Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Realignment Just By the Numbers 2015
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1
SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
Here is where our conference stands on revenue in athletics and attendance which is one aspect that is reflective of market draw.
Revenue figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. Attendance is as reported and averaged for all home games.

Alabama: Revenue $124,900,000; Attendance 101,505
Arkansas: Revenue $ 99,757,000; Attendance 61,596
Auburn: Revenue $105,951,000; Attendance 85,657
Florida: Revenue $120,772,000; Attendance 87,440
Georgia: Revenue $ 91,671,000; Attendance 92,746
Kentucky: Revenue $ 88,373,000; Attendance 59,472
Louisiana State: Revenue $114,788,000; Attendance 91,418
Mississippi: Revenue $ 51,859,000; Attendance 59,393
Miss State: Revenue $ 69,829,000; Attendance 55,695
Missouri: Revenue $ 50,720,000; Attendance 63,505
South Carolina: Revenue $ 87,608,000; Attendance 82,401
Tennessee: Revenue $102,884,000; Attendance 95,584
Texas A&M: Revenue $119,702,000; Attendance 87,125
Vanderbilt: Revenue $ 55,836,000; Attendance 35,675

The Mean Revenue Level for Athletics in the SEC is: $91,760,714 and the Mean Attendance is rounded down to 75,000 per school per home game.

So who could the SEC add that would enhance these numbers:
1. Texas: Revenue $163,295,000; Attendance 98,976; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
2. Oklahoma: Revenue $106,457,000; Attendance 84,722; Population 3.814 Million
3. Florida State: Revenue $100,049,000; Attendance 75,421; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
4. Notre Dame: Revenue $ 97,113,000; Attendance 80,795; Population 6.537 Million (for Indiana plus those of the Catholic faith that follow nationwide.)

Schools whose markets could enhance the payout of the SEC but who on their own merits do not enhance our numbers.

1. Virginia: Revenue $ 80,836,000; Attendance 46,279; Population 8.260 Million
2. North Carolina: Revenue $ 82,424,000; Attendance 51,500; Population 9.848 Million
3. Virginia Tech: Revenue $ 70,724,000; Attendance 63,999; Population 8.260 Million
4. North Carolina St.: Revenue $ 59,758,000; Attendance 53,178; Population 9.848 Million
5. Pittsburgh: Revenue $ 56,338,000; Attendance 49,741; Population 12.763 Million
6. West Virginia: Revenue $ 80,065,000; Attendance 52,910; Population 1.855 Million
7. Oklahoma State: Revenue $ 87,271,000; Attendance 59,126; Population 3.814 Million
8. Kansas: Revenue $ 70,229,000; Attendance 37,884; Population 2.888 Million
9. Kansas State: Revenue $63,272,000; Attendance 52,887; Population 2.888 Million

Another that could fit with a revenue increase:

1. Clemson: Revenue $ 70,002,000; Attendance 82,048; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC.)

Duke is a possibility if North Carolina insisted upon it and because of their phenomenal academic ratings:

1. Duke: Revenue $ 78,605,000; Attendance 26,062 (Doesn't deliver North Carolina but would strengthen existing numbers and deliver a national audience.)

Now if you like you can discuss the merits or lack thereof of any of these schools but if the SEC is to expand again these are the prospects for a variety of different reasons. I can't see anyone outside of these being a prospect unless a conference merger was the reason.

My take here to 16 the most advantageous would be Virginia and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and N.C. State. The greatest strength would be with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma.

At 18 the markets would enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma. The greatest strength would be in adding Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and North Carolina.

At 20 the markets would be enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia (I'm not counting Notre Dame at any position.) The greatest strength would be in North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, and Clemson. But those are just my thoughts.

********************************************************************************************************************************
Update on 2014 attendance figures:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...wn-in-2014
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2015 07:29 PM by JRsec.)
04-17-2014 05:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


CintiFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 386
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Ohio St./ Cinti
Location:
Post: #2
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-17-2014 05:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here is where our conference stands on revenue in athletics and attendance which is one aspect that is reflective of market draw.
Revenue figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. Attendance is as reported and averaged for all home games.

Alabama: Revenue $124,900,000; Attendance 101,505
Arkansas: Revenue $ 99,757,000; Attendance 61,596
Auburn: Revenue $105,951,000; Attendance 85,657
Florida: Revenue $120,772,000; Attendance 87,440
Georgia: Revenue $ 91,671,000; Attendance 92,746
Kentucky: Revenue $ 88,373,000; Attendance 59,472
Louisiana State: Revenue $114,788,000; Attendance 91,418
Mississippi: Revenue $ 51,859,000; Attendance 59,393
Miss State: Revenue $ 69,829,000; Attendance 55,695
Missouri: Revenue $ 50,720,000; Attendance 63,505
South Carolina: Revenue $ 87,608,000; Attendance 82,401
Tennessee: Revenue $102,884,000; Attendance 95,584
Texas A&M: Revenue $119,702,000; Attendance 87,125
Vanderbilt: Revenue $ 55,836,000; Attendance 35,675

The Mean Revenue Level for Athletics in the SEC is: $91,760,714 and the Mean Attendance is rounded down to 75,000 per school per home game.

So who could the SEC add that would enhance these numbers:
1. Texas: Revenue $163,295,000; Attendance 98,976; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
2. Oklahoma: Revenue $106,457,000; Attendance 84,722; Population 3.814 Million
3. Florida State: Revenue $100,049,000; Attendance 75,421; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
4. Notre Dame: Revenue $ 97,113,000; Attendance 80,795; Population 6.537 Million (for Indiana plus those of the Catholic faith that follow nationwide.)

Schools whose markets could enhance the payout of the SEC but who on their own merits do not enhance our numbers.

1. Virginia: Revenue $ 80,836,000; Attendance 46,279; Population 8.260 Million
2. North Carolina: Revenue $ 82,424,000; Attendance 51,500; Population 9.848 Million
3. Virginia Tech: Revenue $ 70,724,000; Attendance 63,999; Population 8.260 Million
4. North Carolina St.: Revenue $ 59,758,000; Attendance 53,178; Population 9.848 Million
5. Pittsburgh: Revenue $ 56,338,000; Attendance 49,741; Population 12.763 Million
6. West Virginia: Revenue $ 80,065,000; Attendance 52,910; Population 1.855 Million
7. Oklahoma State: Revenue $ 87,271,000; Attendance 59,126; Population 3.814 Million
8. Kansas: Revenue $ 70,229,000; Attendance 37,884; Population 2.888 Million
9. Kansas State: Revenue $63,272,000; Attendance 52,887; Population 2.888 Million

Another that could fit with a revenue increase:

1. Clemson: Revenue $ 70,002,000; Attendance 82,048; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC.)

Duke is a possibility if North Carolina insisted upon it and because of their phenomenal academic ratings:

1. Duke: Revenue $ 78,605,000; Attendance 26,062 (Doesn't deliver North Carolina but would strengthen existing numbers and deliver a national audience.)

Now if you like you can discuss the merits or lack thereof of any of these schools but if the SEC is to expand again these are the prospects for a variety of different reasons. I can't see anyone outside of these being a prospect unless a conference merger was the reason.

My take here to 16 the most advantageous would be Virginia and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and N.C. State. The greatest strength would be with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma.

At 18 the markets would enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma. The greatest strength would be in adding Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and North Carolina.

At 20 the markets would be enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia (I'm not counting Notre Dame at any position.) The greatest strength would be in North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, and Clemson. But those are just my thoughts.

What about Georgia Tech? I think their budget is around $54 million and attendance around 49,000.

If I were strategizing for the SEC, I might try to pry FSU and Georgia Tech or Clemson loose first, hoping their departure might destabilze the ACC and trigger some of the other schools I want, like UNC and UVA or VT, to come over as well.
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2014 02:30 PM by JRsec.)
04-18-2014 12:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #3
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-18-2014 12:27 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  
(04-17-2014 05:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here is where our conference stands on revenue in athletics and attendance which is one aspect that is reflective of market draw.
Revenue figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. Attendance is as reported and averaged for all home games.

