- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who are the largest Winners and Losers In the New SEC?
Posted on 11/7/11 at 10:45 pm to kilo
Posted on 11/7/11 at 10:45 pm to kilo
quote:
Well, Id like to see how you manipulate the statistics so go ahead, I'll wait.
Manipulate a category you haven't chose yet? How is that possible.
2009-2010 Athletic Budgets
17 Univ. of Arkansas (Football) $48,524,244
35 University of Missouri (Football) $25,378,066
LINK /
I'm not even going to include the new tickets prices that will increase our ranking this coming year or the $30M raised for facilities in less than a year.
($6.8 Million already raised to tack onto the $48.5M) Put's us at #12 but I don't want ya'll to feel bad.
LINK
Next... Stadium revenue or capacity?
Top 25 list of all time?
BCS bowl appearances?
This post was edited on 11/7/11 at 10:58 pm
0
Posted on 11/7/11 at 10:47 pm to Bamainozarks
quote:
work to do on your football stadium, you will see why when you travel, BDS will make you shite your pants.
Gotta tip your hat here.
quote:
FYI this is not 2008 anymore, petrino's Arkansas is much better than the nutt/herring team you played in the cotton bowl.
Without question.
Petrino said in his news conference today he liked the Idea of adding Missouri. He went on to state we lost a few kids from MO because they wanted to stay in the Big12 instead of venturing south. You can apply this to kids in Texas as well.
Posted on 11/7/11 at 10:50 pm to Ray Penpillage
quote:
Arkansas has a dazzling array of facilities. Learn it, live it, love it.
Only about to increase with the latest announcements.
Remember when Missouri gets richer so does Arkansas and right now we double their Athletic budget. This does not include the ticket price increase, raised money and raised donation levels.
We will pack bud walton out again which increased our budget and baseball is consist and pays for itself.
Posted on 11/7/11 at 11:42 pm to SunHog
quote:
Remember when Missouri gets richer so does Arkansas and right now we double their Athletic budget.
Wow, so Arkansas' athletic budget is $123 million a year? If not, Arkansas doesn't double Missouri's.
Posted on 11/7/11 at 11:48 pm to TigerMattSTL
quote:
Wow, so Arkansas' athletic budget is $123 million a year? If not, Arkansas doesn't double Missouri's.
Ha. Where did you get that number when I posted them above?
Posted on 11/8/11 at 12:16 am to SunHog
I think the entire conference wins:
1. Allows a renegotiation of the TV contract potentially cutting ESPN's balls off.
2. Allows the formation of an SEC Network
3. Adds the 10th largest endowment in the nation to the SEC (A&M)
4. Adds two AAU schools, setting up the possibility for Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, and Tennessee to gain admission as well.
5. Significantly raises the SEC academic profile.
6. Opens up two additional states for recruiting (#1 Recruit per Rivals is from Missouri, we already know about Texas)
1. Allows a renegotiation of the TV contract potentially cutting ESPN's balls off.
2. Allows the formation of an SEC Network
3. Adds the 10th largest endowment in the nation to the SEC (A&M)
4. Adds two AAU schools, setting up the possibility for Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, and Tennessee to gain admission as well.
5. Significantly raises the SEC academic profile.
6. Opens up two additional states for recruiting (#1 Recruit per Rivals is from Missouri, we already know about Texas)
Posted on 11/8/11 at 12:24 am to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
I think the entire conference wins:
1. Allows a renegotiation of the TV contract potentially cutting ESPN's balls off.
2. Allows the formation of an SEC Network
3. Adds the 10th largest endowment in the nation to the SEC (A&M)
4. Adds two AAU schools, setting up the possibility for Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, and Tennessee to gain admission as well.
5. Significantly raises the SEC academic profile.
6. Opens up two additional states for recruiting (#1 Recruit per Rivals is from Missouri, we already know about Texas)
From those standpoints it is a large win for the conference as a whole.
I'm breaking it down for each individual university on the football field. Who gains the most with the conference realignment to recruiting, location and exposure?
