SEC IS 1-0

[rabbitthedawg]

How many of 12 do we win?

[msstate7]

All but peach (fingers crossed)

[CadaverDawg]

All but peach (fingers crossed)

Yep, I hope everyone wins except OM. I hope the horned frogs beat them 120-0

[Drugdog]

Let's go Frogs.

[engie]

We were favored in 9 of 12. The Independence was one of the 3 where we were underdogs. So we're "supposed" to go 10-2 now. Not bad for what the media constantly harped to us was a "down year" for the conference...

[Barkman Turner Overdrive]

Let's go Frogs.

And "On Wisconsin!"

[chef dixon]

How many of 12 do we win?

Who is we?

[Political Hack]

We were favored in 9 of 12. The Independence was one of the 3 where we were underdogs. So we're "supposed" to go 10-2 now. Not bad for what the media constantly harped to us was a "down year" for the conference...

what's even funnier about the SEC's continued dominance in bowls is that the conference usually has the lower seeded team playing a higher seeded team from another conference. Eg, SEC #3 vs Big10 #2; SEC#9 vs CUSA#1; SEC#6 vs ACC#4. it's rarely, if ever, the other way around.

The fact that the bowl results are what they are, with the matchups the way they are, is a testament to how much better the SEC is than the rest of the country. It's not close.

[Pollodawg]

I don't care if any of them win but State. The conference loyalty schtick is stupid and always has been. I am a State fan, not an SEC fan. Sorry.

[Statefan]

I don't care if any of them win but State. The conference loyalty schtick is stupid and always has been. I am a State fan, not an SEC fan. Sorry.

This has been my belief for the longest time, but I have to think (hope) that a strong showing by the SEC in bowl games can only help us going forward in getting 2 teams in from the same conference if we do not win the SEC (like this year)

[Bully13]

what's even funnier about the SEC's continued dominance in bowls is that the conference usually has the lower seeded team playing a higher seeded team from another conference. Eg, SEC #3 vs Big10 #2; SEC#9 vs CUSA#1; SEC#6 vs ACC#4. it's rarely, if ever, the other way around.

The fact that the bowl results are what they are, with the matchups the way they are, is a testament to how much better the SEC is than the rest of the country. It's not close.

spot on. and you NEVER hear ESPN refer to that very important fact. But I also agree with Pollo, 17 the rest of 'em except us. and 17 tsun even harder than the rest of 'em.

[engie]

The conference being good and winning bowl games helps MSU. I really don't see how that's debatable at this point...

[RougeDawg]

This has been my belief for the longest time, but I have to think (hope) that a strong showing by the SEC in bowl games can only help us going forward in getting 2 teams in from the same conference if we do not win the SEC (like this year)

^^This^^. The SEC dominating the bowl games only further bolsters the argument that the next best conference isn't even close and we deserve 2 teams in playoffs if resumes are similar to other conference champs. IfnthebSEC struggles in bowls it will only help the Ohio States of the world argue their place in playoffs, even though they don't play anyone during the season.

[Pollodawg]

The conference being good and winning bowl games helps MSU. I really don't see how that's debatable at this point...

So, in the years when we were bad, getting blown out by LSU, Auburn, UF, UT, Bama, etc somehow made us look better after they went on to win some big games? A blow out is a blow out. An ass whuppin is an ass whuppin, and do you think any of the teams that won NCs over the past decade from this conference thought: "must win....for......bottom.....feeders? We won't let you down OM, MSU, UK, Vandy, SC......"

[Smitty]

So, in the years when we were bad, getting blown out by LSU, Auburn, UF, UT, Bama, etc somehow made us look better after they went on to win some big games? A blow out is a blow out. An ass whuppin is an ass whuppin, and do you think any of the teams that won NCs over the past decade from this conference thought: "must win....for......bottom.....feeders? We won't let you down OM, MSU, UK, Vandy, SC......"

Good Lord

[CadaverDawg]

So, in the years when we were bad, getting blown out by LSU, Auburn, UF, UT, Bama, etc somehow made us look better after they went on to win some big games? A blow out is a blow out. An ass whuppin is an ass whuppin, and do you think any of the teams that won NCs over the past decade from this conference thought: "must win....for......bottom.....feeders? We won't let you down OM, MSU, UK, Vandy, SC......"