Alabama: Revenue $124,900,000; Attendance 101,505
Arkansas: Revenue $ 99,757,000; Attendance 61,596
Auburn: Revenue $105,951,000; Attendance 85,657
Florida: Revenue $120,772,000; Attendance 87,440
Georgia: Revenue $ 91,671,000; Attendance 92,746
Kentucky: Revenue $ 88,373,000; Attendance 59,472
Louisiana State: Revenue $114,788,000; Attendance 91,418
Mississippi: Revenue $ 51,859,000; Attendance 59,393
Miss State: Revenue $ 69,829,000; Attendance 55,695
Missouri: Revenue $ 50,720,000; Attendance 63,505
South Carolina: Revenue $ 87,608,000; Attendance 82,401
Tennessee: Revenue $102,884,000; Attendance 95,584
Texas A&M: Revenue $119,702,000; Attendance 87,125
Vanderbilt: Revenue $ 55,836,000; Attendance 35,675

The Mean Revenue Level for Athletics in the SEC is: $91,760,714 and the Mean Attendance is rounded down to 75,000 per school per home game.

So who could the SEC add that would enhance these numbers:
1. Texas: Revenue $163,295,000; Attendance 98,976; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
2. Oklahoma: Revenue $106,457,000; Attendance 84,722; Population 3.814 Million
3. Florida State: Revenue $100,049,000; Attendance 75,421; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
4. Notre Dame: Revenue $ 97,113,000; Attendance 80,795; Population 6.537 Million (for Indiana plus those of the Catholic faith that follow nationwide.)

Schools whose markets could enhance the payout of the SEC but who on their own merits do not enhance our numbers.

1. Virginia: Revenue $ 80,836,000; Attendance 46,279; Population 8.260 Million
2. North Carolina: Revenue $ 82,424,000; Attendance 51,500; Population 9.848 Million
3. Virginia Tech: Revenue $ 70,724,000; Attendance 63,999; Population 8.260 Million
4. North Carolina St.: Revenue $ 59,758,000; Attendance 53,178; Population 9.848 Million
5. Pittsburgh: Revenue $ 56,338,000; Attendance 49,741; Population 12.763 Million
6. West Virginia: Revenue $ 80,065,000; Attendance 52,910; Population 1.855 Million
7. Oklahoma State: Revenue $ 87,271,000; Attendance 59,126; Population 3.814 Million
8. Kansas: Revenue $ 70,229,000; Attendance 37,884; Population 2.888 Million
9. Kansas State: Revenue $63,272,000; Attendance 52,887; Population 2.888 Million

Another that could fit with a revenue increase:

1. Clemson: Revenue $ 70,002,000; Attendance 82,048; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC.)

Duke is a possibility if North Carolina insisted upon it and because of their phenomenal academic ratings:

1. Duke: Revenue $ 78,605,000; Attendance 26,062 (Doesn't deliver North Carolina but would strengthen existing numbers and deliver a national audience.)

Now if you like you can discuss the merits or lack thereof of any of these schools but if the SEC is to expand again these are the prospects for a variety of different reasons. I can't see anyone outside of these being a prospect unless a conference merger was the reason.

My take here to 16 the most advantageous would be Virginia and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and N.C. State. The greatest strength would be with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma.

At 18 the markets would enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma. The greatest strength would be in adding Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and North Carolina.

At 20 the markets would be enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia (I'm not counting Notre Dame at any position.) The greatest strength would be in North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, and Clemson. But those are just my thoughts.

What about Georgia Tech? I think their budget is around $54 million and attendance around 49,000.

If I were strategizing for the SEC, I might try to pry FSU and Georgia Tech or Clemson loose first, hoping their departure might destabilze the ACC and trigger some of the other schools I want, like UNC and UVA or VT, to come over as well.

Georgia Tech opted out of the SEC in '65. Their academics would be a plus but they would be a drain in almost every other way. In a merger type situation I think they would be an easy in, but outside of that not really.

The SEC need only take Florida State and Clemson to land the others, but since ESPN owns the rights to both conferences they wouldn't pay to do it. And therein lies the problem. IMO the only way the SEC gets into North Carolina and Virginia is for the ACC to suffer another raid by the Big 10 and ESPN places the schools it wants most in the SEC, or for the ACC to make room for Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas by agreeing for Virginia Tech and N.C. State to come to the SEC.

If only N.D. agreed to come on board full time for the ACC that would work wonderfully to create two dynamic conferences worthy of being rivals.
ACC:
Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest
Kansas, Miami, Oklahoma, Texas

SEC:
Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

But that's about the only way I see ESPN agreeing to the SEC entry into North and South Carolina. It is also why I say that none of this is being precipitated by the conferences. If it were left up to the conferences I believe that F.S.U. would have already been asked for the reasons detailed above. But realignment is all about networks compiling property and paying the conferences to do it.

BTW, The trio of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to the ACC would not upset the balance of power in the ACC since Kansas would likely vote with the basketball first schools.
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2014 02:36 PM by JRsec.)
04-18-2014 07:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
reick Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 66
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Missouri
Location:
Post: #4
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-17-2014 05:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here is where our conference stands on revenue in athletics and attendance which is one aspect that is reflective of market draw.
Budget figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. Attendance is as reported and averaged for all home games.

Alabama: Revenue $124,900,000; Attendance 101,505
Arkansas: Revenue $ 99,757,000; Attendance 61,596
Auburn: Revenue $105,951,000; Attendance 85,657
Florida: Revenue $120,772,000; Attendance 87,440
Georgia: Revenue $ 91,671,000; Attendance 92,746
Kentucky: Revenue $ 88,373,000; Attendance 59,472
Louisiana State: Revenue $114,788,000; Attendance 91,418
Mississippi: Revenue $ 51,859,000; Attendance 59,393
Miss State: Revenue $ 69,829,000; Attendance 55,695
Missouri: Revenue $ 50,720,000; Attendance 63,505
South Carolina: Revenue $ 87,608,000; Attendance 82,401
Tennessee: Revenue $102,884,000; Attendance 95,584
Texas A&M: Revenue $119,702,000; Attendance 87,125
Vanderbilt: Revenue $ 55,836,000; Attendance 35,675

The Mean Revenue Level for Athletics in the SEC is: $91,760,714 and the Mean Attendance is rounded down to 75,000 per school per home game.

So who could the SEC add that would enhance these numbers:
1. Texas: Revenue $163,295,000; Attendance 98,976; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
2. Oklahoma: Revenue $106,457,000; Attendance 84,722; Population 3.814 Million
3. Florida State: Revenue $100,049,000; Attendance 75,421; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
4. Notre Dame: Revenue $ 97,113,000; Attendance 80,795; Population 6.537 Million (for Indiana plus those of the Catholic faith that follow nationwide.)

Schools whose markets could enhance the payout of the SEC but who on their own merits do not enhance our numbers.

1. Virginia: Revenue $ 80,836,000; Attendance 46,279; Population 8.260 Million
2. North Carolina: Revenue $ 82,424,000; Attendance 51,500; Population 9.848 Million
3. Virginia Tech: Revenue $ 70,724,000; Attendance 63,999; Population 8.260 Million
4. North Carolina St.: Revenue $ 59,758,000; Attendance 53,178; Population 9.848 Million
5. Pittsburgh: Revenue $ 56,338,000; Attendance 49,741; Population 12.763 Million
6. West Virginia: Revenue $ 80,065,000; Attendance 52,910; Population 1.855 Million
7. Oklahoma State: Revenue $ 87,271,000; Attendance 59,126; Population 3.814 Million
8. Kansas: Revenue $ 70,229,000; Attendance 37,884; Population 2.888 Million
9. Kansas State: Revenue $63,272,000; Attendance 52,887; Population 2.888 Million

Another that could fit with a revenue increase:

1. Clemson: Revenue $ 70,002,000; Attendance 82,048; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC.)

Duke is a possibility if North Carolina insisted upon it and because of their phenomenal academic ratings:

1. Duke: Revenue $ 78,605,000; Attendance 26,062 (Doesn't deliver North Carolina but would strengthen existing numbers and deliver a national audience.)

