For those saying we can spend money w anyone

[DudyDawg]

I just read this article, and I'm not sure what to think of it. I read all the time here how we can spend w anyone now, but can we really? That's a genuine question. I am not a money person and will never claim to be, but this made me question the validity of the statement that we can spend with anyone. Tell me what I'm missing here, I genuinely want to know

http://m.wsj.com/articles/no-1-mississippi-state-proof-that-money-isnt-everything-1413170216?mobile=y

[BrunswickDawg]

2013 spending is pre SEC Network $. After this year with SECN, money is no real problem.

[WinningIsRelentless]

2013 spending is pre SEC Network $. After this year with SECN, money is no real problem.

The problem with that is that the money goes to the athletic department. Under MS law the athletics department can only pay a coach x dollars so therefore it goes back to the donors.

[DudyDawg]

2013 spending is pre SEC Network $. After this year with SECN, money is no real problem.

How much money will our football program be able to spend from that amount, and how will we then stack up statistically to others?

[Coach34]

We haven't had the capability in the past that the other schools do- but the gap is closing due to the SEC Network and other revenue streams.

Dan Mullen's salary is around 20th in the country. We could certainly make him top 10 if we had to. Where it would get tougher on us is for Asst salaries. Our assistants total salaries are about half of what the other SEC schools pay.

Our recruiting budget is a lot smaller than the big boys also. It's things like that where we are tighter than the big boys

[DudyDawg]

We haven't had the capability in the past that the other schools do- but the gap is closing due to the SEC Network and other revenue streams.

Dan Mullen's salary is around 20th in the country. We could certainly make him top 10 if we had to. Where it would get tougher on us is for Asst salaries. Our assistants total salaries are about half of what the other SEC schools pay.

Our recruiting budget is a lot smaller than the big boys also. It's things like that where we are tighter than the big boys

Does SECN money change it so much that we are up nearer the top (not necessarily with the Bamas and OUs of the game) in regards to recruiting and assistant spending?

[Coach34]

Network money would give us the capability to add about $10MM or so to our football budget very quickly. For a school that has a 15-16 million budget currently- that would be tremendous. It's all about closing the gap- and we will do that. Bammer, Fla, and LSU can only spend so much on football- stuff becomes unnecessary at a point.

[engie]

Let us not forget the extra $10mil the stadium is going to bring is as well. Let us also not forget that bowl revenue virtually quadruples for the SEC this year. We are a $100mil athletics dept in fiscal 2015 -- and won't be far from it in 2014.

Also, we've raised over $30mil/yr in private donations for each of the past 4 years. The private fundraising arm of our university is increasingly taking a back seat to no one.

[engie]

Does SECN money change it so much that we are up nearer the top (not necessarily with the Bamas and OUs of the game) in regards to recruiting and assistant spending?

We'll go from #49 to #25 or so in total revenue this year -- before the full effect of the network is ever seen. No excuse whatsoever to ever lose a coach over money, even an assistant.

[DudyDawg]

So, in 2015 as a 100$ mil department, where do we stack up in the sec? I know we won't ever be sniffing the top spots, but will the network and stadium money shrink that gap significantly, or would all the other schools getting network money mean we have money but are just as far behind as we were before?

[DudyDawg]

We'll go from #49 to #25 or so in total revenue this year -- before the full effect of the network is ever seen. No excuse whatsoever to ever lose a coach over money, even an assistant.

Okay, that's the kind of stuff I was curious. Like I said, I know we aren't going to compete with the 1% so to speak, but jumping that far surely has a huge impact on our future, no?

[engie]

So, in 2015 as a 100$ mil department, where do we stack up in the sec? I know we won't ever be sniffing the top spots, but will the network and stadium money shrink that gap significantly, or would all the other schools getting network money mean we have money but are just as far behind as we were before?

The stadium is the only thing truly "shrinking the gap". All of the other schools get the other money as well. So, it's really a terminology thing -- the percentages get narrower as the $$ figure goes up, but the width of the gap itself does not. We'll be very close to OM and Mizzou and within $10mil or so of South Carolina. Where we see the huge jump is in relation to everyone outside the SEC. With the exception of 8-12 outside athletics depts, we are turning everyone else into the minor leagues...