Wut?

[Pollodawg]

I understand that it makes our strength of schedule look a little better, but other than that, pulling for the rest of the conference does nothing for us. Sorry. It just doesn't.

[Pollodawg]

And at this point in the season, since the play off selection is over, SOS really doesn't matter any more for anything other than a point of pride.

[engie]

So, in the years when we were bad, getting blown out by LSU, Auburn, UF, UT, Bama, etc somehow made us look better after they went on to win some big games? A blow out is a blow out. An ass whuppin is an ass whuppin, and do you think any of the teams that won NCs over the past decade from this conference thought: "must win....for......bottom.....feeders? We won't let you down OM, MSU, UK, Vandy, SC......"

You've always been pretty dense on this topic -- but are just now showing just how dense. No, us losing games did not make us elite. However, Bama, Florida, LSU, Auburn, etc winning games has ABSOLUTELY has improved our situation and the way we are viewed nationally immeasurably.

The SEC being elite in 06, 07, 08 got the SEC PAID in the first mega tv deal college sports had ever seen in 2009. The imminence of the SEC getting paid in 2009 allowed us to woo Dan Mullen from Florida and almost woo Chris Petersen from Boise. This is NOT POSSIBLE without the SEC tv contract, which was created out of NO DOING of MSU. Thanks, big schools.

Since then, we've been able to pay Mullen competitive nationally. Why? SEC Tv Money and his success. What have we actually added to that? Nothing prior to this season.

NOW, we've got a coming SECNetwork that is going to help make us one of the 25 richest athletics departments in the country. That's the only reason we're talking about Randy Shannon and Ed Orgeron and competing for titles. Also, a new bowl structure thanks to the SEC that's going to pay us megabucks. Ah -- yes -- an SECNetwork that is paid based on subscriber base. We add the worst subscriber base in the conference. And it isn't even close when you split that base between us and Ole Miss. We're a charity case on this network. A beneficiary of a socialistic conference that has carried our asses. Us getting Mullen = us being successful = us building the stadium. The only part of our "rise" that we've been directly responsible for, and I can still tie it back to the SEC's dominance.

In 2008, we were #77 nationally in revenue @ $30million. In 6 years, our revenue will have tripled, and I see the top 25 in our near future. What part of that do you think Mississippi State, itself, is directly responsible for? What part of it did UF, Bama, etc do the heavy lifting for us with?

Pull against them if you want -- that's certainly everyone's prerogative. But don't try to argue that them losing important bowl games and hurting the national perception of the conference is in any way good for MSU. The rising Tide has lifted our asses, and it's ridiculous to argue otherwise...

[DudyDawg]

So, in the years when we were bad, getting blown out by LSU, Auburn, UF, UT, Bama, etc somehow made us look better after they went on to win some big games? A blow out is a blow out. An ass whuppin is an ass whuppin, and do you think any of the teams that won NCs over the past decade from this conference thought: "must win....for......bottom.....feeders? We won't let you down OM, MSU, UK, Vandy, SC......"

You're right, it would've been better getting murdered in a bad conference!!!

[Pollodawg]

You've always been pretty dense on this topic -- but are just now showing just how dense. No, us losing games did not make us elite. However, Bama, Florida, LSU, Auburn, etc winning games has ABSOLUTELY has improved our situation and the way we are viewed nationally immeasurably.

The SEC being elite in 06, 07, 08 got the SEC PAID in the first mega tv deal college sports had ever seen in 2009. The imminence of the SEC getting paid in 2009 allowed us to woo Dan Mullen from Florida and almost woo Chris Petersen from Boise. This is NOT POSSIBLE without the SEC tv contract, which was created out of NO DOING of MSU. Thanks, big schools.

Since then, we've been able to pay Mullen competitive nationally. Why? SEC Tv Money and his success. What have we actually added to that? Nothing prior to this season.

