Should the SEC take steps to equalize all football programs?

As long as there is such disparity in athletic budgets, facilities, stadiums, etc., the SEC is going to be a league of haves (who can temporarily slip) and have-nots. The last time a team other than Alabama/LSU/Auburn/Georgia/Florida/Tennessee won the SEC? Ole Miss in 1963, 50 years ago. And it would be no surprise if those 6, along with Texas A&M, won all of the next 50 SEC championships too. Yes, Arkansas and South Carolina could potentially win it with the right coach and a perfect storm of powerful teams down, and I'm obviously aware that we won the West in 1998 and led the championship game in the 4th quarter, but that was a different era. I don't think we'll see an extended period of Alabama and LSU down ever again.

That's why I think the SEC should step in and try to equalize things. Every NFL team, even the ones that are horrible now, can legitimately win a Super Bowl over the next decade. If you're a Jaguars fan, you can dream of a Super Bowl win without being a sheepish fool. On the other hand, teams like us in the SEC dream of getting to the point where we're somewhere around 8th best most of the time and occasionally around 4th best. But no matter what, the money disparity is going to catch up with us.

Here are a few things the SEC could do. I'm not necessarily advocating any or all of them -- just trying to toss around some ideas:

• Implement a broad revenue-sharing program between the 14 teams. Although we'd still be at the bottom, at least the gap couldn't grow any wider and over time we could probably even it out.
• Let the SEC pay the head and assistant coaches instead of the schools. If profit sharing is too much, at least this could close the coaching gap (especially at the assistant jobs).
• On the opposite token, the SEC could set a high minimum standard for how big and nice your stadium and facilities have to be, and the conference could pay to upgrade every school who doesn't meet that level. That would make a much more level playing field for recruiting, and if combined with the first suggestion, create a system for long-term parity between all 14 teams.
• More radically, there could be some kind of recruitment cap to keep the talent approximately equal. I really don't know how this would work (the SEC hires a large, extensive scouting committee to grade every prospect?), but it would be like a college equivalent of a salary cap.
• If the NCAA, or a post-NCAA governing body, ever allows players to be paid, either directly or indirectly though endorsements, the SEC definitely needs to set a cap on that or we'll get eaten alive.
• Any other ideas?

I believe in rewarding programs who are run well, but that's not at the reason our budget is not at a competitive level. We're at the bottom of the totem pole because of the 11-state SEC region, our state is the poorest, the second smallest in population, the worst high school coaching and development, the worst high school system academically, and one of only 3 that has two teams. None of the other schools earned this advantage over us -- Florida Gators and Georgia Bulldogs football have nothing to do with the fact that their states beat ours on those factors -- so these proposals are not about punishing well-earned success.

And yes, I realize the NCAA might try to stop some of these, but let's ignore that. Who knows how long the NCAA will be around anyway.

I think all of your ideas are very interesting, thanks for posting this. You probably agree that they will never allow these things to happen because the Bama's of the world will raise 10 kinds of hell....but it would definitely make things more exciting.

I really wish there was a coaching budget set by the SEC or NCAA, where you have say 6 million per year to spread out among your head coach and assistants. You can choose to hire a Saban for 5 mil a year if you want to....but your assistants will have to be low paid. And if you want to hire better assistants, your head coach will have to take a small pay cut. Or, you could hire a Hudspeth for 1.5 mil, and then load up on bad ass assistants. Or something like that. I am not good when it comes to things like this, but I think some things could be done to keep the playing field more level. And truthfully, something needs to be done because everything in recruiting, facilities, coaching salaries, etc is getting out of control. There is no college football coach worth 6 million per year....no recruit worth 200,000 bucks....no practice facility that needs shoe drying racks, and 6 plasmas wi Playstation 3's and a pool table. It is out of control.

We already have revenue sharing. All the bcs and bowl money goes into a pool and it's divided among the schools. We've gotten far more back than we've ever put in to the pot.

