Too much money is spent on athletics in this country at every level. From Jr. High school on up. It is ridiculous the emphasis that is placed on sports. One city just outside of Dallas recently built a $60 milllion dollar high school stadium.

Will we as a society ever realize what is really important.......

UAH is not D1 except in hockey. They upset North Texas last season in basketball and got to be a sacrificial lamb to Kansas State on ESPN2 in some tournament they were playing in.

All these schools are spending money on athletics for basketball and football. They are trying to be the next FGCU, Valparaiso or Winthrop. They want to get their name out there, hoping for one or two NCAA wins or for a long run in football. It's been like that for decades.

For a school like Kent State events like an elite 8, CWS, a wrestling national champ, a potential Orange Bowl berth, etc are ways to not just get its name out there but to also give alumni and new students a positive aspect of the university.

While students at Kent typically report liking their time at the university and received excellent educations the single most remembered part was a tragedy during the Vietnam war. While we should never forget it should not still be hanging over the university like a dark cloud and until recently that was exactly what it was. I don't think that it is a coincidence that the uptick in sports the past 20 years has led to more students remembering big sports events rather than just a tragedy. Indeed Kent has never had more donations or support and finally has broken the barrier between the city of Kent and the university leading to a new development that has changed the look of the school and the community. No amount of money saved could have done all of that. Granted Kent State has officially been recognized as being the most efficient athletic department by winning the excellence in management cup several times (and being at the top level of it I believe every year) so we spend what we need to win but do not just hand out money.

(07-26-2013 12:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  With all of the talk about the creation of a new subdivision of predominantly upper level schools, I hear a number of fans who are getting jazzed about wanting their school to ramp up the spending on athletics. The problems that begin to arise come about when you take into account the total operating budget of the lower tier schools. While the notion that upper tier schools spending $50 - $100 million/year on athletics sounds crazy, it ends up looking OK when you factor in the overall school operating budgets at these schools are around $2 billion/year and higher. In these cases, the percent spent on athletics ends up being around 1 to 3% of the entire budget tops. However, when the lower tier schools are spending $20 - $50 mil/year on athletics, but the their operating budgets are around $500 million to less that $1 billion/year, the percent of the overall budget allocated to athletics is north of 5% for many of these schools. That is crazy. Yes, I understand that ticket sales, booster donations and 3rd tier media rights are revenues not coming from the general fund; however, very few athletics departments are actually profitable so at some point almost every school is dipping into the general funds to bridge the shortfall.

It's unethical, IMHO, to commit to spending a lot of money on athletics when your school does not have a large operating budget. It begins to blur the lines of what the true mission of the school is. I can predict that I'll get a lot of criticism from the usual suspects and get accused of being a troll but the bottom line is this:

Not all schools are peers. There is an hierarchy of schools. That's the way life is, so the sooner it is acknowledged the better college athletics will become for all of us.

A FBS with 22 teams in it would be boring.

(07-26-2013 12:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  With all of the talk about the creation of a new subdivision of predominantly upper level schools, I hear a number of fans who are getting jazzed about wanting their school to ramp up the spending on athletics. The problems that begin to arise come about when you take into account the total operating budget of the lower tier schools. While the notion that upper tier schools spending $50 - $100 million/year on athletics sounds crazy, it ends up looking OK when you factor in the overall school operating budgets at these schools are around $2 billion/year and higher. In these cases, the percent spent on athletics ends up being around 1 to 3% of the entire budget tops. However, when the lower tier schools are spending $20 - $50 mil/year on athletics, but the their operating budgets are around $500 million to less that $1 billion/year, the percent of the overall budget allocated to athletics is north of 5% for many of these schools. That is crazy. Yes, I understand that ticket sales, booster donations and 3rd tier media rights are revenues not coming from the general fund; however, very few athletics departments are actually profitable so at some point almost every school is dipping into the general funds to bridge the shortfall.

It's unethical, IMHO, to commit to spending a lot of money on athletics when your school does not have a large operating budget. It begins to blur the lines of what the true mission of the school is. I can predict that I'll get a lot of criticism from the usual suspects and get accused of being a troll but the bottom line is this:

Not all schools are peers. There is an hierarchy of schools. That's the way life is, so the sooner it is acknowledged the better college athletics will become for all of us.

