Someone posted a few links where fans of other teams in the Big Ten were whining that OSU can spend more money and therefore recruit better. It is not the coaches fault because they don't set recruiting budgets. Well, someone did a nice little article showing exactly what each team spent the last two year... the results are suprising:
Ohio state spent only second to last in the Big Ten to recruit the #2 recruiting class overall.
If you do a quick efficiency equation on how much money each one spent to gain just one spot in ranking:
|Team||Efficiency ($ per rank)|
You can see OSU + Urban = HUGE benefit on how much is required to get results. Just crazy... and other Big Ten fans are whining about $$$!?
EDITED TO ADD:
Big Ten schools still don't spend as much on recruiting as Tennessee, which budgeted nearly $1.5 million in 2011. Since that program recruits coast to coast, it's understandable. Defending national champion Alabama spent $980,000 on recruiting, while Auburn spent $950,000. By contrast, Boise State spent only $71,290 on recruiting in 2010. Yet the Broncos manage to do just fine on the football field.