(03-29-2019 08:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't know XLance do you maybe think now that the money is making a difference?

Not if you consider Auburn is 1-2 vs the ACC this season. Great W last night; would have loved to see a healthier UNC squad play but it is what it is.

(03-30-2019 12:03 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  Idk if already mentioned but it looks like Texas A&M is going after Buzz Williams.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/tamu-f...id-in-sec/

They'll need to do better than $3 1/2 mil a year

(03-30-2019 07:53 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 12:03 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  Idk if already mentioned but it looks like Texas A&M is going after Buzz Williams.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/tamu-f...id-in-sec/

They'll need to do better than $3 1/2 mil a year

I'm sure VT can match that, but the real question is "does Buzz WANT to move back to Texas?"

(03-30-2019 09:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 07:53 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 12:03 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  Idk if already mentioned but it looks like Texas A&M is going after Buzz Williams.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/tamu-f...id-in-sec/

They'll need to do better than $3 1/2 mil a year

I'm sure VT can match that, but the real question is "does Buzz WANT to move back to Texas?"

Of course he does. I don't think that is a big secret but he's built up a program at VT and we're willing to give him the option that if he's fired without cause that he can still receive his paycheck even if he finds another job as a coach. I'm sure A&M won't give him that option. I doubt very seriously that Buzz will give up that clause and flush the equity he's built up with the fan base to make 1/2 million more and start over from scratch. All the talk about Buzz going to A&M 2 weeks ago was for $5.5 to $6.0 mil a year. I think he'll leave for that without question.

(03-30-2019 07:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  All of us in the successful South are now victims of "northern creep", and Kentucky is no exception.
As companies have moved headquarters out of the North and Mid-West into the traditional South we (native southerners) have had to fight culture change brought with the B1G educated executives that also came with the headquarters.
Culture shift in Maryland paved the way for the B1G to even become an option for the Terps.
Unfortunately it's happening rapidly in North Carolina with the growth of RTP. In a State where Baptists outnumber everybody ,Wake County (Raleigh) stands alone in the State as reporting Roman Catholic the majority denomination.
As time has changed culture, Kentucky's "fit" may have changed as well.

Kentucky is never going to change enough culturally to be seen as compatible to Indiana, Ohio or anywhere else in The Big Ten. If anything, at least in the Louisville area, culturally Southern Indiana the more rural area, over the last 20-25 years, has become more like Kentucky.

Kentuckians will never allow themselves to be thought of as a bunch of damn Yankees.

(03-22-2019 09:54 AM)nole Wrote:  and if so....does that impact the future of ACC basketball?

Is the revenue gap starting to show itself?

The football money has brought Auburn to Final Four. All other SEC schools can duplicate this success. Their football money is just too much. IMO SEC basketball will not only catch up but exceed ACC basketball in five or ten years.

(03-31-2019 05:28 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 09:54 AM)nole Wrote:  and if so....does that impact the future of ACC basketball?

Is the revenue gap starting to show itself?

The football money has brought Auburn to Final Four. All other SEC schools can duplicate this success. Their football money is just too much. IMO SEC basketball will not only catch up but exceed ACC basketball in five or ten years.

How did football money bring Auburn to the Final Four, who hired Bruce Pearl coming off a show-cause five years? Please explain, with real information and reason, not just parroting dumb things.

(03-31-2019 07:12 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 05:28 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 09:54 AM)nole Wrote:  and if so....does that impact the future of ACC basketball?

Is the revenue gap starting to show itself?

The football money has brought Auburn to Final Four. All other SEC schools can duplicate this success. Their football money is just too much. IMO SEC basketball will not only catch up but exceed ACC basketball in five or ten years.

How did football money bring Auburn to the Final Four, who hired Bruce Pearl coming off a show-cause five years? Please explain, with real information and reason, not just parroting dumb things.

It was a 3 year show cause for Pearl Paco. It was 5 years for Sampson. As to your conjecture time will tell.

(03-31-2019 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 07:12 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 05:28 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 09:54 AM)nole Wrote:  and if so....does that impact the future of ACC basketball?

Is the revenue gap starting to show itself?

The football money has brought Auburn to Final Four. All other SEC schools can duplicate this success. Their football money is just too much. IMO SEC basketball will not only catch up but exceed ACC basketball in five or ten years.