The hierarchy shouldn't be based on money though, especially when the money factor already makes it harder for the schools with lower budgets to compete. Does Boise have as big a budget as a Big 14 school? Probably not. But they have a better football team than most or all of the Big 14 schools. If college football is truly supposed to be about sports and competition and not about laissez-faire capitalism, then those schools that are competitive should be in the top section of the "hierarchy" instead of teams like Northwestern or Minnesota or any number of P5 schools.

(07-26-2013 09:17 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I love how you post looking for someone to agree with you sometimes.

But what exactly do you mean by lower tier schools? Do you mean Washington State lower tier or Boise State lower tier? It looks like your indirectly referring to the non power conferences.

Ask yourself this was it stupid for Utah, TCU, Louisville, Boise, and every other school who has had success to invest more money? Investing in athletics is always a gamble because it is not guaranteed to give you success. However, athletics give universities things that academics do not.

I was thinking (MARYLAND) lower tier.........over-budgeted and as a result had to cut athletic programs, raise student fees and put the burden on the Maryland taxpayers and all while making a buttload of money in the ACC.

It may not be unethical, but what is truly "ridiculous" is that many of these P5 schools have to spend crazy amounts of money on athletics just to have mediocre seasons each year and yet what is "miraculous" is that many of the G5 schools operating on 1/100th of those P5 budgets are able to find success in many sports.

Miko took this argument (troll attempt) down the wrong road. It's many of the P5 schools that overspend and with all the money their making off TV deals, etc., still look to their states for subsidies.

Maryland is thanking it's lucky stars that the B1G came calling.................

(07-28-2013 09:14 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 09:17 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I love how you post looking for someone to agree with you sometimes.

But what exactly do you mean by lower tier schools? Do you mean Washington State lower tier or Boise State lower tier? It looks like your indirectly referring to the non power conferences.

Ask yourself this was it stupid for Utah, TCU, Louisville, Boise, and every other school who has had success to invest more money? Investing in athletics is always a gamble because it is not guaranteed to give you success. However, athletics give universities things that academics do not.

I was thinking (MARYLAND) lower tier.........over-budgeted and as a result had to cut athletic programs, raise student fees and put the burden on the Maryland taxpayers and all while making a buttload of money in the ACC.

It may not be unethical, but what is truly "ridiculous" is that many of these P5 schools have to spend crazy amounts of money on athletics just to have mediocre seasons each year and yet what is "miraculous" is that many of the G5 schools operating on 1/100th of those P5 budgets are able to find success in many sports.

Miko took this argument (troll attempt) down the wrong road. It's many of the P5 schools that overspend and with all the money their making off TV deals, etc., still look to their states for subsidies.

Maryland is thanking it's lucky stars that the B1G came calling.................

Again, this is not a troll. It IS a legitimate query about spending rates. You mention a school like Maryland as "overspending" on athletics compared to a number of G5 schools. This is an apples to oranges argument because you are talking about performance results. I'm not referring to that at all. I'm talking about 1) the percentage of athletic dollars spent on athletics compared to the rest of the operating budget and 2) assuming that athletics spending is actually a marketing expense, the effectiveness of marketing on a school by school comparison.

Not to pick on any schools in particular, but a school like Memphis won't get near the amount of bang for their buck for athletics spending as a school like UMD. UMD has the potential to grow via "advertising" based on its academic reputation and "brand name" in the academic world. Memphis, although a fine institution, is a regional school. As such, the "advertising" kick is nowhere near as effective for them as it would be for a typical P5 school. You probably claim - still - that academics play no part in all of this. I disagree emphatically, and that it DOES play a huge part. Without the academic cache, it's very difficult to justify athletic expenditures for a regional school that has little chance of broadening its appeal on a national scale. I'm sorry, but that's how life is today.

(07-28-2013 10:00 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 09:14 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 09:17 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I love how you post looking for someone to agree with you sometimes.

