 13 scholarship players at all the top 10 ranked teams (130 players just right there, 260 if said Top 20 schools!) that spread out among other schools it would indeed make ALL D-1 schools better as some of the players signing at power 5 schools would be going MAC type and guess what, the cupcake games might get harder too as low B10 players would be playing down too.

Which by the way could still mean every team has 3 full starting units Off & Def + 6 more players. (And then any walk ons). More than enough.

Would think NCAA Presidents might appreciate having 13 less full rides available to use that mo et elsewhere too?

85 to 72...my new NCAA mantra! Say it with me!

The power struggle & politics involved over such a reduction would be interesting........

Obviously, you have the top 20 or so traditional powerhouses who, logically would be very much against.

Then you have the bottom 45 or so in P5 conferences who, logically, would be all for it.....except that they might not like the idea of MAC & AAC schools getting a leg up on them..........also, we're talking about 'football guys' first and foremost so they might see such a reduction as harmful to college football overall and specifically to kids seeking FB schloarships....how many fewer kids play HS football if scholarship prospects are less?

Then you have the AAC schools & scattered independents who would likely be for it....

Then you have the academic snobs, football haters, and Title 9 snobs who would welcome a reduction in the overall power of the college football lobby.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13

fpeaugh

All-American
Sep 19, 2001
9,230
7,002
113
"But unfortunately we don’t have an administration that cares about winning so they spend the money elsewhere."

Not caring about winning is just BS. They most certainly want to win. They also want to have a university that doesn't sell it's soul for an athletic program.

So they give money to build a new building on campus to start a new academic program. This is while they are building a new end zone and volleyball/wrestling facility and had already added the NEZ, new softball and baseball stadiums, Cook Hall, and renovations to Assembly Hall. And a new building for the marching band.

If you want to go root for a football factory, there are schools that spend way more money than IU on athletics. If you want to root for a real university that doesn't sell out for athletics, then you have to support it's academic mission.
It’s not selling out. It’s using funds generated by the athletic department for athletic purposes. It benefits those students who earn it.

And while we’re spending money to upgrade, we’re doing it at a much slower pace than our competition. So we’re not just staying the same, we’re actually moving in reverse relative to our competition.

I just choose not to support a program that wont even spend the money to put out a respectable product. Hopefully that will change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUgradman

lndyResident16

Redshirt
Sep 2, 2019
148
103
43
"But unfortunately we don’t have an administration that cares about winning so they spend the money elsewhere."

Not caring about winning is just BS. They most certainly want to win. They also want to have a university that doesn't sell it's soul for an athletic program.

So they give money to build a new building on campus to start a new academic program. This is while they are building a new end zone and volleyball/wrestling facility and had already added the NEZ, new softball and baseball stadiums, Cook Hall, and renovations to Assembly Hall. And a new building for the marching band.

If you want to go root for a football factory, there are schools that spend way more money than IU on athletics. If you want to root for a real university that doesn't sell out for athletics, then you have to support it's academic mission.
But the Big 10 “football factories” haven’t sold their souls, and they’re higher rated schools academically than IU. They achieve at higher levels overall both academically and athletically. It can be done. It is being done. Everywhere.
 

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
7,405
10,464
113
It’s not selling out. It’s using funds generated by the athletic department for athletic purposes. It benefits those students who earn it.

And while we’re spending money to upgrade, we’re doing it at a much slower pace than our competition. So we’re not just staying the same, we’re actually moving in reverse relative to our competition.

I just choose not to support a program that wont even spend the money to put out a respectable product. Hopefully that will change.
By your logic, the basketball program revenue should have never been shared with football or any other sport. Pre-BTN, how much money was being made on the FB program?

So, for all those years the basketball program subsidized football, the football program should now be paying back the basketball program.

Does that make sense to you?

At least you admit you don't support IU. So please don't use the term 'we' when discussing anything IU in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13 and 76-1

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
7,405
10,464
113
But the Big 10 “football factories” haven’t sold their souls, and they’re higher rated schools academically than IU. They achieve at higher levels overall both academically and athletically. It can be done. It is being done. Everywhere.
MSU hasn't sold their souls? Are you kidding me?

Have you seen what's going on up there, and has been going on for a helluva long time? They used to be known as Steroid U., for God's sake. Look up Tony Mandarich sometime.

