»
Topic: SCAR's SEC Benefit
Replies: 28   Last Post: Nov 28, 2012, 3:14 PM by: bohsandos
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 28  

SCAR's SEC Benefit

[3]
Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 12:24 PM
 

I dont know how to feel about all of this conference mess just yet. What I do know is that the SEC is maybe not as beneficial to SCAR as some suggest.
Spurrier has, clearly, helped SCAR.
Since joining the SEC, SCAR is 131-118....hardly a barn burner. They've won ONE division title...ZERO conference titles and ZERO National titles.
They also have a losing record to Clemson during that time frame.

Just something to think about. It's more about the here and now than a conference.

link

Re: SCAR's SEC Benefit - $$$$


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 12:30 PM
 

It's the money - period. Sure it has helped recruiting with a few guys here and there but off the top of my head, the net money difference is $15-$20 million per year. And that is before the SEC Network launches.

link

Re: SCAR's SEC Benefit - $$$$


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 1:23 PM
 

> It's the money - period. Sure it has helped
> recruiting with a few guys here and there but off the
> top of my head, the net money difference is $15-$20
> million per year. And that is before the SEC Network
> launches.

It's the money - period.

agree.

The money will help USC improve facilities, attract coaches, improve the overall athletic environment and that will attract talented players.

link

Re: SCAR's SEC Benefit - $$$$


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 1:23 PM
 

Where on earth are you getting 15-20M per year? People keep throwing out figures that have not even been released.

link

null


Re: SCAR's SEC Benefit - $$$$


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 1:36 PM
 

He probably came up with the $15-$20 million from the Forbes article about the '10-'11 year where USC was already at over $22 million profit. That was before their most recent deal with ESPN and he's probably anticipating the new deal the SEC is working on with ESPN to create the SEC Network.

Of coarse it's all speculation until it's signed, but from what I've read as well, each SEC member can expect another $15 mill from the new deal. USC was already ahead by $10 mill in profit for the '10-'11 year (according to that Forbes article.) So this deal could actually push their profitability even higher.

However, I believe the ACC is working on new deals as well. Adding ND, Lousiville and other teams will expand the geo-tv market, so nobody will know the impact of a difference b/w USC and Clemson in profitability until the deals are signed.

link

Re: SCAR's SEC Benefit - $$$$


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 1:45 PM
 

You mean the Forbes article that reported all of the information based on Tax Returns? I thought it was well known that the money listed for Clemson's contributions does not include all money generated by IPTAY.

Also the deal with ESPN took effect 1 year before the ACC deal that lead to a larger descrepency for that one season. The new ACC contract pays just over 17.1 M per year. The current SEC contract pays 17M per year. Now that contract will grow but I would not expect anything crazy. Also keep in mind that the ACC is currently renegotiating TV rights based on the addition of ND. Now that won't be much but if the SEC does something crazy the ACC has a means to negotiate.

link

null


Re: SCAR's SEC Benefit - $$$$


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 2:06 PM
 

The new SEC TV deal will be bumped up no less than the ACC deal was, putting Carolina above by at least $4-5 million annually in TV revenue. How much a newly established SEC Network will make to increase that $4-5 million gap, I don't know. Needless to say that the SEC won't need charity.

link

Re: SCAR's SEC Benefit

[1]
Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 12:34 PM
 

And this honestly makes you feel better after losing 4 straight to them? I don't get some of you.

link

Re: SCAR's SEC Benefit


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 12:59 PM
 

Well SCar has been hunting around for the right combination of coaching and conference for decades and frankly it's going to come down to this:

Is the current improvement of SCar a product of just Spurrier or is this the boost they need to finally really benefit from the SEC long term.

Let's say SCar does win a conference title or better under Spurrier. When he leaves, do they continue and become a Florida/Georgia/Alabama with a new hire or return to their old ways?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: SCAR's SEC Benefit


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 1:10 PM
 

I think that Bob Stoops will do just fine at SC after Spurrier leaves.

link

The SEC money just recently went through the roof


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 1:10 PM
 

It wasn't long ago...much less than 10 years...when we had a larger budget than the coots.

Now they have $20M more than us each year.

$20M.

link

Re: The SEC money just recently went through the roof


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 1:48 PM
 

Well that seems like more bad news for the Tigs

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: SCAR's SEC Benefit


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 1:28 PM
 

it's not just about football... seems like a lot of their programs have gotten better like baseball.

They are spending a lot of money and will be able to spend some $$ when Spurrier leaves... Not sure what happens to the coots but the SEC is the best sports conference in the country.

link

Re: SCAR's SEC Benefit


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 1:37 PM
 

> I dont know how to feel about all of this conference
> mess just yet. What I do know is that the SEC is
> maybe not as beneficial to SCAR as some suggest.
> Spurrier has, clearly, helped SCAR.
> Since joining the SEC, SCAR is 131-118....hardly a
> barn burner. They've won ONE division title...ZERO
> conference titles and ZERO National titles.
> They also have a losing record to Clemson during that
> time frame.
>
> Just something to think about. It's more about the
> here and now than a conference.

Be reasonable and consider this perspective: When going from an Independent with Sparky Allen (followed by Brad Scott) as coach, King Dixon as AD, and Jim Holderman as Prez, we were stuck in neutral (and often in reverse for the first 10 years of SEC membership) until Holtz, McGee, SOS, and Hyman came along. Cut off the years from 1992 to 1999. Since 2000, I'm happy with the football results and what the future holds for Carolina. Same for baseball. We'll get basketball right in about 2 years.

In the SEC, winning the conference championship or divisional championship are not the only criteria to being a Top 10 football program. We were Top 10 last year and will be so again this year, but without an SEC championship or divisional championship. Losing TWO games a season in the SEC will usually get you a Top 10 ranking at the end of the season.

