Mark schlabach early top 25..

Arkansas is most likely the 2010 version of 2009 Ole Miss: will get a lot of offseason and preseason love, then won't live up to the hype.

I'm shocked! Can't believe Ole Miss in not ranked in the top 10 again this year.

So i guess if unc is ranked in every preseason poll i have seen thus far, looks like college gameday will be in Atlanta.

An ESPN poll has USCw outside of the top ten?

quote:

---

Arkansas is most likely the 2010 version of 2009 Ole Miss: will get a lot of offseason and preseason love, then won't live up to the hype.

---

Because we did?

quote:

---

mediocrity

---

There it is! The calling card.

quote:

---

Its about a cost benefit analysis. Do we spend more than any of the teams ahead of us? SIn't our coach one of the highest paid in the country? Then I'd say we are spending too much money on an inferior product. Oh and before you say, but Miles isn't paid by the state...doesn't matter, is he one of the highest paid coaches in the country? Where does our staff payroll rank? Facilities costs, etc? If those costs are higher than our ranking, than the cost benefit analysis is not in our favor, and yes we are in mediocrity. Especially if there are programs that invest FAR less and get MUCH more out.

---

What about USC last year?

quote:

---

XbengalTiger

---

Don't you have some 17 yr old boys to stalk on the recruiting board?

quote:

---

Somebody help this guy out. Mediocrity has nothing to do with a cost benefit analysis. Two seperate issues.

---

Ok, lets assume they are two different issues. I'll play along. How bout a hypothetical. A program spends more money than everyone else but a couple of other programs in the country. Those other programs are in the national title picture, consistently ranked in the top 5 and enjoy the spoils of BCS bowl games...higher value recruits, more national exposure, and better sales of their merchandise on a national level.

Now this other team that spends just as much as them, isn't. They have trouble beating teams that have inferior talent and a fraction of their budget. They don't see those high value recruits, and continue to spend an exorbent amount of money.

Are they mediocre comapred to the team that spends 1/80th of their operating budget, nope, they're ranked higher. Now are they mediocre comapred to those programs with similar "statistics" for lack of a better word. Yes they are, even more so when compared with programs that get much more while spending less money.

It depends on where ypou want to compare yourself. You are right, compared to small schools in South Dakota we aren't mediocre. Compared to other "elite" programs in terms of facilities, expenses spent on Coaches and facilities, then yes you are mediocre.

This is commonly referred to as scale. I'm sure though somebody can help me out...