Now if you like you can discuss the merits or lack thereof of any of these schools but if the SEC is to expand again these are the prospects for a variety of different reasons. I can't see anyone outside of these being a prospect unless a conference merger was the reason.

My take here to 16 the most advantageous would be Virginia and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and N.C. State. The greatest strength would be with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma.

At 18 the markets would enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma. The greatest strength would be in adding Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and North Carolina.

At 20 the markets would be enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia (I'm not counting Notre Dame at any position.) The greatest strength would be in North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, and Clemson. But those are just my thoughts.

Missouri's athletic department expects to spend 72.5 million in the current fiscal year.

LINK

You would probably have to go back to 2006 to see MU athletic expenditures being as low as 50 million. I didn't bother to look and see how far off the other SEC numbers are.

In contrast, kansas State reported late last year an athletic department budget for the current fiscal year of 60 million, up from 58 the year before, so 63 seems a little high. I didn't see any estimates for expected expenses for the year in the article, but considering their 2012 FY expenses were 51 million and that they expect to operate at a surplus, I would expect that they plan on spending something less than the 60 million they budgeted.

LINK
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2014 02:41 PM by JRsec.)
04-18-2014 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #5
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
A&M's "hell the eff no!" stance on cow and thief aside, there just isn't any interest from those two in the SEC.

1) They want to be big fish in a small pond, not big fish in an ocean full fish just as big or bigger than them. Keeping their status and diet if easy wins is far more important to them then playing tough schedules. They know their fans entitlement mentality and that they want wins more than they want good games.

2) They are both politically tied down to a bunch of small, redundant and unattractive schools that neither the B1G or SEC will waste precious expansion slots on just to land the 2 whales. The ACC and PAC might be willing but the 2 Kings if CFB know better.
04-18-2014 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #6
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-18-2014 11:57 AM)reick Wrote:  
(04-17-2014 05:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here is where our conference stands on revenue in athletics and attendance which is one aspect that is reflective of market draw.
Revenue figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. Attendance is as reported and averaged for all home games.

Alabama: Revenue $124,900,000; Attendance 101,505
Arkansas: Revenue $ 99,757,000; Attendance 61,596
Auburn: Revenue $105,951,000; Attendance 85,657
Florida: Revenue $120,772,000; Attendance 87,440
Georgia: Revenue $ 91,671,000; Attendance 92,746
Kentucky: Revenue $ 88,373,000; Attendance 59,472
Louisiana State: Revenue $114,788,000; Attendance 91,418
Mississippi: Revenue $ 51,859,000; Attendance 59,393
Miss State: Revenue $ 69,829,000; Attendance 55,695
Missouri: Revenue $ 50,720,000; Attendance 63,505
South Carolina: Revenue $ 87,608,000; Attendance 82,401
Tennessee: Revenue $102,884,000; Attendance 95,584
Texas A&M: Revenue $119,702,000; Attendance 87,125
Vanderbilt: Revenue $ 55,836,000; Attendance 35,675

The Mean Revenue Level for Athletics in the SEC is: $91,760,714 and the Mean Attendance is rounded down to 75,000 per school per home game.

So who could the SEC add that would enhance these numbers:
1. Texas: Revenue $163,295,000; Attendance 98,976; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
2. Oklahoma: Revenue $106,457,000; Attendance 84,722; Population 3.814 Million
3. Florida State: Revenue $100,049,000; Attendance 75,421; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
4. Notre Dame: Revenue $ 97,113,000; Attendance 80,795; Population 6.537 Million (for Indiana plus those of the Catholic faith that follow nationwide.)

Schools whose markets could enhance the payout of the SEC but who on their own merits do not enhance our numbers.

1. Virginia: Revenue $ 80,836,000; Attendance 46,279; Population 8.260 Million
2. North Carolina: Revenue $ 82,424,000; Attendance 51,500; Population 9.848 Million
3. Virginia Tech: Revenue $ 70,724,000; Attendance 63,999; Population 8.260 Million
4. North Carolina St.: Revenue $ 59,758,000; Attendance 53,178; Population 9.848 Million
5. Pittsburgh: Revenue $ 56,338,000; Attendance 49,741; Population 12.763 Million
6. West Virginia: Revenue $ 80,065,000; Attendance 52,910; Population 1.855 Million
7. Oklahoma State: Revenue $ 87,271,000; Attendance 59,126; Population 3.814 Million
8. Kansas: Revenue $ 70,229,000; Attendance 37,884; Population 2.888 Million
9. Kansas State: Revenue $63,272,000; Attendance 52,887; Population 2.888 Million

Another that could fit with a revenue increase:

1. Clemson: Revenue $ 70,002,000; Attendance 82,048; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC.)

Duke is a possibility if North Carolina insisted upon it and because of their phenomenal academic ratings:

1. Duke: Revenue $ 78,605,000; Attendance 26,062 (Doesn't deliver North Carolina but would strengthen existing numbers and deliver a national audience.)

Now if you like you can discuss the merits or lack thereof of any of these schools but if the SEC is to expand again these are the prospects for a variety of different reasons. I can't see anyone outside of these being a prospect unless a conference merger was the reason.

My take here to 16 the most advantageous would be Virginia and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and N.C. State. The greatest strength would be with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma.

At 18 the markets would enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma. The greatest strength would be in adding Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and North Carolina.

At 20 the markets would be enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia (I'm not counting Notre Dame at any position.) The greatest strength would be in North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, and Clemson. But those are just my thoughts.

Missouri's athletic department expects to spend 72.5 million in the current fiscal year.

LINK

You would probably have to go back to 2006 to see MU athletic expenditures being as low as 50 million. I didn't bother to look and see how far off the other SEC numbers are.

In contrast, kansas State reported late last year an athletic department budget for the current fiscal year of 60 million, up from 58 the year before, so 63 seems a little high. I didn't see any estimates for expected expenses for the year in the article, but considering their 2012 FY expenses were 51 million and that they expect to operate at a surplus, I would expect that they plan on spending something less than the 60 million they budgeted.

LINK
Reick,
The info for Missouri came off of a chart given by Bullet from a USA Today compilation of 2012-3 total revenue (my mistake in reading the chart). Missouri's actual expenses for that year were $66 million. It is in the "Slive" thread on the CS&CR board (about page 8 of that thread I believe). I felt whether there were actual discrepancies in the figures or not, since they were compiled by one source, then for the purposes of making comparisons they would be ballpark enough to make the point.

The initial post (and subsequent citations of it) have been edited to reflect the correction. Also the attendance figures were for the 2013-14 season and came from NCAA statistics.
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2014 02:48 PM by JRsec.)
04-18-2014 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #7
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
JR-
No school currently in the ACC would be foolish enough to move to the SEC with the possible exception of Florida State (and even FSU would be doubtful). Your numbers just don't lie.
Nobody would willingly move to another conference (saying good-bye to rivalries and alienating fans) just to set themselves up for failure. Based on your numbers, the best Carolina, UVa, NC State or Va. Tech could hope for is a football program that would fit somewhere between Vanderbilt and Kentucky. Wouldn't that make a lot of folks happy?
FSU has shown, even though they have the money, that they don't know how to manage what they have. What do you think would happen to them after a few more years of trying to play catch up?
I have mentioned before that Saban was paying a lower level non recruiting coach (director of player personnel) $160,000 per year. The same job in Chapel Hill pays only $50,000.
Nobody will set themselves up for failure UNLESS the SEC wants to pay a subsidy of around $20 Million per year...just to even things out, otherwise Slive had better limit his calling circle to Austin and Norman.
04-18-2014 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-18-2014 12:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR-
No school currently in the ACC would be foolish enough to move to the SEC with the possible exception of Florida State (and even FSU would be doubtful). Your numbers just don't lie.
Nobody would willingly move to another conference (saying good-bye to rivalries and alienating fans) just to set themselves up for failure. Based on your numbers, the best Carolina, UVa, NC State or Va. Tech could hope for is a football program that would fit somewhere between Vanderbilt and Kentucky. Wouldn't that make a lot of folks happy?
FSU has shown, even though they have the money, that they don't know how to manage what they have. What do you think would happen to them after a few more years of trying to play catch up?
I have mentioned before that Saban was paying a lower level non recruiting coach (director of player personnel) $160,000 per year. The same job in Chapel Hill pays only $50,000.
Nobody will set themselves up for failure UNLESS the SEC wants to pay a subsidy of around $20 Million per year...just to even things out, otherwise Slive had better limit his calling circle to Austin and Norman.

