Which college football team gets the most bang for their recruiting buck?

So what causes a school to spend a lot on recruiting? Do schools need to hire more entry level personnel to send 400 hand-colored crayon drawings to potential recruits? Do they need the money to grill endangered species steaks for visiting potential linebackers? Maybe. There are other factors that indicate whether a school will need to spend a lot of money though, with geography perhaps the biggest.

High school football talent is not distributed equally throughout the US. Some states, like California, Texas and Florida, produce lots and lots of D1 caliber student athletes. Others, like South Dakota, Kansas, or Nevada, don't. Schools that have the good fortune of being located near talent rich areas won't have to spend as much money on transportation or other logistical recruiting expenses as schools that don't.

It isn't just your own geography though, it's also your proximity to peer institutions. For example, North Carolina is a growing state with improving prep football programs, and is increasingly pumping out strong athletes. However, that state is already home to UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest and ECU. It's also surrounded by strong football programs like Tennessee, Clemson, South Carolina and Virginia Tech. A school in this area might have to spend a significant amount of money just to retain their own local talent, given the stiff competition.

The opposite might be what we enjoy with Ohio State. Despite population shifting away from the Great Lakes Region, Ohio is still an excellent state for quality high school football and basketball, but the Buckeyes don't really have to worry about competing with an in-state peer institution for talent (put your hand down Cincinnati). Notre Dame, Michigan, and occasionally Penn State are recruiting rivals (put your hand down Kentucky, too), but comparatively speaking, Ohio State has a lock on a talent-rich area that would be envied by many. This means they're in a position to keep costs down a little.

The big spenders for recruiting fall right into that template. Leading the way in 2012 was Auburn, followed by Tennessee. Both schools are in an exceptionally competitive conference, and face very tough regional competition for talent (the rest of the SEC). Auburn spent $2,544,910 on recruiting, with $2,252,990 for the Volunteers. Notre Dame was third with $2,048,964, followed by Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Michigan and Nebraska. Ohio State was 24th, spending $1,289,623, less than Minnesota, Washington, Texas Tech and Illinois, among others.

So who is spending the least on recruiting? The bottom of the barrel, predictably, is dominated by non-BCS leagues who don't have oodles of money to spend on anything, including recruiting. The bottom spender was Louisiana-Monroe, who spent a measly $205,978 in 2012. The lowest current BCS league spender was Washington State, at $729,984, although Rutgers is spending less (that may not continue once the Scarlet Knights join the Big Ten). After Louisiana-Monroe, the bottom five total spenders included Ball State, Troy, North Texas, and Northern Illinois for the bottom five.

Wait, roll back the tape. Northern Illinois? The guys who just made a BCS bowl? They spent less on recruiting than a single BCS special teams coach makes in salary? It's true! Just because you aren't spending a lot of money doesn't mean you can't bring in a decent recruiting class. Take Arkansas State, for example. In 2011, the Red Wolves only spent $312,371, 11th lowest in the country. However, per the 2012 247Composite rankings, Arkansas State rolled in the 63rd best class in the country, one of the best for non-BCS programs. For perspective, they recruited a better class than Illinois or Wisconsin, who both spent more than three times as much.

Recruiting results on low budgets aren't limited to the bottom dwells of college football. In 2012, Boise State had the 16th lowest recruiting budget, despite not being in a particularly talent rich state, at $411,603. They pulled in the 55th best recruiting class of 2013, above bigger budget schools like Iowa, Minnesota or Duke. Marshall, at $525,854, wasn't far behind at 57.

Those are somewhat of exceptions though. Typically, the schools in the bottom 15 in recruiting spending were pulling in sub #90 ranked recruiting classes. A school that is very good at developing players can still achieve success, even with low ranked recruiting classes. Louisiana Tech went 9-3 last season, and gave Texas A&M everything they could handle. Kent State and San Jose State, both bottom 20 teams in spending, each had highly successful seasons for a low major. NIU went to a BCS bowl. What did all of those schools have in common? Great coaching. For a smaller school, that's probably a much better investment than recruiting travel, tons of cell phone data plans, or hordes of recruiting resources.

One other interesting outlier is Georgia Tech, who spent the eighth highest amount of money in 2011 at $1,492,702, more than Ohio State, Florida State and UCLA. Tech sits in a very strong talent state, with only one other peer institution, Georgia, for direct competition. While higher spending might be expected because of having to fight off multiple out of state schools, or because finding the right student athlete for their system (high academics, specialized football scheme) might be a hassle. Still, the Yellow Jackets have had only modest success in football recently, and had only the 61st best recruiting class in 2012. Washington State, the BCS school that spent the least amount of money, had the 59th. Our friends at Arkansas State, again, had the 54th best class, and spent less than $350,000.

Kansas is one team who improved a little with their efficiency in their 2013 class after a lousy 2012 (over $1 million spent but barely a top-80 recruiting class) , but despite a top-20 spending year, they only finished with the #49th class. Texas Tech had the 13th highest recruiting payroll, but only the 46th best class. Minnesota and Ohio State spent nearly the same amount on recruiting. One had the #2 class in the country, the other at 66nd, just above East Carolina. I'll let you figure out which one is which.

What can we learn here? Location is important, and some schools have figured out ways to be successful, either in bringing in highly regarded classes, or by developing lower regarded ones, without breaking the bank. If you're a fan of a big recruiting spender who also uses student feeds to subsidize the athletic program, maybe you'll want an administrator at your school to spend some time learning from Arkansas State or Northern Illinois.

The full database can be found here (click on columns to sort):