How did football money bring Auburn to the Final Four, who hired Bruce Pearl coming off a show-cause five years? Please explain, with real information and reason, not just parroting dumb things.

It was a 3 year show cause for Pearl Paco. It was 5 years for Sampson. As to your conjecture time will tell.

Hail JRsec!

First, congrats on the Auburn Tigers reaching the Final Four for the first time.

As for this thread, it is conjecture on both sides of the discussion.

I still think the SEC's increased spending on basketball will raise the entire's conference profile in that sport. But even so, it will have a hard time matching both the ACC and Big Ten. Might have a slightly better chance of catching the ACC dependent upon who gets hired by SU, UNC, and Duke after the retirements of Boeheim, Williams, and K.

As with most things, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

(03-31-2019 08:36 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 07:12 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 05:28 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 09:54 AM)nole Wrote:  and if so....does that impact the future of ACC basketball?

Is the revenue gap starting to show itself?

The football money has brought Auburn to Final Four. All other SEC schools can duplicate this success. Their football money is just too much. IMO SEC basketball will not only catch up but exceed ACC basketball in five or ten years.

How did football money bring Auburn to the Final Four, who hired Bruce Pearl coming off a show-cause five years? Please explain, with real information and reason, not just parroting dumb things.

It was a 3 year show cause for Pearl Paco. It was 5 years for Sampson. As to your conjecture time will tell.

Hail JRsec!

First, congrats on the Auburn Tigers reaching the Final Four for the first time.

As for this thread, it is conjecture on both sides of the discussion.

I still think the SEC's increased spending on basketball will raise the entire's conference profile in that sport. But even so, it will have a hard time matching both the ACC and Big Ten. Might have a slightly better chance of catching the ACC dependent upon who gets hired by SU, UNC, and Duke after the retirements of Boeheim, Williams, and K.

As with most things, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil I think the SEC will catch the Big 10 and ACC in terms of competitiveness and perhaps depth. What they won't catch is the importance of basketball to the fan bases of those respective conferences. We may get to a point where games between the Big 10 / ACC and the SEC may be pick 'ems, but the South will never fawn over basketball, chase down its statistics, and fill talk shows' air time with endless hoops conversations.

There's the difference that will last. We're having a heckuva party at Toomer's Corner over making it to the final four with a win over our conference blue blood. We have filled our venue of just under 10,000 numerous times in the past couple of years. But I doubt we take 5,000, let alone 10,000 fans to Atlanta or Kansas City for a conference tournament. There's your difference in reverse, because many of the ACC's schools won't be taking 15,000 let alone 30,000 to bowl games and playoff games for football. Clemson will and Florida State might but it's the exception rather than the norm in the ACC when it comes to football.

What the SEC is wanting to do is to approximate as best we can the Big 10's attendance for all of the main sports. Nobody does baseball like the SEC. L.S.U. and Mississippi State draw more for baseball games than Auburn did for sold out basketball games.

When we can get our enthusiasm up for basketball we'll be where we need to be.

For me I remember sold out coliseums that seated 14-20,000 for basketball way back in the 70's when John Mengelt was at Auburn and Pete Maravich was at L.S.U. and Kentucky had a few challenges. Maravich packed out Auburn and just about every other venue when the Tigers from the Bayou came calling. It's some of the best times I ever had at a basketball game. Watching Pete play was like a ticket to watch Curly Neal and Meadowlark Lemon. It's never caught back up to those high water marks. As good as Auburn is right now I doubt we would sell out our old venue which is still there and could seat 15,000 at its prime but which was later reduced for better camera angles and had a curtain hung in front of empty seats in the rafters.

(03-31-2019 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 07:12 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 05:28 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 09:54 AM)nole Wrote:  and if so....does that impact the future of ACC basketball?

Is the revenue gap starting to show itself?

The football money has brought Auburn to Final Four. All other SEC schools can duplicate this success. Their football money is just too much. IMO SEC basketball will not only catch up but exceed ACC basketball in five or ten years.

How did football money bring Auburn to the Final Four, who hired Bruce Pearl coming off a show-cause five years? Please explain, with real information and reason, not just parroting dumb things.

It was a 3 year show cause for Pearl Paco. It was 5 years for Sampson. As to your conjecture time will tell.