They dont want to share. They dont want equal. They like it just the way it is

If you think we`re sucking now wait til the nine conference game schedule kicks in. The we`ll really need some welfare to keep up.

You ever thought about moving to russia? How about an EBT card to get into games? Even things out.

No way there could be a talent cap on recruiting classes. Other conferences would never do it and kids would just head to f$u or Texas if their SEC school of choice was capped out.

As for revenue sharing, we do that with tv/bowl money. I guess they could set up revenue sharing for ticket sales and concessions from games, but the real money comes from donations and no one wants to donate to their program knowing that money is going to be split 14 ways to help your rivals too. That would never fly.

No one is going to set limits on facilities either, plus new technology develops so fast there is no way anyone could set a line.

Now a coaching staff cap or a cap on $$ spent on official visits or limits on the amount of non-coaching support staff on payroll might be doable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgs

Now a coaching staff cap or a cap on $$ spent on official visits or limits on the amount of non-coaching support staff on payroll might be doable.

---

If that is implemented then you just start seeing staff paid by cash in duffel bags the way five star recruits are now.

Socialism doesn't work at any level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottycameron

You ever thought about moving to russia? How about an EBT card to get into games? Even things out.

---

No, that would be the NFL. You know salary caps, top draft picks for the worst teams, etc.

Never going to happen for reasons already mention. But I'll add one....TV doesn't care if Mississippi or Arkansas have good football teams. Not enough TV sets and corporate dollars. They would fight it to protect their ratings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgoneyall

Socialism doesn't work at any level.

---

Works pretty well in the NFL, which is the most popular and highest-grossing sports league in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maroonthirteen

Never going to happen for reasons already mention. But I'll add one....TV doesn't care if Mississippi or Arkansas have good football teams. Not enough TV sets and corporate dollars. They would fight it to protect their ratings.

---

I don't necessarily disagree, but the NFL is better because it actively ignores that line of thinking and does what it can to make all 32 teams, even the small market teams like the Saints, Colts, Packers, etc., viable. Without all the "socialism" those teams would be regular bottom-feeders like MSU.

.

:cool: In the long run socialism doesn't work.

I actually think we are about to enter into an age of more parody.

Consider the following:

1. Most of these teams are done adding on to their stadium. Bama and TN's stadiums are maxed out and ATM's is about to be. Plus, with people leaving early, these schools don't want to add more seats. Our stadium is improving - Conclusion = MSU is closing the gap

2. The talent level that Bama and LSU are running out there can't really get any better, it's maxed out. With only 25 scholarships per year, the national population going up, more high schools, and more kids playing high school football, it's statistically probably that there will be more good players to recruit. Conclusion = MSU will get better players

3. Mississippi's population is increasing. There are new high schools being built in MS, and more high school football players. Over the next 20 years, MS should see a steady increase in the amount of SEC talent it produces. = MSU gets better players

4. Starkville isn't getting more rural - Starkville is growing, a new tire plant is being built in West Point and all the executives are living in Starkville. Cotton Mills, new restaurants, 4 lane road, etc...., = MSU attacks more players

5. 7 on 7 teams. Mississippi has long been lagging in coaching and development particularly at the skill positions. The 7 on 7 teams and tournaments will only close this gap. Conclusion = MSU gets better players.

All this tells me that it is inevitable that the gap between us, Bama, and LSU will grow smaller in the coming years. It may not happen as quick as we want, but it's coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottycameron

You ever thought about moving to russia? How about an EBT card to get into games? Even things out.

---

That's funny...

If this means that the SEC has a lower chance at playing in the NC game or any of the BCS level bowls, you will never see the SEC do this. The SEC does not care if there are a couple of doormat teams as long as Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Florida, etc. are in the big games and raking in the national TV revenue. Actually, a few doormats make it easier to get the big teams there by not getting in the way.

Did you sign up for Obamacare yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgoneyall

Socialism doesn't work at any level.

---

::rolls eyes::

No.