But what exactly do you mean by lower tier schools? Do you mean Washington State lower tier or Boise State lower tier? It looks like your indirectly referring to the non power conferences.

Ask yourself this was it stupid for Utah, TCU, Louisville, Boise, and every other school who has had success to invest more money? Investing in athletics is always a gamble because it is not guaranteed to give you success. However, athletics give universities things that academics do not.

I was thinking (MARYLAND) lower tier.........over-budgeted and as a result had to cut athletic programs, raise student fees and put the burden on the Maryland taxpayers and all while making a buttload of money in the ACC.

It may not be unethical, but what is truly "ridiculous" is that many of these P5 schools have to spend crazy amounts of money on athletics just to have mediocre seasons each year and yet what is "miraculous" is that many of the G5 schools operating on 1/100th of those P5 budgets are able to find success in many sports.

Miko took this argument (troll attempt) down the wrong road. It's many of the P5 schools that overspend and with all the money their making off TV deals, etc., still look to their states for subsidies.

Maryland is thanking it's lucky stars that the B1G came calling.................

Again, this is not a troll. It IS a legitimate query about spending rates. You mention a school like Maryland as "overspending" on athletics compared to a number of G5 schools. This is an apples to oranges argument because you are talking about performance results. I'm not referring to that at all. I'm talking about 1) the percentage of athletic dollars spent on athletics compared to the rest of the operating budget and 2) assuming that athletics spending is actually a marketing expense, the effectiveness of marketing on a school by school comparison.

Not to pick on any schools in particular, but a school like Memphis won't get near the amount of bang for their buck for athletics spending as a school like UMD. UMD has the potential to grow via "advertising" based on its academic reputation and "brand name" in the academic world. Memphis, although a fine institution, is a regional school. As such, the "advertising" kick is nowhere near as effective for them as it would be for a typical P5 school. You probably claim - still - that academics play no part in all of this. I disagree emphatically, and that it DOES play a huge part. Without the academic cache, it's very difficult to justify athletic expenditures for a regional school that has little chance of broadening its appeal on a national scale. I'm sorry, but that's how life is today.

Its a really funny argument and a bit disingenuous to make after your school attains the holy grail of ACC membership. What is too much? What percentage of a schools operating budget is too much?

(07-26-2013 12:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  With all of the talk about the creation of a new subdivision of predominantly upper level schools, I hear a number of fans who are getting jazzed about wanting their school to ramp up the spending on athletics. The problems that begin to arise come about when you take into account the total operating budget of the lower tier schools. While the notion that upper tier schools spending $50 - $100 million/year on athletics sounds crazy, it ends up looking OK when you factor in the overall school operating budgets at these schools are around $2 billion/year and higher. In these cases, the percent spent on athletics ends up being around 1 to 3% of the entire budget tops. However, when the lower tier schools are spending $20 - $50 mil/year on athletics, but the their operating budgets are around $500 million to less that $1 billion/year, the percent of the overall budget allocated to athletics is north of 5% for many of these schools. That is crazy. Yes, I understand that ticket sales, booster donations and 3rd tier media rights are revenues not coming from the general fund; however, very few athletics departments are actually profitable so at some point almost every school is dipping into the general funds to bridge the shortfall.

It's unethical, IMHO, to commit to spending a lot of money on athletics when your school does not have a large operating budget. It begins to blur the lines of what the true mission of the school is. I can predict that I'll get a lot of criticism from the usual suspects and get accused of being a troll but the bottom line is this:

Not all schools are peers. There is an hierarchy of schools. That's the way life is, so the sooner it is acknowledged the better college athletics will become for all of us.

Actually, its none of your business Miko!