Posted on 11/8/11 at 12:30 am to TigerMattSTL
quote:
Wow, so Arkansas' athletic budget is $123 million a year? If not, Arkansas doesn't double Missouri's.
This is the "manipulation" I was speaking of earlier, or more appropriately, "smoke and mirrors"
Unfortunately for him athletic budgets and superior facilities are not always a barometer of success when comparing two programs.
Over the last 5 years the Mizzou and Arkansas FB teams are very similar. I would argue that the Mizzou BB program was much better.
There has been nothing proven with athletic budgets and "size" of facilities.
The thing I find even more humorous is that evidently Mizzou has had similar success as Arkansas over the last 5 years with a lower athletic budget, inferior facilities and a recruiting disadvantage.
I think highly of UA. I just dont like the blanket statements like this guy has been making.
To the rest of UA fans, you have a great program and I look forward to seeing Mizzou play Arkansas.
Posted on 11/8/11 at 12:37 am to kilo
quote:
This is the "manipulation" I was speaking of earlier, or more appropriately, "smoke and mirrors"
Unfortunately for him athletic budgets and superior facilities are not always a barometer of success when comparing two programs.
Over the last 5 years the Mizzou and Arkansas FB teams are very similar. I would argue that the Mizzou BB program was much better.
There has been nothing proven with athletic budgets and "size" of facilities.
The thing I find even more humorous is that evidently Mizzou has had similar success as Arkansas over the last 5 years with a lower athletic budget, inferior facilities and a recruiting disadvantage.
I think highly of UA. I just dont like the blanket statements like this guy has been making.
To the rest of UA fans, you have a great program and I look forward to seeing Mizzou play Arkansas.
I already proved Arkansas has a much bigger Athletic Budget. Click on the link.
I'll show you once again.
Mississippi makes more in football revenue than you, ha.
Posted on 11/8/11 at 12:42 am to kilo
vs
Y'all have a long way to go to get up to SEC football standards in facilities.
Posted on 11/8/11 at 12:48 am to SunHog
quote:
Mississippi makes more in football revenue than you, ha.
So Arkansas has a bigger athletic budget than Mizzou.
Mizzou will obviously close that gap over the next few years.
So now that we have established UA has a larger athletic budget.
Why has Mizzou had similar success to Arkansas over the last 5 years in football? Does this mean that Arkansas is underachieving? Mizzou overachieving?
You are avoiding the actual competition on the field by trying to prove that Arkansas is superior because they have a larger budget and superior facilities, I am saying you don't based on what occurs on the field of play.
The fact is, Mizzou and Arkansas are very similar over the last 5 years on the gridiron.
Posted on 11/8/11 at 12:51 am to SunHog
quote:
Y'all have a long way to go to get up to SEC football standards in facilities.
Seriously. We know and are planning stadium improvements.
Again, I ask, what does it have to do with comparing what the two football programs have done ON THE FIELD?
Posted on 11/8/11 at 12:56 am to kilo
quote:
Mizzou will obviously close that gap over the next few years.
No, it will slightly widen.
Arkansas travel costs decrease while Missouri travel costs increase.
Arkansas was underachieving while Mizzou was overachieving. Missouri's roster is loaded with Texas talent and played many games in a conference with multiple Texas teams. we will see if that continues with only having 1 Texas team to play.
I did not dodge any question.
Arkansas went to the BCS last year and Mizzou has never done that in the BCS era (1998-today) Pinkle has done a great job of taking Missouri and relying heavily on Texas kids to fill his roster and having success.
Are you now expecting Missouri to have the same success in a harder league with less Texas Teams?
Posted on 11/8/11 at 1:01 am to kilo
quote:
Seriously. We know and are planning stadium improvements.
Again, I ask, what does it have to do with comparing what the two football programs have done ON THE FIELD?
As I said y'all have a long way to go.
We already announced our plans to expand.
Y'all really don't know what arms race you're about to step into.
We are already building this..