I meant to write Auburn hired him 5 years ago coming of a show-cause. Auburn getting to the Final 4 has absolutely nothing to do with football money, and that is an absolutely ridiculous assertion for anyone that follows basketball. It has everything to do with what Auburn did five years ago and that was being willing to hire a coach with NCAA baggage and then Pearl taking 4-5 years to build the program, not to mention they got extremely hot at the right time. Pearl is an excellent coach who proved himself first at Tennessee, but one with a strong taint of impropriety that many, many schools were not willing to touch five years ago.

The whole notion of football money fueling some new deep south hoops dynasty is reactionary fanboyness lacking historical perspective. The money was there before for the SEC. It's not new. Did the Big East become the best basketball conference in the 2000s because of football money? Conference strength is cyclical. When K, Roy, and Jimmy retire, the ACC will inevitably fall off for a while, but those schools will throw more than enough resources at rebuilding because hoops is their identity and those identities are national blue blood programs. Falling off or restoring strength won't have anything to do with football, ....or lacrosse, or academics, or tiddlywinks.

What's new is the SEC has a better stable of coaches than it has in a long time. Several, even though they are excellent, are retreads that were fired from their prior job...people like Rick Barnes, Ben Howland, and Tom Crean. When SEC teams start poaching coaches from UNC, Duke, Louisville, Syracuse, Virginia, or Notre Dame, then there is evidence of a change, but most of the SEC programs outside of Kentucky are still stepping stone positions on the way up the coaching ladder. It takes decades of program winning to change that, not just a handful of good seasons.

It's all conjecture at this point, but the SEC has vastly improved in basketball. Regarding future outlooks and future coaching vacancies at Duke and UNC, I would think they could take their pick when the time comes. Those may be the top 2 jobs in the nation. They could poach from any SEC or Big10 with very few exceptions (Kentucky, Indiana, maybe Sparty). The ACC will continue to be the preeminent basketball conference, but the SEC has certainly narrowed what was a very large gap.

This conversation is ridiculous. College basketball is and always will be about great coaching. I can rip off countless examples of a coach taking a less than noteworthy program to great heights starting with Frank McGuire at South Carolina and ending with Bruce Pearl at Auburn. The SEC won championships in the 90’s with Kentucky and Arkansas (Pitino and Richardson, two great coaches), multiple in the 2000’s with Billy D at Florida (another example of what a great coach can do). Tubby with Pitino’s crew, etc. Where was the SEC hype when Brady took the Tigers to the Final 4? I’ll give you that one was probably a fluke. Jury is out on Frank Martin.

The SEC is and was a great basketball conference going well back into the day. The Zion of yesteryear, Shaq, went to LSU for crying out loud! This conversation is overblown by SEC fanboys and worried ACC/Big Ten types.

Spending big bucks doesn’t always pan out, but you all know that.

If money doesnt' matter in bball, would we be able to have uneven revenue distribution? Money doesn't matter....right?

(04-01-2019 08:41 AM)esayem Wrote:  This conversation is ridiculous. College basketball is and always will be about great coaching. I can rip off countless examples of a coach taking a less than noteworthy program to great heights starting with Frank McGuire at South Carolina and ending with Bruce Pearl at Auburn. The SEC won championships in the 90’s with Kentucky and Arkansas (Pitino and Richardson, two great coaches), multiple in the 2000’s with Billy D at Florida (another example of what a great coach can do). Tubby with Pitino’s crew, etc. Where was the SEC hype when Brady took the Tigers to the Final 4? I’ll give you that one was probably a fluke. Jury is out on Frank Martin.

The SEC is and was a great basketball conference going well back into the day. The Zion of yesteryear, Shaq, went to LSU for crying out loud! This conversation is overblown by SEC fanboys and worried ACC/Big Ten types.

Spending big bucks doesn’t always pan out, but you all know that.

Yep, when a coach should be at his destination job before retirement like Roy and K, Tubby is now coaching his alma mater ......High Point University.

(04-01-2019 03:24 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 07:12 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 05:28 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 09:54 AM)nole Wrote:  and if so....does that impact the future of ACC basketball?

Is the revenue gap starting to show itself?

The football money has brought Auburn to Final Four. All other SEC schools can duplicate this success. Their football money is just too much. IMO SEC basketball will not only catch up but exceed ACC basketball in five or ten years.

How did football money bring Auburn to the Final Four, who hired Bruce Pearl coming off a show-cause five years? Please explain, with real information and reason, not just parroting dumb things.