NOW, we've got a coming SECNetwork that is going to help make us one of the 25 richest athletics departments in the country. That's the only reason we're talking about Randy Shannon and Ed Orgeron and competing for titles. Also, a new bowl structure thanks to the SEC that's going to pay us megabucks. Ah -- yes -- an SECNetwork that is paid based on subscriber base. We add the worst subscriber base in the conference. And it isn't even close when you split that base between us and Ole Miss. We're a charity case on this network. A beneficiary of a socialistic conference that has carried our asses. Us getting Mullen = us being successful = us building the stadium. The only part of our "rise" that we've been directly responsible for, and I can still tie it back to the SEC's dominance.

In 2008, we were #77 nationally in revenue @ $30million. In 6 years, our revenue will have tripled, and I see the top 25 in our near future. What part of that do you think Mississippi State, itself, is directly responsible for? What part of it did UF, Bama, etc do the heavy lifting for us with?

Pull against them if you want -- that's certainly everyone's prerogative. But don't try to argue that them losing important bowl games and hurting the national perception of the conference is in any way good for MSU. The rising Tide has lifted our asses, and it's ridiculous to argue otherwise...


I never said that the other teams losing was good for State. I just don't see the benefit in pulling for the conference en masse, and I certainly don't see the benefit from any emotional aspect. I have zero attachment to the SEC, and I would pull for MSU no matter where we were. However, I concede that them doing well in the post season is good from a dollars and cents standpoint, but it wouldn't help us this late in the year now that the play off committee is decided. That's the point I see people make that I don't agree with more than anything. I understand it buoys the perception of the conference over all for the shelf-life of a single season. But the big boys winning this season won't do anything for us in the terms of perception next season, which I've seen insinuated on here in more than one post.

Oh, and don't throw around words like dense since I never insulted you personally. If you are really an engineer, its really, really unbecoming. At least do your best to be an adult. Do we really want SPS 2.0?

[Bully13]

hey wait a minute Engie. we are the worst subscriber base in the conference? worse than tsun, ky, vandy, mizzou? how does that work? could you explain "subscriber base" a little more? I get the network but I've never subscribed to it. just comes with my cable..

[CadaverDawg]

You've always been pretty dense on this topic -- but are just now showing just how dense. No, us losing games did not make us elite. However, Bama, Florida, LSU, Auburn, etc winning games has ABSOLUTELY has improved our situation and the way we are viewed nationally immeasurably.

The SEC being elite in 06, 07, 08 got the SEC PAID in the first mega tv deal college sports had ever seen in 2009. The imminence of the SEC getting paid in 2009 allowed us to woo Dan Mullen from Florida and almost woo Chris Petersen from Boise. This is NOT POSSIBLE without the SEC tv contract, which was created out of NO DOING of MSU. Thanks, big schools.

Since then, we've been able to pay Mullen competitive nationally. Why? SEC Tv Money and his success. What have we actually added to that? Nothing prior to this season.

NOW, we've got a coming SECNetwork that is going to help make us one of the 25 richest athletics departments in the country. That's the only reason we're talking about Randy Shannon and Ed Orgeron and competing for titles. Also, a new bowl structure thanks to the SEC that's going to pay us megabucks. Ah -- yes -- an SECNetwork that is paid based on subscriber base. We add the worst subscriber base in the conference. And it isn't even close when you split that base between us and Ole Miss. We're a charity case on this network. A beneficiary of a socialistic conference that has carried our asses. Us getting Mullen = us being successful = us building the stadium. The only part of our "rise" that we've been directly responsible for, and I can still tie it back to the SEC's dominance.

In 2008, we were #77 nationally in revenue @ $30million. In 6 years, our revenue will have tripled, and I see the top 25 in our near future. What part of that do you think Mississippi State, itself, is directly responsible for? What part of it did UF, Bama, etc do the heavy lifting for us with?

Pull against them if you want -- that's certainly everyone's prerogative. But don't try to argue that them losing important bowl games and hurting the national perception of the conference is in any way good for MSU. The rising Tide has lifted our asses, and it's ridiculous to argue otherwise...

http://reactiongif.org/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/08/GIF-agree-kramer-nod-satisfied-slow-smile-yes-GIF.gif

[scottycameron]

The imminence of the SEC getting paid in 2009 allowed us to woo Dan Mullen from Florida and almost woo Chris Petersen from Boise. This is NOT POSSIBLE without the SEC tv contract, which was created out of NO DOING of MSU. Thanks, big schools.