(07-26-2013 12:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  With all of the talk about the creation of a new subdivision of predominantly upper level schools, I hear a number of fans who are getting jazzed about wanting their school to ramp up the spending on athletics. The problems that begin to arise come about when you take into account the total operating budget of the lower tier schools. While the notion that upper tier schools spending $50 - $100 million/year on athletics sounds crazy, it ends up looking OK when you factor in the overall school operating budgets at these schools are around $2 billion/year and higher. In these cases, the percent spent on athletics ends up being around 1 to 3% of the entire budget tops. However, when the lower tier schools are spending $20 - $50 mil/year on athletics, but the their operating budgets are around $500 million to less that $1 billion/year, the percent of the overall budget allocated to athletics is north of 5% for many of these schools. That is crazy. Yes, I understand that ticket sales, booster donations and 3rd tier media rights are revenues not coming from the general fund; however, very few athletics departments are actually profitable so at some point almost every school is dipping into the general funds to bridge the shortfall.

It's unethical, IMHO, to commit to spending a lot of money on athletics when your school does not have a large operating budget. It begins to blur the lines of what the true mission of the school is. I can predict that I'll get a lot of criticism from the usual suspects and get accused of being a troll but the bottom line is this:
Not all schools are peers. There is an hierarchy of schools. That's the way life is, so the sooner it is acknowledged the better college athletics will become for all of us.

I think athletics should be an important part of any University and I think most of the schools below the power conferences do a good job of finding the level that is right for them. They are not in the money making business.

In my opinion what should happen is these schools that are obviously in the 'money making business', should have to pay taxes on these profits.

It's ethical for Southern Miss to spend at FBS levels, because it helps correct some potential misconceptions about the nature of our institution and the scope of its mission. We're not Southeastern Louisiana, i.e. a school that can be regional in its ambitions because there's another, much larger university just a couple of towns down the road. For most of Mississippi's population, we're option #1 when it comes to higher education.

(07-28-2013 01:47 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  It's ethical for Southern Miss to spend at FBS levels, because it helps correct some potential misconceptions about the nature of our institution and the scope of its mission. We're not Southeastern Louisiana, i.e. a school that can be regional in its ambitions because there's another, much larger university just a couple of towns down the road. For most of Mississippi's population, we're option #1 when it comes to higher education.

I did a quick review of enrollment figures for Ole Miss, MSU and Southern Miss. Each school has about 20K plus in enrollment. I find your statements highly unlikely...

(07-28-2013 05:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 01:47 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  It's ethical for Southern Miss to spend at FBS levels, because it helps correct some potential misconceptions about the nature of our institution and the scope of its mission. We're not Southeastern Louisiana, i.e. a school that can be regional in its ambitions because there's another, much larger university just a couple of towns down the road. For most of Mississippi's population, we're option #1 when it comes to higher education.

I did a quick review of enrollment figures for Ole Miss, MSU and Southern Miss. Each school has about 20K plus in enrollment. I find your statements highly unlikely...

No, you pretty much confirmed what I posted. We're basically the same size as Ole Miss and MS State. We just happen to have a name that might make a casual observer think we're smaller. That's a big part of the reason we joined the top tier of college football back in the early 1970s. We did so despite the protests of people like you, and we also built a stadium that was (at that time) the largest on-campus facility in the state. These decisions have been good investments.

When I said that we were the #1 option for most people seeking higher education in the state, I was referring to geography. Most of the state's population is closer to USM than to the other schools. This hasn't yet made us #1 in enrollment, except for a brief period around 2000. But I think it's inevitable.

I'm currently in Mobile, AL for a few days. The investment in athletics at Arkansas State has created incredible brand awareness here.

(07-28-2013 06:17 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 05:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 01:47 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  It's ethical for Southern Miss to spend at FBS levels, because it helps correct some potential misconceptions about the nature of our institution and the scope of its mission. We're not Southeastern Louisiana, i.e. a school that can be regional in its ambitions because there's another, much larger university just a couple of towns down the road. For most of Mississippi's population, we're option #1 when it comes to higher education.

I did a quick review of enrollment figures for Ole Miss, MSU and Southern Miss. Each school has about 20K plus in enrollment. I find your statements highly unlikely...

No, you pretty much confirmed what I posted. We're basically the same size as Ole Miss and MS State. We just happen to have a name that might make a casual observer think we're smaller. That's a big part of the reason we joined the top tier of college football back in the early 1970s. We did so despite the protests of people like you, and we also built a stadium that was (at that time) the largest on-campus facility in the state. These decisions have been good investments.