Well XLance you and I have discussed the 1992 plans for expansion numerous times. The numbers don't lie do they? I think the issue now is the network one (ESPN). I also agree about F.S.U.'s management of funds. But as to the $20 million dollar subsidy it would probably be closer to $15 million and it wouldn't be a subsidy but rather the actual increase in income for those schools from North Carolina and Virginia coming on board. That's 18 million more people for those two states according the reports of 2013. I think it fair to say that the difference between SEC income and that of the ACC by 2016-17 will be around 12 million conservatively, and 15 million (as wildly estimated by Clay Travis) and that it would easily get bumped about 4 million by the inclusion of North Carolina and Virginia to the SECN's footprint. So the numbers you speak of in closing the GAP some are feasible.
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2014 12:48 PM by JRsec.)
04-18-2014 12:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #9
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-18-2014 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 12:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR-
No school currently in the ACC would be foolish enough to move to the SEC with the possible exception of Florida State (and even FSU would be doubtful). Your numbers just don't lie.
Nobody would willingly move to another conference (saying good-bye to rivalries and alienating fans) just to set themselves up for failure. Based on your numbers, the best Carolina, UVa, NC State or Va. Tech could hope for is a football program that would fit somewhere between Vanderbilt and Kentucky. Wouldn't that make a lot of folks happy?
FSU has shown, even though they have the money, that they don't know how to manage what they have. What do you think would happen to them after a few more years of trying to play catch up?
I have mentioned before that Saban was paying a lower level non recruiting coach (director of player personnel) $160,000 per year. The same job in Chapel Hill pays only $50,000.
Nobody will set themselves up for failure UNLESS the SEC wants to pay a subsidy of around $20 Million per year...just to even things out, otherwise Slive had better limit his calling circle to Austin and Norman.

Well XLance you and I have discussed the 1992 plans for expansion numerous times. The numbers don't lie do they? I think the issue now is the network one (ESPN). I also agree about F.S.U.'s management of funds. But as to the $20 million dollar subsidy it would probably be closer to $15 million and it wouldn't be a subsidy but rather the actual increase in income for those schools from North Carolina and Virginia coming on board. That's 18 million more people for those two states according the reports of 2013. I think it fair to say that the difference between SEC income and that of the ACC by 2016-17 will be around 12 million conservatively, and 15 million (as wildly estimated by Clay Travis) and that it would easily get bumped about 4 million by the inclusion of North Carolina and Virginia to the SECN's footprint. So the numbers you speak of in closing the GAP some are feasible.

JR-
It doesn't close the gap if all of the SEC teams get the $15 million too.
And if we were going to move why not wait till the GOR expires and move to the B1G where our football teams are already competitive? The money would be as good or better.
Texas should be the #1 priority for the SEC, probably with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.....cause you're gonna need three after one of your schools flies the coop.
04-18-2014 01:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #10
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-18-2014 01:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 12:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR-
No school currently in the ACC would be foolish enough to move to the SEC with the possible exception of Florida State (and even FSU would be doubtful). Your numbers just don't lie.
Nobody would willingly move to another conference (saying good-bye to rivalries and alienating fans) just to set themselves up for failure. Based on your numbers, the best Carolina, UVa, NC State or Va. Tech could hope for is a football program that would fit somewhere between Vanderbilt and Kentucky. Wouldn't that make a lot of folks happy?
FSU has shown, even though they have the money, that they don't know how to manage what they have. What do you think would happen to them after a few more years of trying to play catch up?
I have mentioned before that Saban was paying a lower level non recruiting coach (director of player personnel) $160,000 per year. The same job in Chapel Hill pays only $50,000.
Nobody will set themselves up for failure UNLESS the SEC wants to pay a subsidy of around $20 Million per year...just to even things out, otherwise Slive had better limit his calling circle to Austin and Norman.

Well XLance you and I have discussed the 1992 plans for expansion numerous times. The numbers don't lie do they? I think the issue now is the network one (ESPN). I also agree about F.S.U.'s management of funds. But as to the $20 million dollar subsidy it would probably be closer to $15 million and it wouldn't be a subsidy but rather the actual increase in income for those schools from North Carolina and Virginia coming on board. That's 18 million more people for those two states according the reports of 2013. I think it fair to say that the difference between SEC income and that of the ACC by 2016-17 will be around 12 million conservatively, and 15 million (as wildly estimated by Clay Travis) and that it would easily get bumped about 4 million by the inclusion of North Carolina and Virginia to the SECN's footprint. So the numbers you speak of in closing the GAP some are feasible.

JR-
It doesn't close the gap if all of the SEC teams get the $15 million too.
And if we were going to move why not wait till the GOR expires and move to the B1G where our football teams are already competitive? The money would be as good or better.
Texas should be the #1 priority for the SEC, probably with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.....cause you're gonna need three after one of your schools flies the coop.

Talk about irrelevant you guys are having a hard enough time keeping pace in hoops with the old Big East crowd. Have at the Big 10. You'll lose in football and basketball while alienating your fan base. North Carolina won't go Big 10 for the same reason Texas won't. It's too far and too alien for your alumni to be supportive of the endeavor. And I doubt seriously that anyone flies the coop. And as far as the gap is concerned it becomes less relevant once you hit about 90 million in athletic budget. And you would be making the same thing as Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn and the rest of the crowd if you were on board. If you didn't commit the funds it would be by your choice, not because you didn't have them. You guys are only 10 million south or $90 million now. It shouldn't be a big deal.
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2014 01:40 PM by JRsec.)
04-18-2014 01:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #11
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-18-2014 12:15 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  A&M's "hell the eff no!" stance on cow and thief aside, there just isn't any interest from those two in the SEC.

1) They want to be big fish in a small pond, not big fish in an ocean full fish just as big or bigger than them. Keeping their status and diet if easy wins is far more important to them then playing tough schedules. They know their fans entitlement mentality and that they want wins more than they want good games.

2) They are both politically tied down to a bunch of small, redundant and unattractive schools that neither the B1G or SEC will waste precious expansion slots on just to land the 2 whales. The ACC and PAC might be willing but the 2 Kings if CFB know better.

10th, if Texas and Oklahoma do indeed want to be big fish in a small pond for as long as possible, they do have enough schools without proximity to make it work as existing members move on. Houston, New Mexico, SMU, Tulane, Memphis, Tulsa, and Colorado State would be serviceable, and of course Cincinnati is hanging out there as long as WVU is in the conference.
04-18-2014 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #12
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-18-2014 01:30 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 12:15 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  A&M's "hell the eff no!" stance on cow and thief aside, there just isn't any interest from those two in the SEC.

1) They want to be big fish in a small pond, not big fish in an ocean full fish just as big or bigger than them. Keeping their status and diet if easy wins is far more important to them then playing tough schedules. They know their fans entitlement mentality and that they want wins more than they want good games.

2) They are both politically tied down to a bunch of small, redundant and unattractive schools that neither the B1G or SEC will waste precious expansion slots on just to land the 2 whales. The ACC and PAC might be willing but the 2 Kings if CFB know better.

10th, if Texas and Oklahoma do indeed want to be big fish in a small pond for as long as possible, they do have enough schools without proximity to make it work as existing members move on. Houston, New Mexico, SMU, Tulane, Memphis, Tulsa, and Colorado State would be serviceable, and of course Cincinnati is hanging out there as long as WVU is in the conference.

That would be true enough BBB. The only problem is their alumni are howling at both schools now because of their putrid home schedules. The people are tired of no Nebraska, no A&M, no Missouri, or in other words no flagship rivals or schools to see their team play at home. Sure they get 1 good game a year but even the UT/OU game is neutral site. I just don't see them surrounding themselves with even smaller fish than the ones they currently have in their pond. There will be diminishing financial returns if they continue to do so and they know it.

