CSNbbs

The Big South's Charleston Southern defeated the SEC's Ole Miss in Oxford tonight in overtime 66-65.

Rough start for the SEC. Tennessee, Ole Miss and Georgia all lose.

(11-14-2014 10:38 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Rough start for the SEC. Tennessee, Ole Miss and Georgia all lose.

To be fair, Tennessee lost to VCU, and Georgia to Georgia Tech. Hardly considered upsets. Ole Miss and Mizzou's losses are a different story.

(11-14-2014 11:21 PM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]To be fair, Tennessee lost to VCU, and Georgia to Georgia Tech. Hardly considered upsets.

Yes, but the SEC cannot claim that they do not stink in basketball until they can beat teams from the Atlantic For Crying Out Loud Ten, even if they are ranked. They do not have football at all!

(11-15-2014 08:14 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-14-2014 11:21 PM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]To be fair, Tennessee lost to VCU, and Georgia to Georgia Tech. Hardly considered upsets.

Yes, but the SEC cannot claim that they do not stink in basketball until they can beat teams from the Atlantic For Crying Out Loud Ten, even if they are ranked. They do not have football at all!

You obviously are mis-informed about the quality of basketball in the Atlantic-10. That conference has had at least one team make the Sweet 16 for the last seven or eight years. Not too many other leagues can claim that. Football does not a good basketball league make!

(11-15-2014 09:16 AM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]You obviously are mis-informed about the quality of basketball in the Atlantic-10. That conference has had at least one team make the Sweet 16 for the last seven or eight years. Not too many other leagues can claim that. Football does not a good basketball league make!

Au contraire, mon ami. I am very much aware of the fact that the A-10 was 6th in RPI and the mighty SEC was 7th. In fact, I glory in that little bit of data. But they do not have football and thus are not raking in dough by the truckload like the SEC is. My point is that the $EC cannot claim to be a legit powerhouse basketball conference as long as teams from a relatively-poverty stricken conference like the A-10 beat them. And UMKC. And the Big South. I realize that VCU by itself would not be that surprising, but it is part of a pattern early on, and validates that the bottom tier of the $EC is REALLY bad.

(11-15-2014 09:33 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-15-2014 09:16 AM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]You obviously are mis-informed about the quality of basketball in the Atlantic-10. That conference has had at least one team make the Sweet 16 for the last seven or eight years. Not too many other leagues can claim that. Football does not a good basketball league make!

Au contraire, mon ami. I am very much aware of the fact that the A-10 was 6th in RPI and the mighty SEC was 7th. In fact, I glory in that little bit of data. But they do not have football and thus are not raking in dough by the truckload like the SEC is. My point is that the $EC cannot claim to be a legit powerhouse basketball conference as long as teams from a relatively-poverty stricken conference like the A-10 beat them. And UMKC. And the Big South. I realize that VCU by itself would not be that surprising, but it is part of a pattern early on, and validates that the bottom tier of the $EC is REALLY bad.

Once again you are misinformed. The University of Richmond, where my son played for the Spiders, has an endowment considerably larger than the Univeraity of Arkansas. It's basketball budget is comparable to any in the nation. Do they spend tons of money on their FCS football team? No but at that level it is well funded also. Don't assume that A-10 basketball schools are at least, if not better situated than SEC basketball programs. Some may not be, but some are.

Good info. Thanks. Are you saying Richmond's athletic budget compares to Fayetteville?

Of course, the A10 does have the advantage that basketball actually matters there.

(11-16-2014 02:03 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Good info. Thanks. Are you saying Richmond's athletic budget compares to Fayetteville?

If you take football out of the equation, which is the only way to compare what you are talking about re basketball and the A-10, yes.

Are revenues generated by the football programs spent exclusively in the football programs?

(11-16-2014 07:39 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Are revenues generated by the football programs spent exclusively in the football programs?

Football at the semi-pro power 5 level tries to pay for itself, and at the most prosperous football outfits, some of the football revenue helps pay for non-revenue sports. The problem is, even at some of the power 5 schools, that big time football costs so much that a lot of schools are lucky to break even on football.

(11-16-2014 08:55 PM)PTJR Wrote: [ -> ]even at some of the power 5 schools, that big time football costs so much that a lot of schools are lucky to break even on football.

I sort of figured that. Lots of folks recite the formula that football pays for everything else, but football is hugely more expensive than any other sport.