Posted on 11/8/11 at 1:13 am to SunHog
quote:
No, it will slightly widen.
This is wrong. Im not going to try an explain why, it should be pretty obvious, but whatever.
quote:
Arkansas travel costs decrease while Missouri travel costs increase.
Um, not really. Red herring.
quote:
I did not dodge any question.
Arkansas went to the BCS last year and Mizzou has never done that in the BCS era (1998-today) Pinkle has done a great job of taking Missouri and relying heavily on Texas kids to fill his roster and having success.
Mizzou should have been in a BCS Bowl in 2008.
quote:
Are you now expecting Missouri to have the same success in a harder league with less Texas Teams?
I expect Mizzou to be a top 25 team next year.
How Mizzou does in 3 years after this last Big 12 class filters out, I dont know. Thats a fair question that will have to be answered in a couple of years.
My only contention is that Arkansas IS not light years ahead of Missouri. They are very similar on the field of play over the last 5 years.
What will the future hold? Time will tell. I can tell you this, there are quite a few people prematurely writing Mizzou off that dont have a real good understanding of where our program is at this year. We are in transition after losing a JR QB to the NFL as a top 15 pick as well as a JR DE in the Top 10.
We have a top 5 RB who is a SO as well as a stud QB who is also a SO. Our secondary is young and improving and we are stacked on the OL and DL.
It will be fun proving all this "doormat" talk wrong next year.
This post was edited on 11/8/11 at 1:14 am
Posted on 11/8/11 at 1:18 am to SunHog
quote:
As I said y'all have a long way to go.
We already announced our plans to expand.
Do you even know what Mizzou has done in the last 4 years to its infrastructure for the athletics programs outside of the Stadium?
No, you have no idea. You are just posting picks and claiming "I'm better!" I have nor the time or the patience to link or explain. If you really want to know, google it and enlighten yourself, if not, I dont care because It doenst and hasnt meant a thing when comparing these two programs on the football field.
Posted on 11/8/11 at 1:19 am to kilo
quote:
This is wrong. Im not going to try an explain why, it should be pretty obvious, but whatever.
How is that wrong? The large pot that is divided increases but is divided evenly. Travel costs for Missouri Increase and Travel costs for Arkansas decrease or stay the same.
Our schedule does not change therefore ours stays the same while TAMU and Mizzou travel costs increase.
quote:
Mizzou should have been in a BCS Bowl in 2008.
Didn't, doesn't matter.
I'm not writing off Missouri I'm making a statement that matters. Missouri's Texas based roster is loaded with Texas compared to Ark and LSU. You will play less games in Texas and TCU is now in the conference to replace TAMU.
You've now opened up more Texas talent to LSU and Arkansas than before and you are farther way than both schools.
Do you not think your recruiting advantage has decreased than it was in the Big 12?
This post was edited on 11/8/11 at 1:20 am
Posted on 11/8/11 at 1:22 am to kilo
quote:
Do you even know what Mizzou has done in the last 4 years to its infrastructure for the athletics programs outside of the Stadium?
No, you have no idea. You are just posting picks and claiming "I'm better!" I have nor the time or the patience to link or explain. If you really want to know, google it and enlighten yourself, if not, I dont care because It doenst and hasnt meant a thing when comparing these two programs on the football field.
It's not up to SEC standards and you'll see.
You guys have no idea what type of Arms race you are about to join regarding facilities. I would NOT brag about those 'upgrades'...
Posted on 11/8/11 at 1:43 am to kilo
quote:
Stripes314
quote:
kilo
Stick around, guys. Wait until they start going into the 'flagship' schtick. It's good entertainment.
Posted on 11/8/11 at 1:45 am to SunHog
quote:
You guys have no idea what type of Arms race you are about to join regarding facilities. I would NOT brag about those 'upgrades'...
Im not sure what your problem is, I specifically and clearly said outside of the stadium. You linked pictures of the stadium.
You're like the old FNG trying to give the new FNG shite. Its tiring and transparent.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News