Another place we'll make up some pretty decent ground will be in the new Dudy Noble. That's an extra couple million in revenue per year...

Worth nothing that "revenue" doesn't necessarily translate into "ability to pay coaches more", as in the case of the stadium and new dudy noble, you've got to pay off the loans first. That's why the actual "coach money" most likely comes from bowls/SECNetwork -- because it isn't a large, direct expense to us...

[gtowndawg]

is the fact that we funnel our money into the main sports programs. Other schools have bigger budgets, yes, but they also have more sports. Men's soccer, swimming, gymnastics, etc. We don't have any of that, so that further evens the playing field when it comes to spending on football, basketball and baseball. They still have more, but we can compete for sure.

[DudyDawg]

Gotcha, that article just made us seem like we were broke compared to the majority of power schools, and I knew that wasn't the case, but didn't know how far off it was. I figure, excluding the really true traditional powers, we are right up near the top of the country outside the sec, or will be soon?

[Political Hack]

We haven't had the capability in the past that the other schools do- but the gap is closing due to the SEC Network and other revenue streams.

Dan Mullen's salary is around 20th in the country. We could certainly make him top 10 if we had to. Where it would get tougher on us is for Asst salaries. Our assistants total salaries are about half of what the other SEC schools pay.

Our recruiting budget is a lot smaller than the big boys also. It's things like that where we are tighter than the big boys

his salary is much higher than the public number. he's around 12-15th I believe.

[Tbonewannabe]

We get to the point of Bama, F, and LSU just putting gold plate toilets in the locker rooms. The actual advantages they have will get smaller. Great for us and the other lower budget programs in the SEC.

[DancingRabbit]

We've been doing "OK" before SECN. An extra $20mil will go a long way.

By all accounts, Dan has a great relationship with Stricklin and Keenum. Contrary to what some idiots in the media have said, Dan was never on the hot seat.

"Big schools" swooping in now with a big paycheck for Dan is somewhat analogous to LSU sweeping in at the eleventh hour trying to flip Dak. Give Dan and his staff "enough" salary increases and he may be inclined to give the finger to the latecomers and forge his own path at MSU.

[engie]

is the fact that we funnel our money into the main sports programs. Other schools have bigger budgets, yes, but they also have more sports. Men's soccer, swimming, gymnastics, etc. We don't have any of that, so that further evens the playing field when it comes to spending on football, basketball and baseball. They still have more, but we can compete for sure.

I would be surprised if the SEC doesn't add men's soccer soon as a byproduct of having the network and needing "more interesting" programming for that network. I'm not a soccer nut, but it has potential to be a "revenue generating" sport in the SEC...

[Tbonewannabe]

I would be surprised if the SEC doesn't add men's soccer soon as a byproduct of having the network and needing "more interesting" programming for that network. I'm not a soccer nut, but it has potential to be a "revenue generating" sport in the SEC...

Men's soccer would also require no facility upgrades. Just whatever coaches and scholarships cost.

[Johnson85]

We haven't had the capability in the past that the other schools do- but the gap is closing due to the SEC Network and other revenue streams.

Dan Mullen's salary is around 20th in the country. We could certainly make him top 10 if we had to. Where it would get tougher on us is for Asst salaries. Our assistants total salaries are about half of what the other SEC schools pay.

Our recruiting budget is a lot smaller than the big boys also. It's things like that where we are tighter than the big boys

We shouldn't even have trouble keeping up with assistants except for very rare instances. We aren't going to pay a Guz Malzahn $1M to be an OC or Orgeron ~$800k to be a recruiting coordinator. But for the most part, we should be able to stay competitive with assistant coaches salaries as long as we focus on the big 3 sports and don't let non-revenue sports bleed off too much money. Over time, I think you'll eventually see asst. coaches salaries escalate to the point that a gap emerges again, but it won't happen overnight. It will take time for salaries to adjust to reflect the extra tv money. For head coaches, I don't know how much higher they can go. I think public perception will keep them from escalating at the same pace as the TV money. I think asst coaches salaries will go up faster than head coaches.