Big Winner in the SEC Network: Plus Dollars

[1bigdawg]

http://mrsec.com/articles/the-winner...etwork-rollout

"...Mississippi State -- Every school in the SEC will profit from the new channel. Eventually, schools could bring in upwards of $30 million additional dollars per year, thanks to the SEC Network. The money will be split evenly among the schools and the conference office, so there will still be some haves and have-nots inside the league. Alabama's athletic budget will always be larger than Mississippi State's, for example. But those schools with the league's smallest budgets -- like ... Mississippi State -- are about to leapfrog dozens of other nationally-known programs. When the channel reaches its full potential, the schools in the Magnolia State will have athletic funds equal to massive athletic brands like Notre Dame, Southern California, Florida State and Texas. "

[huffy]

[codeDawg]

This is where we can catch up on coach pay. Right now we can't compete against the higher tier programs, and it's not worth the fight honestly. In the future, if we are competitive in pay nationally, we might open up some eyes. We're not going to go head-to-head with Alabama over a coach, but maybe we can be on par with pay against an Oklahoma or UCLA in situation where pay is a big factor. That might let us keep valuable guys longer than we have been able to do in the past.

Honestly, I don't know of a coach we have lost where pay was a major motivator. We lost Diaz to Texas and what's his face to FSU, but both of those were moving to national programs where money was only a component.

[1bigdawg]

This is where we can catch up on coach pay. Right now we can't compete against the higher tier programs,

I believe we can compete right now. We should not lose a coach we really want to keep anymore. The only one in the Mullen era was Diaz and that should not happen again.

I don't believe we will lose Collins to another DC job. Someday, he'll may get a chance at a Power 5 Conference Head Coach job.

[blacklistedbully]

Yep, this is more or less what I was saying when it first came out that there was a deal in the works. We still won't have nearly as much money as the Bama's, LSU, UGA's, etc, but we may be finally reaching a point of diminishing returns, if you will, for the big guys, as the money may be enough to allow us to do and have whatever we need to be competitive.

There's only so much you can actually spend your money on. When the "conference baseline" gets this large, it can make the discrepancies between us & them less impactful.

[War Machine Dawg]

Yep, this is more or less what I was saying when it first came out that there was a deal in the works. We still won't have nearly as much money as the Bama's, LSU, UGA's, etc, but we may be finally reaching a point of diminishing returns, if you will, for the big guys, as the money may be enough to allow us to do and have whatever we need to be competitive.

There's only so much you can actually spend your money on. When the "conference baseline" gets this large, it can make the discrepancies between us & them less impactful.

Totally agree. There will always be a gap between us & Bama, LSU, FL, etc. But it will be smaller than it's ever been in terms of an "effective gap." And we've widened the gap between us and most of the other major power conference teams. I'm in my early 30s, and if you'd told me just 10 years ago that we'd have an athletic budget comparable to Notre Dame, FSU, Texas, etc., I'd have called you crazy. We're a legit big boy now. Just wish we'd act like one. First step: Scrap the ridiculous GOB hiring system we use for EVERYTHING.

[I seen it dawg]

At some point soon the only teams above us financially will be in the SEC, and Texas, Notre Dame and a few other powerhouses. No more than probably 8-10 outside our conference. This is enormous for us in the landscape of college football. And not all the SEC teams will be in front of us because the dedication to athletics isn't as strong.

[War Machine Dawg]

At some point soon the only teams above us financially will be in the SEC, and Texas, Notre Dame and a few other powerhouses. No more than probably 8-10 outside our conference. This is enormous for us in the landscape of college football. And not all the SEC teams will be in front of us because the dedication to athletics isn't as strong.

Yep. Hard for me to fathom that, but it certainly appears to be heading that way.

[blacklistedbully]

Perhaps out biggest wildcard is the amount of talent in our state, albeit it talent that often goes to the big boys, or that fails to qualify academically. I wonder if we can improve on that if we could legally invest some of that money in improving our public schools. Not sure we'd be able to contribute enough to really effect positive change, but if we could, it might not only buy us much in-state respect and loyalty, but perhaps help us get more-in-state high-end recruits to qualify, as well as stay home.

One would think that if we did this, TSUN would soon follow, as they couldn't bear to lose publicity to us. Besides, they might actually care as well.

[1bigdawg]

I wonder if we can improve on that if we could legally invest some of that money in improving our public schools.

1) The money would be a drop in the bucket of what is already spent on public schools in the state.

2) There is no evidence that more money equal better public schools. California is number 1 in spending and number 47 in quality by most measures. Also, I have property in the school district with the highest per pupil expenditure in New York State. They often have the lowest test scores and graduation rates and are always near the bottom.

3) We could use some money to work with coaches around the State to emphasize keeping kids eligible.

[sandwolf]

I wonder if we can improve on that if we could legally invest some of that money in improving our public schools.

The education budget for FY 2013 was over $2 billion, so as 1bigdawg said, we couldn't make any kind of meaningful contribution to that.

[Barking 13]

The education budget for FY 2013 was over $2 billion, so as 1bigdawg said, we couldn't make any kind of meaningful contribution to that.

it's a good gesture, but look where the money goes now.. that's a whole 'nother discussion.... just listen to JT on Supertalk sometime...

[SapperDawg]

Curious for those that know NCAA rules: aside from a fairness argument which we don't want to cover here, can we hire additional tutors in the athletic department and permanently house them in the school districts around the state to assist athletes that need additional support academically? Could we cover this under an extension program? Seems to me that is a great way to help ourselves AND our state as a whole.

[blacklistedbully]

Curious for those that know NCAA rules: aside from a fairness argument which we don't want to cover here, can we hire additional tutors in the athletic department and permanently house them in the school districts around the state to assist athletes that need additional support academically? Could we cover this under an extension program? Seems to me that is a great way to help ourselves AND our state as a whole.

Yes, this would make more sense. We likely can't effectively impact the entire school system, but we might be able to target athletes by sponsoring tutors, something like the ALEKS Program, etc, and make the schools accountable to us for the stuff we fund. That way, we can monitor and direct the way the money is spent, so that it doesn't get wasted or gobbled up by teacher unions, etc.

[PassInterference]

I hope we spend it disproportionately on football. We don't need gymnastics. We don't need swimming. We don't need bleeding edge facilities for minor sports.

Let's be nationally competitive in what 90% of the alumni base cares about.

[CadaverDawg]

If that column doesn't make you wanna say HailState, nothing will. Poke your chests out, boys....MSU is officially one of the elite with the SEC Network.