It was a 3 year show cause for Pearl Paco. It was 5 years for Sampson. As to your conjecture time will tell.

I meant to write Auburn hired him 5 years ago coming of a show-cause. Auburn getting to the Final 4 has absolutely nothing to do with football money, and that is an absolutely ridiculous assertion for anyone that follows basketball. It has everything to do with what Auburn did five years ago and that was being willing to hire a coach with NCAA baggage and then Pearl taking 4-5 years to build the program, not to mention they got extremely hot at the right time. Pearl is an excellent coach who proved himself first at Tennessee, but one with a strong taint of impropriety that many, many schools were not willing to touch five years ago.

The whole notion of football money fueling some new deep south hoops dynasty is reactionary fanboyness lacking historical perspective. The money was there before for the SEC. It's not new. Did the Big East become the best basketball conference in the 2000s because of football money? Conference strength is cyclical. When K, Roy, and Jimmy retire, the ACC will inevitably fall off for a while, but those schools will throw more than enough resources at rebuilding because hoops is their identity and those identities are national blue blood programs. Falling off or restoring strength won't have anything to do with football, ....or lacrosse, or academics, or tiddlywinks.

What's new is the SEC has a better stable of coaches than it has in a long time. Several, even though they are excellent, are retreads that were fired from their prior job...people like Rick Barnes, Ben Howland, and Tom Crean. When SEC teams start poaching coaches from UNC, Duke, Louisville, Syracuse, Virginia, or Notre Dame, then there is evidence of a change, but most of the SEC programs outside of Kentucky are still stepping stone positions on the way up the coaching ladder. It takes decades of program winning to change that, not just a handful of good seasons.

And just where do you think the Athletic Departments got the extra cash with which to hire better coaches? It matters. Nothing fanboy about it. The days of building inside waterfalls at the athletic complexes are thankfully over and that revenue has gone into nicer softball venues, extra amenities for large donors, and improving basketball.

It's only been 5 years since the emphasis was placed on it by the commissioner (Slive at the time). We are enjoying the progress. In a couple of years we will be renewing with CBS and our projected total TV revenue is expected to be 60 million. I'm sure the SEC won't be buying coaches away from Duke, Syracuse, or North Carolina, but then why would we? They're nearing retirement. The question moving forward Paco will be how much more will Duke, Syracuse and North Carolina have to pay for top coaches to keep them out of the SEC?

And you can speak to me about a taint when something is finally done about North Carolina. They suspended the women's basketball staff tonight. And poaching a coach from Notre Dame? Why? They haven't had anybody of relevance since Digger Phelps.

(04-01-2019 11:08 AM)nole Wrote:  If money doesnt' matter in bball, would we be able to have uneven revenue distribution? Money doesn't matter....right?

Uneven distribution causes problems in families when a parent dies and that's between people that are supposed to love each other. Just think what it does to schools that may have differing agenda and whose leaders may not have warm feelings towards each other.

SEC money brought in Bryce Drew, Will Wade, and Avery Johnson too. The Martins, Cuonzo and Frank, need to right their respective ships or there is more of that SEC money going to an out of work coach’s kitchen remodeling effort.

(04-01-2019 09:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 03:24 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 07:12 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 05:28 PM)ArQ Wrote:  The football money has brought Auburn to Final Four. All other SEC schools can duplicate this success. Their football money is just too much. IMO SEC basketball will not only catch up but exceed ACC basketball in five or ten years.

How did football money bring Auburn to the Final Four, who hired Bruce Pearl coming off a show-cause five years? Please explain, with real information and reason, not just parroting dumb things.

It was a 3 year show cause for Pearl Paco. It was 5 years for Sampson. As to your conjecture time will tell.

I meant to write Auburn hired him 5 years ago coming of a show-cause. Auburn getting to the Final 4 has absolutely nothing to do with football money, and that is an absolutely ridiculous assertion for anyone that follows basketball. It has everything to do with what Auburn did five years ago and that was being willing to hire a coach with NCAA baggage and then Pearl taking 4-5 years to build the program, not to mention they got extremely hot at the right time. Pearl is an excellent coach who proved himself first at Tennessee, but one with a strong taint of impropriety that many, many schools were not willing to touch five years ago.