Another thing their talks sites pound is the fact that if they lose to Baylor, Kansas State, West Virginia, or Texas Tech their season is over. Many of their followers don't feel that would be the case in a conference that had more than two top brands to play. They feel that if they stumbled once against an Alabama or Florida or L.S.U. and won out that their SOS would help them overcome an early season loss, and it probably would. So as much as 10th hates 'em and I understand why, I don't think they will stay in the Big 12 with smaller fish. The question is what size pond do they want to swim in?, and whether or not they will need ice fishing gear when they get there?
04-18-2014 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #13
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
For the record the issue for consideration of a new market centers around the number of potential cable households within a state. While not wholly scientific or precise if you assume that there is 1 household for every 4 persons then multiply that number by 1.30 which is the SEC's carriage fee and then multiply that figure x the number of billable months in a year then divide that total by 16 you will determine whether the new additions pay for themselves or not.

Virginia has 8.260 million people as of 2013. Divide 8.260 by 4 to get an approximation on the number of households in the state. That should come to 2.065 million. Multiply 2.065 x 1.3 for the sec carriage rate. That should yield $2,684,500 per month. Multiply that by 12 and you get $32,214,000. Divide that by 16 and it should come out to $2,013,375 per school per year for adding either Virginia or Virginia Tech. While that is not the only value that a schools has it is a very calculable one.

A North Carolina school would deliver $2,400,450 dollars per SEC member school per year.

The addition of a Virginia and North Carolina school would boost SEC revenues by $4,413,825 per year per school.

By contrast the addition of Oklahoma State would only yield $929,663 per school. And Kansas would deliver only $703,950 per school per year. However the additional of Kansas as a national brand in basketball would boost that just as assuredly as Oklahoma would boost football significantly. Kansas State and Oklahoma State therefore probably wouldn't deliver as much as Florida State might.

So out of the originally listed schools in the initial post of this thread North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and North Carolina State would deliver enough of their respective states to be worth adding (but only 1 from each state, not all 4). Texas and Oklahoma would deliver enough to be good additions. And I'm not sure exactly how the calculations would go but I remember when Florida State was discussed it was believed that they would add a little over 1 million per school with their inclusion and that Clemson was close to breaking even. So if I were going to prioritize them I would say the order might look like this:
1. North Carolina
2. Virginia
3. Virginia Tech
4. Oklahoma
5. Texas
6. N.C. State
7. Florida State
8. Kansas
04-18-2014 04:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #14
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-18-2014 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 01:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 12:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR-
No school currently in the ACC would be foolish enough to move to the SEC with the possible exception of Florida State (and even FSU would be doubtful). Your numbers just don't lie.
Nobody would willingly move to another conference (saying good-bye to rivalries and alienating fans) just to set themselves up for failure. Based on your numbers, the best Carolina, UVa, NC State or Va. Tech could hope for is a football program that would fit somewhere between Vanderbilt and Kentucky. Wouldn't that make a lot of folks happy?
FSU has shown, even though they have the money, that they don't know how to manage what they have. What do you think would happen to them after a few more years of trying to play catch up?
I have mentioned before that Saban was paying a lower level non recruiting coach (director of player personnel) $160,000 per year. The same job in Chapel Hill pays only $50,000.
Nobody will set themselves up for failure UNLESS the SEC wants to pay a subsidy of around $20 Million per year...just to even things out, otherwise Slive had better limit his calling circle to Austin and Norman.

Well XLance you and I have discussed the 1992 plans for expansion numerous times. The numbers don't lie do they? I think the issue now is the network one (ESPN). I also agree about F.S.U.'s management of funds. But as to the $20 million dollar subsidy it would probably be closer to $15 million and it wouldn't be a subsidy but rather the actual increase in income for those schools from North Carolina and Virginia coming on board. That's 18 million more people for those two states according the reports of 2013. I think it fair to say that the difference between SEC income and that of the ACC by 2016-17 will be around 12 million conservatively, and 15 million (as wildly estimated by Clay Travis) and that it would easily get bumped about 4 million by the inclusion of North Carolina and Virginia to the SECN's footprint. So the numbers you speak of in closing the GAP some are feasible.

JR-
It doesn't close the gap if all of the SEC teams get the $15 million too.
And if we were going to move why not wait till the GOR expires and move to the B1G where our football teams are already competitive? The money would be as good or better.
Texas should be the #1 priority for the SEC, probably with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.....cause you're gonna need three after one of your schools flies the coop.

Talk about irrelevant you guys are having a hard enough time keeping pace in hoops with the old Big East crowd. Have at the Big 10. You'll lose in football and basketball while alienating your fan base. North Carolina won't go Big 10 for the same reason Texas won't. It's too far and too alien for your alumni to be supportive of the endeavor. And I doubt seriously that anyone flies the coop. And as far as the gap is concerned it becomes less relevant once you hit about 90 million in athletic budget. And you would be making the same thing as Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn and the rest of the crowd if you were on board. If you didn't commit the funds it would be by your choice, not because you didn't have them. You guys are only 10 million south or $90 million now. It shouldn't be a big deal.

No problem on the hoops front in Chapel Hill........at least the B1G CARES about playing basketball.
The B1G would only be attractive in an 18-20 team conference with our own 4 team pod: Carolina, Dook, UVa, and Ga. Tech. You wouldn't see or hear one complaint from any of our fans about moving to the B1G then.
More money, our own pod...................you're just lucky that we are happy where we are, and that we have faith in the promises that Skipper has made to Carolina and the ACC.
04-18-2014 05:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #15
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
04-bs
(04-18-2014 05:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 01:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 12:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR-
No school currently in the ACC would be foolish enough to move to the SEC with the possible exception of Florida State (and even FSU would be doubtful). Your numbers just don't lie.
Nobody would willingly move to another conference (saying good-bye to rivalries and alienating fans) just to set themselves up for failure. Based on your numbers, the best Carolina, UVa, NC State or Va. Tech could hope for is a football program that would fit somewhere between Vanderbilt and Kentucky. Wouldn't that make a lot of folks happy?
FSU has shown, even though they have the money, that they don't know how to manage what they have. What do you think would happen to them after a few more years of trying to play catch up?
I have mentioned before that Saban was paying a lower level non recruiting coach (director of player personnel) $160,000 per year. The same job in Chapel Hill pays only $50,000.
Nobody will set themselves up for failure UNLESS the SEC wants to pay a subsidy of around $20 Million per year...just to even things out, otherwise Slive had better limit his calling circle to Austin and Norman.

Well XLance you and I have discussed the 1992 plans for expansion numerous times. The numbers don't lie do they? I think the issue now is the network one (ESPN). I also agree about F.S.U.'s management of funds. But as to the $20 million dollar subsidy it would probably be closer to $15 million and it wouldn't be a subsidy but rather the actual increase in income for those schools from North Carolina and Virginia coming on board. That's 18 million more people for those two states according the reports of 2013. I think it fair to say that the difference between SEC income and that of the ACC by 2016-17 will be around 12 million conservatively, and 15 million (as wildly estimated by Clay Travis) and that it would easily get bumped about 4 million by the inclusion of North Carolina and Virginia to the SECN's footprint. So the numbers you speak of in closing the GAP some are feasible.

JR-
It doesn't close the gap if all of the SEC teams get the $15 million too.
And if we were going to move why not wait till the GOR expires and move to the B1G where our football teams are already competitive? The money would be as good or better.
Texas should be the #1 priority for the SEC, probably with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.....cause you're gonna need three after one of your schools flies the coop.

Talk about irrelevant you guys are having a hard enough time keeping pace in hoops with the old Big East crowd. Have at the Big 10. You'll lose in football and basketball while alienating your fan base. North Carolina won't go Big 10 for the same reason Texas won't. It's too far and too alien for your alumni to be supportive of the endeavor. And I doubt seriously that anyone flies the coop. And as far as the gap is concerned it becomes less relevant once you hit about 90 million in athletic budget. And you would be making the same thing as Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn and the rest of the crowd if you were on board. If you didn't commit the funds it would be by your choice, not because you didn't have them. You guys are only 10 million south or $90 million now. It shouldn't be a big deal.