What? wooing Mullen away from Florida? LOL. He was an assistant. You actually think we needed a new SEC tv contract to be able to pull that off? Man, you talk about a low opinion of MSU.

[Smitty]

hey wait a minute Engie. we are the worst subscriber base in the conference? worse than tsun, ky, vandy, mizzou? how does that work? could you explain "subscriber base" a little more? I get the network but I've never subscribed to it. just comes with my cable..

I'm assuming he means eyeballs. Market size. Nashville market, Missouri market, Lexingon/Cincinnati/Louisville market.... Mississippi market split in two

[scottycameron]

I'm assuming he means eyeballs. Market size. Nashville market, Missouri market, Lexingon/Cincinnati/Louisville market.... Mississippi market split in two

we got the golden triangle market, LOL. Thank God for the big boys, we'd never be able to land a coordinator for our HC job. We'd probably have to settle for a tight ends coach or maybe a high school guy (not from one of those big markets, tho, lol).

I think engie is being a bit too dramatic.

[engie]

hey wait a minute Engie. we are the worst subscriber base in the conference? worse than tsun, ky, vandy, mizzou? how does that work? could you explain "subscriber base" a little more? I get the network but I've never subscribed to it. just comes with my cable..

You are subscribed to it. The SEC/ESPN charges your cable $1.30 - $1.40 per month for you to get the network assuming you live in the SEC footprint. It will eventually be reflected on your bill(if it isn't already). Pushing it onto the basic tier in the southeast(where EVERYONE even those not interested pay for it) is what made the SECNetwork so successful...

It's all about markets. That's why Mizzou made sense as the second take over Louisville, FSU, Clemson, etc. None of those would give us any more TV markets than we already had with UK, Florida, USCe, thus those schools were worth no extra $$ to the SECNetwork(actually less when you consider an extra piece to the same exact pie)...

I don't have a quick reference for "subscribers", but it's probably pretty safe to assume it directly proportional to population.
Texas - 26.5 million people(aTm's contribution)
Mizzou - 6 million people(Mizzou's contribution)
Arkansas - 3 million people(Arky's contribution)
Louisiana - 4.6 million people(LSU's contribution)
Tennessee - 6.5 milion people(Tennessee and Vandy's contribution = 3.25mil each basically)
Kentucky - 4.4 million people(UK's contribution)
Mississippi - 3 million people(MSU and OM's contrubtion = 1.5mil each basically)
Alabama - 4.8 million people(Alabama and Auburn's contribution = 2.4mil each basically)
South Carolina - 4.8 million people(SCe's contribution)
Georgia - 10 million people(UGA's contribution)
Florida - 19.5 million people(UF's contribution)
= 93.1 million people.

There's supposedly 30-40 million subscribers in the southeast. The vast majority of those are provided by Texas, Georgia, and Florida. State and Ole Miss each provide about 1.6% of this subscriber base. If we assume the high end(40 mil subs), that means MSU supplies about 645k subscriptions. 645,000 * 1.3 * 12 / 2(ESPN gets 50%) = $5 mil total contribution to a network we're probably going to make $25-30mil on.

We're very, very lucky that we are a founding member of the conference... Because in the current moneymaking atmosphere, we generally don't offer jack but another mouth to feed... This year was huge because we actually carried our weight for once.

[engie]

What? wooing Mullen away from Florida? LOL. He was an assistant. You actually think we needed a new SEC tv contract to be able to pull that off? Man, you talk about a low opinion of MSU.

Were you even an MSU fan at the time? You obviously forgot all about Kevin Wilson turning us down and talking 14 kinds of shit about us in the process. He viewed Indiana as a better job than ours at the time, and it's not hard to argue that that position was held nationally. Let that sink in. We were NUMBER SEVENTY SEVEN in AD revenue the year before we hired Mullen. SEVENTY SEVEN. There are SIXTY FIVE teams in the power 5 right now. Did it sink in yet? We were behind (in total revenue) elite programs such as Air Force, Houston, San Diego St, Cincinnati, SMU, Memphis, South Florida, New Mexico, Hawaii, UNLV, UCF.... Need I keep going? We LITERALLY had less money than all of these other athletics departments THREE YEARS INTO SEC DOMINANCE. Indiana had $58mil in AD revenue at the time compared to our $30mil. TWICE what we were rolling. Hardly any wonder that on the surface Kevin Wilson considered them better than us.