You think O$U is clean?

The 'football factories' were that before BTN money. IU's athletic budget is over $110 million. Compare that to an Iowa or Wisconsin. We're never going to be an O$U or UM or PSU because of the past - but it's the past. With the facilities we have now, we can compete. Spending more money now will not buy us another victory. Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns?
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13 and 76-1

fpeaugh

All-American
Sep 19, 2001
9,230
7,002
113
By your logic, the basketball program revenue should have never been shared with football or any other sport. Pre-BTN, how much money was being made on the FB program?

So, for all those years the basketball program subsidized football, the football program should now be paying back the basketball program.

Does that make sense to you?

At least you admit you don't support IU. So please don't use the term 'we' when discussing anything IU in the future.
It doesn’t matter where the money comes from for an individual school bozo. Football or basketball...same athletic dept.

But should OSU and Michigan’s massive fan bases be subsidizing Northwestern? That’s up for debate but the reality is they currently are with the BTN.

We should be catching up not falling further behind.
 

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
7,405
10,464
113
It doesn’t matter where the money comes from for an individual school bozo. Football or basketball...same athletic dept.

But should OSU and Michigan’s massive fan bases be subsidizing Northwestern? That’s up for debate but the reality is they currently are with the BTN.

We should be catching up not falling further behind.
Bozo. The Big Ten wouldn't be the Big Ten without Northwestern or Indiana or Purdue or Minnesota or Iowa. Those schools were around a long time before BTN. Bozo.

I don't know if you realize it or no - probably not. Basketball and Football have their own budgets. The Athletic Dept is part of the University. So, if you don't want to draw a distinction between the football and basketball budgets, you can't draw a distinction between the athletic budget and the university.

Please - go post on a board whose team you support. You'll be much happier and so will we.
 
Last edited:

fpeaugh

All-American
Sep 19, 2001
9,230
7,002
113
Bozo. The Big Ten wouldn't be the Big Ten without Northwestern or Indiana or Purdue or Minnesota or Iowa or Purdue. Those schools were around a long time before BTN. Bozo.

I don't know if you realize it or no - probably not. Basketball and Football have their own budgets. The Athletic Dept is part of the University. So, if you don't want to draw a distinction between the football and basketball budgets, you can't draw a distinction between the athletic budget and the university.

Please - go post on a board whose team you support. You'll be much happier and so will we.
You’re just helpless man. The bigger picture totally eludes you here. Please see yourself out.
 

lndyResident16

Redshirt
Sep 2, 2019
148
103
43
MSU hasn't sold their souls? Are you kidding me?

Have you seen what's going on up there, and has been going on for a helluva long time? They used to be known as Steroid U., for God's sake. Look up Tony Mandarich sometime.

You think O$U is clean?

The 'football factories' were that before BTN money. IU's athletic budget is over $110 million. Compare that to an Iowa or Wisconsin. We're never going to be an O$U or UM or PSU because of the past - but it's the past. With the facilities we have now, we can compete. Spending more money now will not buy us another victory. Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns?
If you’re talking about Nasser, yeah, he was awful. But they aren’t doing things that others aren’t doing. You don’t think there were steroids at IU? C’mon. IU had an all conference offensive lineman who was a high school quarterback. How do you think he added 70or more pounds? And you still didn’t answer how other schools perform much better while also being superior academically. IU just doesn’t care enough to win, that’s all. The results prove it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
7,405
10,464
113
If you’re talking about Nasser, yeah, he was awful. But they aren’t doing things that others aren’t doing. You don’t think there were steroids at IU? C’mon. IU had an all conference offensive lineman who was a high school quarterback. How do you think he added 70or more pounds? And you still didn’t answer how other schools perform much better while also being superior academically. IU just doesn’t care enough to win, that’s all. The results prove it.
No, I'm not talking about Nasser.

MSU is doing WAY more 'things' than other schools do. They lead the nation in Title IX charges - 3 times any other school.

They cover up any crime to keep their athletes eligible. It's been that way for years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13 and 76-1

lndyResident16

Redshirt
Sep 2, 2019
148
103
43
No, I'm not talking about Nasser.

MSU is doing WAY more 'things' than other schools do. They lead the nation in Title IX charges - 3 times any other school.