No problem on the hoops front in Chapel Hill........at least the B1G CARES about playing basketball.
The B1G would only be attractive in an 18-20 team conference with our own 4 team pod: Carolina, Dook, UVa, and Ga. Tech. You wouldn't see or hear one complaint from any of our fans about moving to the B1G then.
More money, our own pod...................you're just lucky that we are happy where we are, and that we have faith in the promises that Skipper has made to Carolina and the ACC.

Well if it was 18 you would need a pod of 6 and 20 would require one of 5. Did you take AAS math at U.N.C.? As with everything we'll see.
04-18-2014 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #16
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-18-2014 05:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  04-bs
(04-18-2014 05:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 01:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well XLance you and I have discussed the 1992 plans for expansion numerous times. The numbers don't lie do they? I think the issue now is the network one (ESPN). I also agree about F.S.U.'s management of funds. But as to the $20 million dollar subsidy it would probably be closer to $15 million and it wouldn't be a subsidy but rather the actual increase in income for those schools from North Carolina and Virginia coming on board. That's 18 million more people for those two states according the reports of 2013. I think it fair to say that the difference between SEC income and that of the ACC by 2016-17 will be around 12 million conservatively, and 15 million (as wildly estimated by Clay Travis) and that it would easily get bumped about 4 million by the inclusion of North Carolina and Virginia to the SECN's footprint. So the numbers you speak of in closing the GAP some are feasible.

JR-
It doesn't close the gap if all of the SEC teams get the $15 million too.
And if we were going to move why not wait till the GOR expires and move to the B1G where our football teams are already competitive? The money would be as good or better.
Texas should be the #1 priority for the SEC, probably with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.....cause you're gonna need three after one of your schools flies the coop.

Talk about irrelevant you guys are having a hard enough time keeping pace in hoops with the old Big East crowd. Have at the Big 10. You'll lose in football and basketball while alienating your fan base. North Carolina won't go Big 10 for the same reason Texas won't. It's too far and too alien for your alumni to be supportive of the endeavor. And I doubt seriously that anyone flies the coop. And as far as the gap is concerned it becomes less relevant once you hit about 90 million in athletic budget. And you would be making the same thing as Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn and the rest of the crowd if you were on board. If you didn't commit the funds it would be by your choice, not because you didn't have them. You guys are only 10 million south or $90 million now. It shouldn't be a big deal.

No problem on the hoops front in Chapel Hill........at least the B1G CARES about playing basketball.
The B1G would only be attractive in an 18-20 team conference with our own 4 team pod: Carolina, Dook, UVa, and Ga. Tech. You wouldn't see or hear one complaint from any of our fans about moving to the B1G then.
More money, our own pod...................you're just lucky that we are happy where we are, and that we have faith in the promises that Skipper has made to Carolina and the ACC.

Well if it was 18 you would need a pod of 6 and 20 would require one of 5. Did you take AAS math at U.N.C.? As with everything we'll see.

I'm just making sure you are on your toes.
04-18-2014 08:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #17
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-18-2014 08:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 05:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  04-bs
(04-18-2014 05:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 01:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR-
It doesn't close the gap if all of the SEC teams get the $15 million too.
And if we were going to move why not wait till the GOR expires and move to the B1G where our football teams are already competitive? The money would be as good or better.
Texas should be the #1 priority for the SEC, probably with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.....cause you're gonna need three after one of your schools flies the coop.

Talk about irrelevant you guys are having a hard enough time keeping pace in hoops with the old Big East crowd. Have at the Big 10. You'll lose in football and basketball while alienating your fan base. North Carolina won't go Big 10 for the same reason Texas won't. It's too far and too alien for your alumni to be supportive of the endeavor. And I doubt seriously that anyone flies the coop. And as far as the gap is concerned it becomes less relevant once you hit about 90 million in athletic budget. And you would be making the same thing as Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn and the rest of the crowd if you were on board. If you didn't commit the funds it would be by your choice, not because you didn't have them. You guys are only 10 million south or $90 million now. It shouldn't be a big deal.

No problem on the hoops front in Chapel Hill........at least the B1G CARES about playing basketball.
The B1G would only be attractive in an 18-20 team conference with our own 4 team pod: Carolina, Dook, UVa, and Ga. Tech. You wouldn't see or hear one complaint from any of our fans about moving to the B1G then.
More money, our own pod...................you're just lucky that we are happy where we are, and that we have faith in the promises that Skipper has made to Carolina and the ACC.

Well if it was 18 you would need a pod of 6 and 20 would require one of 5. Did you take AAS math at U.N.C.? As with everything we'll see.

I'm just making sure you are on your toes.

On 'em? Hell I'm just happy I can see 'em!
04-18-2014 08:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #18
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-18-2014 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 11:57 AM)reick Wrote:  
(04-17-2014 05:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here is where our conference stands on revenue in athletics and attendance which is one aspect that is reflective of market draw.
Revenue figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. Attendance is as reported and averaged for all home games.

Alabama: Revenue $124,900,000; Attendance 101,505
Arkansas: Revenue $ 99,757,000; Attendance 61,596
Auburn: Revenue $105,951,000; Attendance 85,657
Florida: Revenue $120,772,000; Attendance 87,440
Georgia: Revenue $ 91,671,000; Attendance 92,746
Kentucky: Revenue $ 88,373,000; Attendance 59,472
Louisiana State: Revenue $114,788,000; Attendance 91,418
Mississippi: Revenue $ 51,859,000; Attendance 59,393
Miss State: Revenue $ 69,829,000; Attendance 55,695
Missouri: Revenue $ 50,720,000; Attendance 63,505
South Carolina: Revenue $ 87,608,000; Attendance 82,401
Tennessee: Revenue $102,884,000; Attendance 95,584
Texas A&M: Revenue $119,702,000; Attendance 87,125
Vanderbilt: Revenue $ 55,836,000; Attendance 35,675

The Mean Revenue Level for Athletics in the SEC is: $91,760,714 and the Mean Attendance is rounded down to 75,000 per school per home game.

So who could the SEC add that would enhance these numbers:
1. Texas: Revenue $163,295,000; Attendance 98,976; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
2. Oklahoma: Revenue $106,457,000; Attendance 84,722; Population 3.814 Million
3. Florida State: Revenue $100,049,000; Attendance 75,421; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
4. Notre Dame: Revenue $ 97,113,000; Attendance 80,795; Population 6.537 Million (for Indiana plus those of the Catholic faith that follow nationwide.)

Schools whose markets could enhance the payout of the SEC but who on their own merits do not enhance our numbers.

1. Virginia: Revenue $ 80,836,000; Attendance 46,279; Population 8.260 Million
2. North Carolina: Revenue $ 82,424,000; Attendance 51,500; Population 9.848 Million
3. Virginia Tech: Revenue $ 70,724,000; Attendance 63,999; Population 8.260 Million
4. North Carolina St.: Revenue $ 59,758,000; Attendance 53,178; Population 9.848 Million
5. Pittsburgh: Revenue $ 56,338,000; Attendance 49,741; Population 12.763 Million
6. West Virginia: Revenue $ 80,065,000; Attendance 52,910; Population 1.855 Million
7. Oklahoma State: Revenue $ 87,271,000; Attendance 59,126; Population 3.814 Million
8. Kansas: Revenue $ 70,229,000; Attendance 37,884; Population 2.888 Million
9. Kansas State: Revenue $63,272,000; Attendance 52,887; Population 2.888 Million

Another that could fit with a revenue increase:

1. Clemson: Revenue $ 70,002,000; Attendance 82,048; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC.)

Duke is a possibility if North Carolina insisted upon it and because of their phenomenal academic ratings:

1. Duke: Revenue $ 78,605,000; Attendance 26,062 (Doesn't deliver North Carolina but would strengthen existing numbers and deliver a national audience.)