When I said that we were the #1 option for most people seeking higher education in the state, I was referring to geography. Most of the state's population is closer to USM than to the other schools. This hasn't yet made us #1 in enrollment, except for a brief period around 2000. But I think it's inevitable.

That doesn't make sense. There are a number of regional schools that have enrollments comparable to the major universities in several states. So size alone is not the complete story. Also, your statement that USM is the clear first choice among the majority of Mississippi residents cannot be true. If it was, then USM would have a clear cut enrollment advantage compared to MSU and Ole Miss. Again, that is not the case since Ole Miss is clearly the #1 choice among most people in Mississippi. I looked thru the statistics for admissions, and it looks like both USM and MSU are comparable in their selectivity at around 65% while Ole Miss was higher at 79%. But Ole Miss also has the highest ranking among the 3 colleges around 151. MSU is at 160 and USM is not ranked (source USNWR 2013 rankings). I checked the admissions standards for the 3 schools (SAT scores in 25/75 quartiles) and found the following:

Ole Miss: SAT Math 480/600 and Critical Reading was 480/600
MSU: SAT Math 490/620 and Critical Reading was 470/610
USM: SAT Math 460/570 and Critical Reading was 453/580

Source: http://collegeapps.about.com/

Based on what we know, the pecking order within the state of Mississippi is that the best and brightest freshman appear to be selecting USM first, then Ole Miss and then USM is the last choice. So although USM is technically a national university, by digging into the admissions numbers a little shows that it is actually more regional in nature. That's how I interpret the data.

(07-28-2013 06:57 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 06:17 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 05:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 01:47 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  It's ethical for Southern Miss to spend at FBS levels, because it helps correct some potential misconceptions about the nature of our institution and the scope of its mission. We're not Southeastern Louisiana, i.e. a school that can be regional in its ambitions because there's another, much larger university just a couple of towns down the road. For most of Mississippi's population, we're option #1 when it comes to higher education.

I did a quick review of enrollment figures for Ole Miss, MSU and Southern Miss. Each school has about 20K plus in enrollment. I find your statements highly unlikely...

No, you pretty much confirmed what I posted. We're basically the same size as Ole Miss and MS State. We just happen to have a name that might make a casual observer think we're smaller. That's a big part of the reason we joined the top tier of college football back in the early 1970s. We did so despite the protests of people like you, and we also built a stadium that was (at that time) the largest on-campus facility in the state. These decisions have been good investments.

When I said that we were the #1 option for most people seeking higher education in the state, I was referring to geography. Most of the state's population is closer to USM than to the other schools. This hasn't yet made us #1 in enrollment, except for a brief period around 2000. But I think it's inevitable.

That doesn't make sense. There are a number of regional schools that have enrollments comparable to the major universities in several states. So size alone is not the complete story. Also, your statement that USM is the clear first choice among the majority of Mississippi residents cannot be true. If it was, then USM would have a clear cut enrollment advantage compared to MSU and Ole Miss. Again, that is not the case since Ole Miss is clearly the #1 choice among most people in Mississippi. I looked thru the statistics for admissions, and it looks like both USM and MSU are comparable in their selectivity at around 65% while Ole Miss was higher at 79%. But Ole Miss also has the highest ranking among the 3 colleges around 151. MSU is at 160 and USM is not ranked (source USNWR 2013 rankings). I checked the admissions standards for the 3 schools (SAT scores in 25/75 quartiles) and found the following:

Ole Miss: SAT Math 480/600 and Critical Reading was 480/600
MSU: SAT Math 490/620 and Critical Reading was 470/610
USM: SAT Math 460/570 and Critical Reading was 453/580

Source: http://collegeapps.about.com/

Based on what we know, the pecking order within the state of Mississippi is that the best and brightest freshman appear to be selecting USM first, then Ole Miss and then USM is the last choice. So although USM is technically a national university, by digging into the admissions numbers a little shows that it is actually more regional in nature. That's how I interpret the data.