The whole notion of football money fueling some new deep south hoops dynasty is reactionary fanboyness lacking historical perspective. The money was there before for the SEC. It's not new. Did the Big East become the best basketball conference in the 2000s because of football money? Conference strength is cyclical. When K, Roy, and Jimmy retire, the ACC will inevitably fall off for a while, but those schools will throw more than enough resources at rebuilding because hoops is their identity and those identities are national blue blood programs. Falling off or restoring strength won't have anything to do with football, ....or lacrosse, or academics, or tiddlywinks.

What's new is the SEC has a better stable of coaches than it has in a long time. Several, even though they are excellent, are retreads that were fired from their prior job...people like Rick Barnes, Ben Howland, and Tom Crean. When SEC teams start poaching coaches from UNC, Duke, Louisville, Syracuse, Virginia, or Notre Dame, then there is evidence of a change, but most of the SEC programs outside of Kentucky are still stepping stone positions on the way up the coaching ladder. It takes decades of program winning to change that, not just a handful of good seasons.

And just where do you think the Athletic Departments got the extra cash with which to hire better coaches? It matters. Nothing fanboy about it. The days of building inside waterfalls at the athletic complexes are thankfully over and that revenue has gone into nicer softball venues, extra amenities for large donors, and improving basketball.

It's only been 5 years since the emphasis was placed on it by the commissioner (Slive at the time). We are enjoying the progress. In a couple of years we will be renewing with CBS and our projected total TV revenue is expected to be 60 million. I'm sure the SEC won't be buying coaches away from Duke, Syracuse, or North Carolina, but then why would we? They're nearing retirement. The question moving forward Paco will be how much more will Duke, Syracuse and North Carolina have to pay for top coaches to keep them out of the SEC?

And you can speak to me about a taint when something is finally done about North Carolina. They suspended the women's basketball staff tonight. And poaching a coach from Notre Dame? Why? They haven't had anybody of relevance since Digger Phelps.

Hiring better coaches is not all about better money. Most of the time, it is about better decision making unless you are poaching them from programs on the same level (and I don't mean within the power five, but the profile of a program within the entire world of college basketball for which all P5 program certainly aren't the same). The latter doesn't actually happen that much, and when it does, there is usually much more to it than just money...much more going on behind the scenes. Most programs hire from below even if they are awash with money, and while they may go head-to-head with other similarly-situated programs for talent, it very often isn't about who is offering more cash.... and can involve external 3rd parties. Again, conference strength is cyclical, but the big programs are the big programs. That can change, but it takes time and often successfully navigating coaching transitions that span decades.

ND, you mean back-to-back Elite Eights 3 years ago? ND is a more historical, bigger name program than any school in the SEC not named Kentucky. Maybe an argument can be made for UF because of their more recent Donovan years, but certainly not from a overall historical basis. And ND is certainly not afraid of SEC football money.

The point you are trying to conflate was about about taint on fired coaches and programs willing to hire them, especially coming of a show cause. Many programs, many, would not have touched Pearl. That is reality. Auburn didn't go out and take him from anyone. They gave him a lifeline for his career. Don't get me wrong, it was an excellent decision on Auburn's part, but it is ridiculous to parrot a narrative that Auburn's Final Four trip this season is because of football money, money that has always been there and had less than zero to do with that hire. This is a classic correlation without causation for those unwilling to even scratch the surface, but I guess it sure plays well with the conference fanboy narrative.

(04-01-2019 08:41 AM)esayem Wrote:  This conversation is ridiculous. College basketball is and always will be about great coaching. I can rip off countless examples of a coach taking a less than noteworthy program to great heights starting with Frank McGuire at South Carolina and ending with Bruce Pearl at Auburn. The SEC won championships in the 90’s with Kentucky and Arkansas (Pitino and Richardson, two great coaches), multiple in the 2000’s with Billy D at Florida (another example of what a great coach can do). Tubby with Pitino’s crew, etc. Where was the SEC hype when Brady took the Tigers to the Final 4? I’ll give you that one was probably a fluke. Jury is out on Frank Martin.

The SEC is and was a great basketball conference going well back into the day. The Zion of yesteryear, Shaq, went to LSU for crying out loud! This conversation is overblown by SEC fanboys and worried ACC/Big Ten types.

Spending big bucks doesn’t always pan out, but you all know that.

100% spot on. You can't blame the SEC fanboys though, most have probably never watched a full game of basketball outside of late March before this season.