Now if you like you can discuss the merits or lack thereof of any of these schools but if the SEC is to expand again these are the prospects for a variety of different reasons. I can't see anyone outside of these being a prospect unless a conference merger was the reason.

My take here to 16 the most advantageous would be Virginia and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and N.C. State. The greatest strength would be with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma.

At 18 the markets would enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma. The greatest strength would be in adding Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and North Carolina.

At 20 the markets would be enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia (I'm not counting Notre Dame at any position.) The greatest strength would be in North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, and Clemson. But those are just my thoughts.

Missouri's athletic department expects to spend 72.5 million in the current fiscal year.

LINK

You would probably have to go back to 2006 to see MU athletic expenditures being as low as 50 million. I didn't bother to look and see how far off the other SEC numbers are.

In contrast, kansas State reported late last year an athletic department budget for the current fiscal year of 60 million, up from 58 the year before, so 63 seems a little high. I didn't see any estimates for expected expenses for the year in the article, but considering their 2012 FY expenses were 51 million and that they expect to operate at a surplus, I would expect that they plan on spending something less than the 60 million they budgeted.

LINK
Reick,
The info for Missouri came off of a chart given by Bullet from a USA Today compilation of 2012-3 total revenue (my mistake in reading the chart). Missouri's actual expenses for that year were $66 million. It is in the "Slive" thread on the CS&CR board (about page 8 of that thread I believe). I felt whether there were actual discrepancies in the figures or not, since they were compiled by one source, then for the purposes of making comparisons they would be ballpark enough to make the point.

The initial post (and subsequent citations of it) have been edited to reflect the correction. Also the attendance figures were for the 2013-14 season and came from NCAA statistics.
Missouri's 66 mil is still pretty low for an SEC school. I have to believe that Missouri understands that they chose to step up to the SEC plate and hang with the big boys. More revenue will hopefully result in more funds being dedicated to the athletics department. The excitement of just being in the SEC will result in steady growth by Missouri within their new conference. Improvements are already underway, and attendance has increased significantly. This past football season only added to the growth fuel. We were a Big XII school, and pretty much matched, or exceeded most of their schools in attendance and money. Missouri, to their credit, saw a chance to better themselves. They did...with both feet. I also believe that Missouri must have laid out their long-term master plan to Mike Slive and the SEC long before a vote was ever taken. Got to do what is best for the university, even if it creates ill-will among the ones you leave. We now have to grow. We will. Lots of potential here. That's just my side bar, Jr. lol04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2014 11:51 AM by USAFMEDIC.)
04-19-2014 11:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #19
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-19-2014 11:44 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 11:57 AM)reick Wrote:  
(04-17-2014 05:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here is where our conference stands on revenue in athletics and attendance which is one aspect that is reflective of market draw.
Revenue figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. Attendance is as reported and averaged for all home games.

Alabama: Revenue $124,900,000; Attendance 101,505
Arkansas: Revenue $ 99,757,000; Attendance 61,596
Auburn: Revenue $105,951,000; Attendance 85,657
Florida: Revenue $120,772,000; Attendance 87,440
Georgia: Revenue $ 91,671,000; Attendance 92,746
Kentucky: Revenue $ 88,373,000; Attendance 59,472
Louisiana State: Revenue $114,788,000; Attendance 91,418
Mississippi: Revenue $ 51,859,000; Attendance 59,393
Miss State: Revenue $ 69,829,000; Attendance 55,695
Missouri: Revenue $ 50,720,000; Attendance 63,505
South Carolina: Revenue $ 87,608,000; Attendance 82,401
Tennessee: Revenue $102,884,000; Attendance 95,584
Texas A&M: Revenue $119,702,000; Attendance 87,125
Vanderbilt: Revenue $ 55,836,000; Attendance 35,675

The Mean Revenue Level for Athletics in the SEC is: $91,760,714 and the Mean Attendance is rounded down to 75,000 per school per home game.

So who could the SEC add that would enhance these numbers:
1. Texas: Revenue $163,295,000; Attendance 98,976; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
2. Oklahoma: Revenue $106,457,000; Attendance 84,722; Population 3.814 Million
3. Florida State: Revenue $100,049,000; Attendance 75,421; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
4. Notre Dame: Revenue $ 97,113,000; Attendance 80,795; Population 6.537 Million (for Indiana plus those of the Catholic faith that follow nationwide.)

Schools whose markets could enhance the payout of the SEC but who on their own merits do not enhance our numbers.

1. Virginia: Revenue $ 80,836,000; Attendance 46,279; Population 8.260 Million
2. North Carolina: Revenue $ 82,424,000; Attendance 51,500; Population 9.848 Million
3. Virginia Tech: Revenue $ 70,724,000; Attendance 63,999; Population 8.260 Million
4. North Carolina St.: Revenue $ 59,758,000; Attendance 53,178; Population 9.848 Million
5. Pittsburgh: Revenue $ 56,338,000; Attendance 49,741; Population 12.763 Million
6. West Virginia: Revenue $ 80,065,000; Attendance 52,910; Population 1.855 Million
7. Oklahoma State: Revenue $ 87,271,000; Attendance 59,126; Population 3.814 Million
8. Kansas: Revenue $ 70,229,000; Attendance 37,884; Population 2.888 Million
9. Kansas State: Revenue $63,272,000; Attendance 52,887; Population 2.888 Million

Another that could fit with a revenue increase:

1. Clemson: Revenue $ 70,002,000; Attendance 82,048; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC.)

Duke is a possibility if North Carolina insisted upon it and because of their phenomenal academic ratings:

1. Duke: Revenue $ 78,605,000; Attendance 26,062 (Doesn't deliver North Carolina but would strengthen existing numbers and deliver a national audience.)

Now if you like you can discuss the merits or lack thereof of any of these schools but if the SEC is to expand again these are the prospects for a variety of different reasons. I can't see anyone outside of these being a prospect unless a conference merger was the reason.

My take here to 16 the most advantageous would be Virginia and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and N.C. State. The greatest strength would be with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma.

At 18 the markets would enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma. The greatest strength would be in adding Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and North Carolina.

At 20 the markets would be enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia (I'm not counting Notre Dame at any position.) The greatest strength would be in North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, and Clemson. But those are just my thoughts.

Missouri's athletic department expects to spend 72.5 million in the current fiscal year.

LINK

You would probably have to go back to 2006 to see MU athletic expenditures being as low as 50 million. I didn't bother to look and see how far off the other SEC numbers are.

In contrast, kansas State reported late last year an athletic department budget for the current fiscal year of 60 million, up from 58 the year before, so 63 seems a little high. I didn't see any estimates for expected expenses for the year in the article, but considering their 2012 FY expenses were 51 million and that they expect to operate at a surplus, I would expect that they plan on spending something less than the 60 million they budgeted.

LINK
Reick,
The info for Missouri came off of a chart given by Bullet from a USA Today compilation of 2012-3 total revenue (my mistake in reading the chart). Missouri's actual expenses for that year were $66 million. It is in the "Slive" thread on the CS&CR board (about page 8 of that thread I believe). I felt whether there were actual discrepancies in the figures or not, since they were compiled by one source, then for the purposes of making comparisons they would be ballpark enough to make the point.