A Florida assistant that damn near didn't give us the time of day, but did, thanks primarily to his wife and our AD at the time. Know how many people Charlie Strong turned down over the years? Probably not huh?

Also, even if we had gotten him, how do you propose we would have kept Mullen after 9-4 in year 2? You think we would have paid him $2.5+ without the tv money? 10% of our total AD revenue?

You can say I'm being "overdramatic" if you want but that doesn't make it true. Numbers are on my side.

http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue/_/page/1

[Bully13]

I'm assuming he means eyeballs. Market size. Nashville market, Missouri market, Lexingon/Cincinnati/Louisville market.... Mississippi market split in two

gotcha, that makes sense. when it comes to generating income for the network, I guess it's a combination of putting a successful team on the field that draws fans to the t.v. and t.v. markets. the "t.v. market" side of the equation is why the last 2 times we expanded, we added 4 new states. MSU and tsun both earned their way this year drawing the national attention and putting people all over the country in front of the t.v. sets due to our success this year.

[engie]

gotcha, that makes sense. when it comes to generating income for the network, I guess it's a combination of putting a successful team on the field that draws fans to the t.v. and t.v. markets. the "t.v. market" side of the equation is why the last 2 times we expanded, we added 4 new states. MSU and tsun both earned their way this year drawing the national attention and putting people all over the country in front of the t.v. sets due to our success this year.

We more than earned our part in tier 1(CBS) for the first time... Tier 2(ESPN) has been pretty constant for us... We'll never be anything more than dead weight to tier 3(the SECNetwork) in terms of subscriber base. The other 2 are national networks that charge a consistent $$ figure everywhere in the country. So, Washington state pays just as much to watch us on ESPN as we do. The SECNetwork isn't setup like that. It goes for $1.30-$1.40 per subscriber inside the conference footprint and $0.25 per subscriber outside the footprint.

It stands to reason that "people watching games" is what gets you paid, but that's only distantly true with the way TV is currently setup. That's why the B1G has outearned us lately in spite of having 30% fewer overall viewers.

[scottycameron]

you actually thought we were lucky an assistant took our job? You been fed a sob story for too long. I guess when OM hired cutcliffe they won the lottery? That was in the 90's, how did they ever afford it???? There wasn't any chance Mullen was turning down a SEC HC job. Don't believe everything you read.

[engie]

you actually thought we were lucky an assistant took our job? You been fed a sob story for too long. I guess when OM hired cutcliffe they won the lottery? That was in the 90's, how did they ever afford it???? There wasn't any chance Mullen was turning down a SEC HC job. Don't believe everything you read.

Ah -- you're smarter than all the actual sources on the matter out there now? Wish I could say I was surprised** Why did we hire a journeyman NFL RB coach before Mullen seeing how our job was so desirable and all?

Yep, the SEC's success has nothing to do with MSU's. We were always destined for greatness and tripling our revenue in 6 years regardless. We didn't actually have less money to offer than a bunch of Mountain West and WAC teams 6 short years ago -- that's just ESPN and our own accounting lying to us**

All we need to do now is actually believe we're hiring Tony Dungee --- and we can call ourselves OM fans. Elite in the face of reality**

[scottycameron]

Why did we hire a journeyman NFL RB coach before Mullen seeing how our job was so desirable and all?


You really don't know why we had to do that?

[engie]

You really don't know why we had to do that?

Why don't you tell me -- so I can accrue some knowledge of our this alternate elite history of MSU that I've apparently missed?

[TaleofTwoDogs]

I understand that it makes our strength of schedule look a little better, but other than that, pulling for the rest of the conference does nothing for us. Sorry. It just doesn't.

Great, we can drop out of the SEC and join CUSA. SEC membership doesn't help us anyway. **

To your other point about being a bottom feeder, it still helped from a revenue stand point because of the overall status of the SEC. Besides, the object is to be part of the leaders not a wounded dog in the pack of the pack.