We're talking about Mississippi here. Most people don't go to a university. Most of the people who do don't finish a degree. Very few people take the SAT. If you're a young person from Mississippi, the odds are pretty damned good that 1) you're in Jackson or south of Jackson and 2) you don't have the money to finance a four-year excursion up into the wilderness. People to whom these things don't apply are a distinct minority... for a lot of kids in Mississippi, Ole Miss and State are football teams, and USM is a school.

This doesn't mean we're stupid. It just means we're representative of the people actually voting and paying taxes in the state. You shouldn't run USM down for actually trying to educate people. Run Ole Miss and State down for building preppy little clubs in the middle of nowhere and hiding behind Michael Slive and ESPN.

As for the "regional" thing, I don't know what to tell you. The Carnegie Foundation groups us with Ole Miss, Alabama, Auburn, etc., and has for years. USNWR has had us in the top category for decades, probably for as long as they've been rating colleges. Both of these categorizations group about 90% of schools with a direction in their name lower than us. It's usually USM plus USF, UCF, ECU, and maybe UNT or NIU in the top category... maybe a half-dozen schools in the US.

This is why football was a good investment for USM. It helps correct misconceptions. (And I don't even think we fall into the scope of your question... I'm just telling you why football dollars are well-spent for us.)

The other thing I'll tell you is that USM is kind of at a low ebb right now. You probably know about Hurricane Katrina, which wiped out a new four-year campus we were starting on the Gulf Coast, and you may also know about Ellis Johnson and how he took $3 million from us in exchange for playing Windows solitaire for nine months. You probably don't know about Shelby Thames, the man who thought he could make professors punch a time clock. Fortunately, these problems are now gone, and we can start moving in the right direction for the first time in over a decade, and we'll be following FSU, Georgia Tech, VPI, etc. right up to the top tier of big public research institutions.

(07-28-2013 10:05 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 06:57 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 06:17 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 05:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 01:47 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  It's ethical for Southern Miss to spend at FBS levels, because it helps correct some potential misconceptions about the nature of our institution and the scope of its mission. We're not Southeastern Louisiana, i.e. a school that can be regional in its ambitions because there's another, much larger university just a couple of towns down the road. For most of Mississippi's population, we're option #1 when it comes to higher education.

I did a quick review of enrollment figures for Ole Miss, MSU and Southern Miss. Each school has about 20K plus in enrollment. I find your statements highly unlikely...

No, you pretty much confirmed what I posted. We're basically the same size as Ole Miss and MS State. We just happen to have a name that might make a casual observer think we're smaller. That's a big part of the reason we joined the top tier of college football back in the early 1970s. We did so despite the protests of people like you, and we also built a stadium that was (at that time) the largest on-campus facility in the state. These decisions have been good investments.

When I said that we were the #1 option for most people seeking higher education in the state, I was referring to geography. Most of the state's population is closer to USM than to the other schools. This hasn't yet made us #1 in enrollment, except for a brief period around 2000. But I think it's inevitable.

That doesn't make sense. There are a number of regional schools that have enrollments comparable to the major universities in several states. So size alone is not the complete story. Also, your statement that USM is the clear first choice among the majority of Mississippi residents cannot be true. If it was, then USM would have a clear cut enrollment advantage compared to MSU and Ole Miss. Again, that is not the case since Ole Miss is clearly the #1 choice among most people in Mississippi. I looked thru the statistics for admissions, and it looks like both USM and MSU are comparable in their selectivity at around 65% while Ole Miss was higher at 79%. But Ole Miss also has the highest ranking among the 3 colleges around 151. MSU is at 160 and USM is not ranked (source USNWR 2013 rankings). I checked the admissions standards for the 3 schools (SAT scores in 25/75 quartiles) and found the following:

Ole Miss: SAT Math 480/600 and Critical Reading was 480/600
MSU: SAT Math 490/620 and Critical Reading was 470/610
USM: SAT Math 460/570 and Critical Reading was 453/580

Source: http://collegeapps.about.com/

Based on what we know, the pecking order within the state of Mississippi is that the best and brightest freshman appear to be selecting USM first, then Ole Miss and then USM is the last choice. So although USM is technically a national university, by digging into the admissions numbers a little shows that it is actually more regional in nature. That's how I interpret the data.