The initial post (and subsequent citations of it) have been edited to reflect the correction. Also the attendance figures were for the 2013-14 season and came from NCAA statistics.
Missouri's 66 mil is still pretty low for an SEC school. I have to believe that Missouri understands that they chose to step up to the SEC plate and hang with the big boys. More revenue will hopefully result in more funds being dedicated to the athletics department. The excitement of just being in the SEC will result in steady growth by Missouri within their new conference. Improvements are already underway, and attendance has increased significantly. This past football season only added to the growth fuel. We were a Big XII school, and pretty much matched, or exceeded most of their schools in attendance and money. Missouri, to their credit, saw a chance to better themselves. They did...with both feet. I also believe that Missouri must have laid out their long-term master plan to Mike Slive and the SEC long before a vote was ever taken. Got to do what is best for the university, even if it creates ill-will among the ones you leave. We now have to grow. We will. Lots of potential here. That's just my side bar, Jr. lol04-cheers
I am in complete agreement Medic. Missouri has nothing but upside and that is not a knock on where they are. When they are able to lock many of the schools that once raided Missouri for talent out of their state then they will be a force with which to contend. Nebraska raided them, Oklahoma raided them, Arkansas picked off a few, and several Big 10 states routinely competed for athletes in Missouri. In the SEC not only does Missouri have a line to the some of the richer recruiting areas but they now can sell these prospects from their home state that by attending Mizzou and playing an SEC schedule they will be noticed without having to leave for Lincoln or Norman or elsewhere. That will work equally well for baseball and I expect to see the Tigers only get more competitive there as well. Basketball is what Missouri has to elevate to overcome the perception of the SEC. Should the SEC consistently produce 6 good basketball programs instead of 3 then we will start to overcome that perception. Mizzou has to help the SEC with that.
04-19-2014 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #20
RE: SEC Realignment by Just the Numbers
(04-19-2014 12:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-19-2014 11:44 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-18-2014 11:57 AM)reick Wrote:  
(04-17-2014 05:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here is where our conference stands on revenue in athletics and attendance which is one aspect that is reflective of market draw.
Revenue figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. Attendance is as reported and averaged for all home games.

Alabama: Revenue $124,900,000; Attendance 101,505
Arkansas: Revenue $ 99,757,000; Attendance 61,596
Auburn: Revenue $105,951,000; Attendance 85,657
Florida: Revenue $120,772,000; Attendance 87,440
Georgia: Revenue $ 91,671,000; Attendance 92,746
Kentucky: Revenue $ 88,373,000; Attendance 59,472
Louisiana State: Revenue $114,788,000; Attendance 91,418
Mississippi: Revenue $ 51,859,000; Attendance 59,393
Miss State: Revenue $ 69,829,000; Attendance 55,695
Missouri: Revenue $ 50,720,000; Attendance 63,505
South Carolina: Revenue $ 87,608,000; Attendance 82,401
Tennessee: Revenue $102,884,000; Attendance 95,584
Texas A&M: Revenue $119,702,000; Attendance 87,125
Vanderbilt: Revenue $ 55,836,000; Attendance 35,675

The Mean Revenue Level for Athletics in the SEC is: $91,760,714 and the Mean Attendance is rounded down to 75,000 per school per home game.

So who could the SEC add that would enhance these numbers:
1. Texas: Revenue $163,295,000; Attendance 98,976; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
2. Oklahoma: Revenue $106,457,000; Attendance 84,722; Population 3.814 Million
3. Florida State: Revenue $100,049,000; Attendance 75,421; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC)
4. Notre Dame: Revenue $ 97,113,000; Attendance 80,795; Population 6.537 Million (for Indiana plus those of the Catholic faith that follow nationwide.)

Schools whose markets could enhance the payout of the SEC but who on their own merits do not enhance our numbers.

1. Virginia: Revenue $ 80,836,000; Attendance 46,279; Population 8.260 Million
2. North Carolina: Revenue $ 82,424,000; Attendance 51,500; Population 9.848 Million
3. Virginia Tech: Revenue $ 70,724,000; Attendance 63,999; Population 8.260 Million
4. North Carolina St.: Revenue $ 59,758,000; Attendance 53,178; Population 9.848 Million
5. Pittsburgh: Revenue $ 56,338,000; Attendance 49,741; Population 12.763 Million
6. West Virginia: Revenue $ 80,065,000; Attendance 52,910; Population 1.855 Million
7. Oklahoma State: Revenue $ 87,271,000; Attendance 59,126; Population 3.814 Million
8. Kansas: Revenue $ 70,229,000; Attendance 37,884; Population 2.888 Million
9. Kansas State: Revenue $63,272,000; Attendance 52,887; Population 2.888 Million

Another that could fit with a revenue increase:

1. Clemson: Revenue $ 70,002,000; Attendance 82,048; (Would strengthen existing numbers for the SEC.)

Duke is a possibility if North Carolina insisted upon it and because of their phenomenal academic ratings:

1. Duke: Revenue $ 78,605,000; Attendance 26,062 (Doesn't deliver North Carolina but would strengthen existing numbers and deliver a national audience.)

Now if you like you can discuss the merits or lack thereof of any of these schools but if the SEC is to expand again these are the prospects for a variety of different reasons. I can't see anyone outside of these being a prospect unless a conference merger was the reason.

My take here to 16 the most advantageous would be Virginia and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and North Carolina, followed by Virginia Tech and N.C. State. The greatest strength would be with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma.

At 18 the markets would enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma. The greatest strength would be in adding Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and North Carolina.

At 20 the markets would be enhanced the most by North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia (I'm not counting Notre Dame at any position.) The greatest strength would be in North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, and Clemson. But those are just my thoughts.

Missouri's athletic department expects to spend 72.5 million in the current fiscal year.

LINK

You would probably have to go back to 2006 to see MU athletic expenditures being as low as 50 million. I didn't bother to look and see how far off the other SEC numbers are.

In contrast, kansas State reported late last year an athletic department budget for the current fiscal year of 60 million, up from 58 the year before, so 63 seems a little high. I didn't see any estimates for expected expenses for the year in the article, but considering their 2012 FY expenses were 51 million and that they expect to operate at a surplus, I would expect that they plan on spending something less than the 60 million they budgeted.

LINK
Reick,
The info for Missouri came off of a chart given by Bullet from a USA Today compilation of 2012-3 total revenue (my mistake in reading the chart). Missouri's actual expenses for that year were $66 million. It is in the "Slive" thread on the CS&CR board (about page 8 of that thread I believe). I felt whether there were actual discrepancies in the figures or not, since they were compiled by one source, then for the purposes of making comparisons they would be ballpark enough to make the point.

The initial post (and subsequent citations of it) have been edited to reflect the correction. Also the attendance figures were for the 2013-14 season and came from NCAA statistics.
Missouri's 66 mil is still pretty low for an SEC school. I have to believe that Missouri understands that they chose to step up to the SEC plate and hang with the big boys. More revenue will hopefully result in more funds being dedicated to the athletics department. The excitement of just being in the SEC will result in steady growth by Missouri within their new conference. Improvements are already underway, and attendance has increased significantly. This past football season only added to the growth fuel. We were a Big XII school, and pretty much matched, or exceeded most of their schools in attendance and money. Missouri, to their credit, saw a chance to better themselves. They did...with both feet. I also believe that Missouri must have laid out their long-term master plan to Mike Slive and the SEC long before a vote was ever taken. Got to do what is best for the university, even if it creates ill-will among the ones you leave. We now have to grow. We will. Lots of potential here. That's just my side bar, Jr. lol04-cheers
I am in complete agreement Medic. Missouri has nothing but upside and that is not a knock on where they are. When they are able to lock many of the schools that once raided Missouri for talent out of their state then they will be a force with which to contend. Nebraska raided them, Oklahoma raided them, Arkansas picked off a few, and several Big 10 states routinely competed for athletes in Missouri. In the SEC not only does Missouri have a line to the some of the richer recruiting areas but they now can sell these prospects from their home state that by attending Mizzou and playing an SEC schedule they will be noticed without having to leave for Lincoln or Norman or elsewhere. That will work equally well for baseball and I expect to see the Tigers only get more competitive there as well. Basketball is what Missouri has to elevate to overcome the perception of the SEC. Should the SEC consistently produce 6 good basketball programs instead of 3 then we will start to overcome that perception. Mizzou has to help the SEC with that.
Thanks Jr. Missouri had one of their best in-state recruiting efforts ever this year. Actually, DGB was headed for Texas until the SEC move. Of course he has not been a stellar student, but the point remains the same. Kids are staying at home as a rule now. The SEC network and constant national exposure only makes it more likely that recruiting from the home state remains solid. The southern states have been pretty good as well. If memory serves me correctly, Missouri recruited 13 kids out of Florida. I am so excited about the future. By the way Jr... watched the Auburn spring game. Auburn will be trouble for the SEC this year. A balance offense will be the game changer.04-cheers
04-19-2014 10:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.