It's great (and very profitable) to be in the SEC!

link

and Clemson still out recruits them***


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 1:38 PM
 



badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: and Clemson still out recruits them***


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 1:47 PM
 

Out recruiting them according to the Rivals/Scout/ESPN rankings (on paper) don't mean squat when they recruit both physically and mentally tougher players than we do.

I don't care what Rivals and the other services say. Outside of a few skill players, they are better right now at identifying what players you need to win against good competition.

link


Wrong…..


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 1:54 PM
 

we still send more players to the NFL than they do. By the way they were 2-2 against good competition this year. If they were so good at identifying players then they would have been 3-1 or 4-0 against the good teams they played this year. The only reason they have beaten us the past 4 years is because our fans are soft, our coaches are soft, and the culture around our athletics programs is all style and no substance. Which in turn leads to soft play from the players.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: Wrong…..


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 2:12 PM
 

We fans are soft and thus partly responsible for USuCk kicking our butts the past 4 years? That's a first that I've heard that as a reason.

link

When fans start to sell their tickets to gamecock fans….


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 2:26 PM
 

and they don't raise heck about a President who under his tenure our overall athletic program has gone down big time, then yes the fans are soft. When you have fans that are soft and don't demand the best, then you get SCU beating us four years in a row. We now have a soft culture in our athletic department.

Take a look at all the teams that are consistently good at the professional and college levels. What's the one common element among those teams? They have fans that demand the best. Then take a look at all the teams that are not consistently good. What's the one common element among those teams? They all have soft fans that don't demand for the best.

Clemson used to have fans that demanded the best, but that has changed over the course of the past 10-12 years.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: When fans start to sell their tickets to gamecock fans….


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 2:30 PM
 

i agree and i would never sell my tickets to any coot but the same thing goes on in columbia. we take way more than 10000 down there. people do strange things for money.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

and thats why SCU has a terrible history in football…..


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 2:32 PM
 

they have a bunch of johnny come lately fans.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: Wrong…..


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 2:19 PM
 

Not wrong. They have more players in the NFL than we do. Where do you get that we "send more players to the NFL" than they do: http://espn.go.com/nfl/college/_/letter/c

They also lost to two of the traditionally most hard-nosed teams in the country, which doesn't help your argument.

And I'm not what you're trying to argue re: the soft recruiting.

If you're saying that we recruit tough players and then make them soft...as opposed to recruiting soft players...I don't really see what difference that makes.

The issue is still that we can't develop tough players worth a crap. And I can't really take you seriously when you say our fans are soft. You think Stanford, the "Harvard of the West," has "tough" fans? No. But they still play blue collar football.

Same for Vanderbilt and Georgia Tech --- they're plenty tough, but have nerds for a fanbase. If either of those two schools had half the talent we do, they'd be top 20 teams.

I don't get your logic.

link


Vanderbilt, GT tough? you have got to be kidding, hahahaha..


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 2:29 PM
 

"If you're saying that we recruit tough players and then make them soft...as opposed to recruiting soft players...I don't really see what difference that makes." Uh, you just proved my point about our coaches being soft.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: Vanderbilt, GT tough? you have got to be kidding, hahahaha..


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 2:38 PM
 

Vanderbilt and GT are tough given their talent level. Laugh all you want. GT has knocked us in the mouth several years and we aint done chit about it. The only reason they don't beat us this year and in 2010 was because their offense was terrible. Vanderbilt beat Wake just as bad as we did --- with MUCH less talent. Anyway.

I don't disagree that our coaches are soft. That's part of the issue. But that doesn't mean we're getting it done in landing players like Swearinger and Clowney, who make a living off of crushing offense players. Anyway --- what I'm saying is that you and I both see the same things on the field. There's no point in nitpicking crap just because Rivals gives us good recruiting rankings.

Care to address the other points --- where you were wrong about us putting more players in the NFL. Or addressing the fact that the only two teams that beat the Gamecocks were two of the biggest, most physical programs in the country with the best S&C programs?

link


Re: SCAR's SEC Benefit


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 1:42 PM
 

As others mentioned above, the money improves them with bigger budgets, newer facilities, etc. THat's why I'm concerned about the ACC. I hate to think what kind of money SCar will make with their new TV deals and a SEC Network. They've obviously gotten better in football and baseball. And didn't Fogler win them a basketball conference championship?

link

Fogler got them a 2 seed two years in a row and both times..


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 1:49 PM
 

they lost to a 15 seed. The only time their basketball team was good, was when they were in the ACC and Frank McGuirre was their coach. After they left the ACC, even with McGuirre as their coach their basketball program went down the drain. And Baseball has been the one sport that the shamecocks have always been good in. Also, our athletic facilities are way ahead of their athletic facilities.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: SCAR's SEC Benefit


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 2:00 PM
 

Under Holtz, the football program finished 19th and 13th in the nation among 120 teams. Under Spurrier, the football program finished 22nd and 8th (first time ever finishing in the Top 10), currently is 10th in the nation and beat clemson 4 straight for the first time in 60 years. Basketball won the conference regular season championship under Eddie Fogler. Baseball has won 2 recent national championships plus finished number 2 in the nation. Women's basketball made it to the Sweet 16 last season. Facilities have been greatly upgraded and continue to be upgraded as I type.

link

Nah


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 2:25 PM
 

All wrong.

link

Re: Nah


Posted: Nov 28, 2012, 3:14 PM
 

I think it's pretty simple, and it all comes down on the coaching. There's no doubt Clemson has the talent, the coaches have to get the most out of it.

link

Replies: 28  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: Two season tickets for sale. Portal Q Row LL in the North Stands, lower deck. Seats are not far from...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
1540 people have read this post