SEC already does a nice job splitting the TV and bowl money. Actually, it does such a nice job that I'm surprised the largest programs haven't publicly bitched to have it changed.

Anyhow, if the SEC were to attempt to collect ticket sales and alumni contributions for redistribution, the SEC would cease to exist at that very moment. The largest budget programs would withdraw from the conference and create a new one with other schools that would be more than happy to comply with the former arrangement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

I actually think we are about to enter into an age of more parody.

---

haha, that's an ironic misspelling

Do all the people who don't like this hate the NFL? None of those ideas are anymore "socialist" than what the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc., already do, and all of those leagues are more popular, lucrative, and universally competitive than their NCAA counterparts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

Do all the people who don't like this hate the NFL? None of those ideas are anymore "socialist" than what the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc., already do, and all of those leagues are more popular, lucrative, and universally competitive than their NCAA counterparts.

---

You can't compare the two. The NFL is professional football. It's play be their rules or shut down your business. The SEC is part of many competing entities of college football. Schools that don't like the NFL system implemented in the SEC would just join another conference or create their own. Your ideas would have to be implemented at the NCAA level for it to work and that would never get done with so many institutions affected.

ETA: For full disclosure, I don't disagree with your competition assertions. These leagues are more competitive because of the regulations they have. It's a much smaller group of teams that have to agree to it and the bulk of their budgets are financed by ticket sales, merchandise, and TV. Fans will always pay regardless of revenue sharing because they go to a game, buy crap, etc. for self satisfaction. Do you think John Richbooster will donate $1M to his Alma Mater if he knows it's going to get divided up 14 ways? Negative.

Doing this would obviously lower the ceiling and raise the floor of the league, and the SEC will always want to beat other conferences on the field. So the only way this would work is if other conferences did the same thing, or if the SEC grew so dominant that there is no way other conferences could ever compete with the SEC in terms of top talent.

Also, Coach34 touched on it - the big 6 have a vested interest in remaining the big 6, so it'll probably never happen.

And lastly - say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, but at least it's an ethos.

Well the league/conference is supposed to promote some sort of equal footing, for lack of better words.


Look at the way the NFL is setup. Salary caps, draft order, scheduling. Doesn't guarantee at all that bottom feeders become competitors in one year but it makes things "fair". You want that in a sports league.

But like everyone else is saying, the current powers like it just the way it is and would never sign off on anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgoneyall

Socialism doesn't work at any level.

---

Works wonderfully when it comes to the SEC's distribution of wealth policy, when all 14 SEC teams receive a cut of the SEC bowl earnings.

I think you need to go to dictionary.com & look up the mean of socialism.

Having said that, I think an affirmative action program for the SEC's lower-tier teams would not work. So I'm not for "fair & balanced equality between all SEC programs."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronny

Works wonderfully when it comes to the SEC's distribution of wealth policy, when all 14 SEC teams receive a cut of the SEC bowl earnings.

I think you need to go to dictionary.com & look up the mean of socialism.

Having said that, I think an affirmative action program for the SEC's lower-tier teams would not work. So I'm not for "fair & balanced equality between all SEC programs."

---

hell, things like scholarship limits, penalties for illegally paying or providing benefits to players, and limits on recruiting visits and what not are a form of socialism by attempting to place everyone on a more equal footing. bama can't have 125 players on scholarship anymore.

The best way to establish an equal playing field in the SEC is to get rid of the programs who can't compete financially and replace them with programs that can. That's what conferences are all about in the first place, grouping peers together to compete.
Now that we covered that, I say we nix the welfare discussions and be happy where we are. I'm sure the SEC wouldn't have a big problem with us evening the playing field (taking a hike). Life is good where we are.

I assume you are a big fan of Karl Marx. The next thing after equalizing the SEC would be to start sharing with other conferences. After all it is not fair for them in the Nat'l Championship chase. And then maybe the men's programs S/B sharing more with the women's programs. I mean fair is fair. Or we could just move to the Sunbelt Conf. and be the Big Dawg.