They cover up any crime to keep their athletes eligible. It's been that way for years.
Generalities are nice but specifics are what counts. Every program has kids that, in hindsight, shouldn’t have been pursued. That includes IU and every other Big Ten school. The notion that IU has lagged because everyone else is in the sewer and IU refuses to go down there doesn’t hold water. IU hasn’t succeeded because they haven’t made the commitment to succeed, and not because they won’t cheat or because everyone else bends the rules. It’s a lame excuse that isn’t accurate.
 

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
7,405
10,464
113
Generalities are nice but specifics are what counts. Every program has kids that, in hindsight, shouldn’t have been pursued. That includes IU and every other Big Ten school. The notion that IU has lagged because everyone else is in the sewer and IU refuses to go down there doesn’t hold water. IU hasn’t succeeded because they haven’t made the commitment to succeed, and not because they won’t cheat or because everyone else bends the rules. It’s a lame excuse that isn’t accurate.
I made no excuses. Just pointing out facts.

I'm sorry you feel the need to divert attention away from those facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13 and 76-1

IndyIUFan66

Senior
Jun 23, 2013
2,878
5,140
113
The power struggle & politics involved over such a reduction would be interesting........

Obviously, you have the top 20 or so traditional powerhouses who, logically would be very much against.

Then you have the bottom 45 or so in P5 conferences who, logically, would be all for it.....except that they might not like the idea of MAC & AAC schools getting a leg up on them..........also, we're talking about 'football guys' first and foremost so they might see such a reduction as harmful to college football overall and specifically to kids seeking FB schloarships....how many fewer kids play HS football if scholarship prospects are less?

Then you have the AAC schools & scattered independents who would likely be for it....

Then you have the academic snobs, football haters, and Title 9 snobs who would welcome a reduction in the overall power of the college football lobby.....
I am genuinely interested & even fascinated by this topic as I think ANY reduction from 85 would be a good thing for balance.

The one argument I could see being made against it would be “poor kids having less opportunities for college scholarships.” I get that, but I would think the concussion folks and more balance arguments could win out, perhaps along with NCAA being smart and maybe requiring FB schools reducing from 85 scholarships must use X% of that money for women’s or other men’s scholarships in other sports.

Could also phase it in? 85 to 80, then drops one a year to 72-75 whatever final number is?

Think the spreading of talent would be fantastic for lower level teams. As I said earlier imagine IU with 4-5 Sampson James equivalents per class replacing the bottom five 2 or low 3-star recruits each recruiting class? In 3-4 years a lot of teams would be a lot better just given the numbers game.

Put another way, imagine an expansion draft where every team could protect its top 75 players and the bottom 10 unprotected would be eligible to be drafted? You don’t think IU could pick up some talent from OSU / PSU or Wiscy in those bottom 10? Please! Now think about the top 25 teams in country. That’s 250 players who would likely be offered elsewhere. And replacing the bottom 250 players at teams (like IU) all throughout college football (and those bottom 250 dropping to smaller schools improving those programs.

It’s an amazing concept to think about and I hope NCAA takes it up!
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13

fpeaugh

All-American
Sep 19, 2001
9,230
7,002
113
Go admire the cow barn next to Ros-ade your school just constructed up on West Laffy.
Purdue is investing a lot more in facilities than we are.

Cow barn? How old are you? Your parents need to monitor your behavior closer.
 

cshartle123

Junior
Apr 8, 2016
1,591
1,620
113
Purdue is investing a lot more in facilities than we are.

Cow barn? How old are you? Your parents need to monitor your behavior closer.
I see your point about not using our BTN earnings to keep up with the facilities arms race, but I was OK with moving that money to academics. For what we have, we have upgraded our facilities to top of the line. It’s pointless to do anything else until we get the right coach that can win. I think our program has the quality of facilities and budget to attract the coach that Kansas State reeled in. Fred has his chips all in on Allen and Archie. If they fail, the right AD will be able to immediately hire quality coaches.
 

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
7,405
10,464
113
Purdue is investing a lot more in facilities than we are.

Cow barn? How old are you? Your parents need to monitor your behavior closer.
You are senile if you think PU spends more than IU on faciliities. If they are, they're getting screwed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1