We're talking about Mississippi here. Most people don't go to a university. Most of the people who do don't finish a degree. Very few people take the SAT. If you're a young person from Mississippi, the odds are pretty damned good that 1) you're in Jackson or south of Jackson and 2) you don't have the money to finance a four-year excursion up into the wilderness. People to whom these things don't apply are a distinct minority... for a lot of kids in Mississippi, Ole Miss and State are football teams, and USM is a school.

This doesn't mean we're stupid. It just means we're representative of the people actually voting and paying taxes in the state. You shouldn't run USM down for actually trying to educate people. Run Ole Miss and State down for building preppy little clubs in the middle of nowhere and hiding behind Michael Slive and ESPN.

As for the "regional" thing, I don't know what to tell you. The Carnegie Foundation groups us with Ole Miss, Alabama, Auburn, etc., and has for years. USNWR has had us in the top category for decades, probably for as long as they've been rating colleges. Both of these categorizations group about 90% of schools with a direction in their name lower than us. It's usually USM plus USF, UCF, ECU, and maybe UNT or NIU in the top category... maybe a half-dozen schools in the US.

This is why football was a good investment for USM. It helps correct misconceptions. (And I don't even think we fall into the scope of your question... I'm just telling you why football dollars are well-spent for us.)

The other thing I'll tell you is that USM is kind of at a low ebb right now. You probably know about Hurricane Katrina, which wiped out a new four-year campus we were starting on the Gulf Coast, and you may also know about Ellis Johnson and how he took $3 million from us in exchange for playing Windows solitaire for nine months. You probably don't know about Shelby Thames, the man who thought he could make professors punch a time clock. Fortunately, these problems are now gone, and we can start moving in the right direction for the first time in over a decade, and we'll be following FSU, Georgia Tech, VPI, etc. right up to the top tier of big public research institutions.

I'm not running USM into the ground. I'm trying to understand your points, and they don't make a lot of sense to me. The only way I can see that your post makes sense is if Ole Miss and MSU take a lot more students from the surrounding states and that the natives of Miss go to USM. It just sounds very odd to me for how you described the situation. No offense intended, but the scores on these tests for the Miss schools in general weren't all that great. I compared them to my alma mater and it's amazing the huge difference. The low end Math scores from my school were almost the same as the top end scores for MSU and were higher than the best Math scores for the other 2 schools.

No offense intended, but using the scores shown as a way of evaluating the incoming freshmen confirm to me that USM (and probably MSU and Ole Miss as well) are not getting much bang for their buck in improving the quality of the incoming students to the school. But you point out that USM has a different mission statement than to become a research power in that its goal is to educate the people of Miss first and foremost. A great mission, but it's one that does not generally align with those power schools that are in the P5 who are utilizing advertising via athletics to increase the exposure to the upper level students - even if that means taking more kids from out of state.

Just out of curiosity, why is the student body at USM 65% women and only 35% men? It seems really out of wack and my first thoughts were that USM is more of a teacher's college than anything else. But that's not the case so this statistic confuses me.

Miko and Andre: you're both right. The original name of USM was Mississippi Normal College. Thus, it was originally a school for teachers. Nothing wrong with that, as many schools have successfully made the transition from a Normal College to a high powered research university (UCLA and Arizona State are the most notable examples).

Andre is probably right that USM is the #1 choice for "most" Mississippians. I'll bet that there are more in-state students at USM than at the other two. This also explains why MSU and Ole' Miss have higher SAT scores (you don't get admitted as an out-of-state student unless you have higher SAT scores). Miko, you're forgetting that only a minority of people want to go to the "best" school they get into (sad but true).

Another thing Miko: in this comparison, remember that Ole Miss and MSU aren't really aren't exactly Pitt and Penn State. If USM is even close to the quality of other former teaching schools like Bowling Green, Kent State, Ball State, Indiana State, Northern Iowa, etc, then it's roughly the equal of Ole Miss and MSU.

It probably is unethical for any school to waste any money on football. Miko likes his shades of gray.