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

I don't understand how anyone could say that the SEC being the best conference by a mile does not help MSU.

First, as already stated, it brought in the SECN deal, which has drastically increased MSU's revenue.

Second, it helps a ton with recruiting. Kids watch the SEC dominate the college football landscape and want to play in the SEC. Sure, many of them may prefer to go to Bama, LSU, UGA, etc... but they DO want to play in the SEC and the SEC dominance helps us land those kids. Also, remember that SECN deal, that did sort of help increase the SEC's, and by proxy MSU's, footprint, which also helps with recruiting (both athletically and academically for that matter)

Third, the SEC dominance and perception thereof helps tremendously in the rankings. Do you really think we'd have been #1 this season if we were not playing in the SEC? Hell, FSU didn't lose a game and they have them ranked third, behind teams that did lose a game. When the SEC dominates its bowl matchups (especially when we always find ourselves matched up with SEC4-5 playing Big10 2 and other similar matchups), it continues that perception. That helps SEC teams go from unranked to #1, and perhaps in the future helps get 2 SEC teams in the playoffs.

I could go on and on if I wanted on this topic. It's silly to think that the SEC winning its bowl games doesn't help us.

[FISHDAWG]

I don't understand how anyone could say that the SEC being the best conference by a mile does not help MSU.

First, as already stated, it brought in the SECN deal, which has drastically increased MSU's revenue.

Second, it helps a ton with recruiting. Kids watch the SEC dominate the college football landscape and want to play in the SEC. Sure, many of them may prefer to go to Bama, LSU, UGA, etc... but they DO want to play in the SEC and the SEC dominance helps us land those kids. Also, remember that SECN deal, that did sort of help increase the SEC's, and by proxy MSU's, footprint, which also helps with recruiting (both athletically and academically for that matter)

Third, the SEC dominance and perception thereof helps tremendously in the rankings. Do you really think we'd have been #1 this season if we were not playing in the SEC? Hell, FSU didn't lose a game and they have them ranked third, behind teams that did lose a game. When the SEC dominates its bowl matchups (especially when we always find ourselves matched up with SEC4-5 playing Big10 2 and other similar matchups), it continues that perception. That helps SEC teams go from unranked to #1, and perhaps in the future helps get 2 SEC teams in the playoffs.

I could go on and on if I wanted on this topic. It's silly to think that the SEC winning its bowl games doesn't help us.

agreed ... the SEC is a big reason we rose to #1 and stayed there after games against Kentucky, Tenn Martin, & Arkansas ..... can't say the same for Fla. State, TCU, or Baylor

[blacklistedbully]

what's even funnier about the SEC's continued dominance in bowls is that the conference usually has the lower seeded team playing a higher seeded team from another conference. Eg, SEC #3 vs Big10 #2; SEC#9 vs CUSA#1; SEC#6 vs ACC#4. it's rarely, if ever, the other way around.

The fact that the bowl results are what they are, with the matchups the way they are, is a testament to how much better the SEC is than the rest of the country. It's not close.

But...but...but, only OOC counts, and we are ranked artificially higher only because we beat up on cupcakes and get over-valued when we beat each other.****

[Johnson85]

you actually thought we were lucky an assistant took our job? You been fed a sob story for too long. I guess when OM hired cutcliffe they won the lottery? That was in the 90's, how did they ever afford it???? There wasn't any chance Mullen was turning down a SEC HC job. Don't believe everything you read.

It's probably been great only being a state fan after the Mullen era started. You missed out on some painful years.

But for you and others that weren't fans before Mullena nd don't know what it was like, there was a time when we absolutely could not cherry pick the most promising coordinators to be our head coach. There was certainly no reason outside of laziness and incompetence for LT to hire Crooms, but plenty of the most desirable coordinators would have been willing to wait on a phone call from a place they perceived would be easier to win than to come to MSU, and that was after Jackie had proven you could win here. And there certainly would have been desirable coordinators that would have passed after Crooms, like Kevin Wilson, as well as desirable coaches from non-big 5 schools like Boise State, although we would ahve had more company on that one.