The discussion of things like conference switching, stadium naming rights, and all the other stuff seems to settle back to opinions of money. Some even leave the impression money will solve all problems, some have no problem selling every naming right the school has because it will buy a better team. The message I am getting is that money trumps all.

Well, I have to point to some facts from the past to explain my thoughts on money in sports. Money is something you need to be able to afford a certain level of needs, but after a point the money becomes less of a factor. I have watched since the late 50s USM battle on a budget smaller by far most if not all of it's rivals while accomplishing impressive records by means other than money. I saw USM offered a chance to sell it's stadium name but refuse because it felt honoring one of her important pioneers was more proper than picking up some cash, but USM still posted impressive marks.

I am tired of the greed and stupid idea that more money will translate into more success and every place that has been done it usually has either short term success or just fails. Remember the 76s with Dr. J, and the other great players which didn't do as expected? Do you remember the Arizona Diamondbacks' World Series Championship that the next year they had so much money invested that they had to dismantle that team and would cause the program to struggle for years?

The bottom line to success is not money, it smart thinking. Getting the most out of players and making sure those players stay hungry for success. Coaching who want to see success at the school so much they will turn down other jobs more attractive financially as Jeff Bower did. Money has to be considered, but the real keystone of a program isn't money, it is dedication, decision making, and hunger to be the best you can be.

you used two pro teams not playing football as an example related to college sports and realignment that mostly revolves around football

also the "spending" you reference is related to player pay.....something that is not "approved" in college sports (nor should it be)

larger budgets allow for better facilities and more bling bling which is what attracts players and fans which is what sustains a program......there is also the factor or schools wanting to be associated with schools they see as peers which clearly plays a part in the decisions by the B1G and the ACC and PAC to a degree as far as academics (though the B1G is really the only conference where academics firmly over athletics can clearly be pointed to in the case of Maryland and Rutgers and even they have the Nowledge booted from the AAU fiasco to deal with)

eventually there will be a break apart for D1-A and it will probably not be purely on financial or conference lines, but it WILL be on the ability to actually have a chance in hell of regularly competing or even occasionally competing and having winning seasons....hopefully there will be a STRONG academic component to the break apart as well such as highly ELEVATED academic requirements to actually step on the field of play even if you are admitted to the university and on scholarship.....is schools want to carry mush moufed fools on scholarships they will be free to do so, but those idiots will be nothing more than practice dummies

your analogy was not a strong one at all

(03-08-2013 02:56 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  you used two pro teams not playing football as an example related to college sports and realignment that mostly revolves around football

also the "spending" you reference is related to player pay.....something that is not "approved" in college sports (nor should it be)

larger budgets allow for better facilities and more bling bling which is what attracts players and fans which is what sustains a program......there is also the factor or schools wanting to be associated with schools they see as peers which clearly plays a part in the decisions by the B1G and the ACC and PAC to a degree as far as academics (though the B1G is really the only conference where academics firmly over athletics can clearly be pointed to in the case of Maryland and Rutgers and even they have the Nowledge booted from the AAU fiasco to deal with)

eventually there will be a break apart for D1-A and it will probably not be purely on financial or conference lines, but it WILL be on the ability to actually have a chance in hell of regularly competing or even occasionally competing and having winning seasons....hopefully there will be a STRONG academic component to the break apart as well such as highly ELEVATED academic requirements to actually step on the field of play even if you are admitted to the university and on scholarship.....is schools want to carry mush moufed fools on scholarships they will be free to do so, but those idiots will be nothing more than practice dummies

your analogy was not a strong one at all

I think you missed the point I was making so to state it simply the point is that money has only a certain level of productivity and after that it becomes a point of diminishing returns. It doesn't matter if the money is put into facilities, players, coaches or whatever, it doesn't add much more. I referenced the examples I did not to point to a certain expenditure, but to the diminishing returns parts.

USM needs to increase it's athletic budget if it wants to progress, no way around it.

Fortunately, due to the nature of our circumstances, we don't have to drastically increase it in order to keep up, we get a lot for our money.

I think you'll start seeing progress in this area shortly, whoever is at the helm.

(03-08-2013 03:16 PM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(03-08-2013 02:56 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  you used two pro teams not playing football as an example related to college sports and realignment that mostly revolves around football

also the "spending" you reference is related to player pay.....something that is not "approved" in college sports (nor should it be)

larger budgets allow for better facilities and more bling bling which is what attracts players and fans which is what sustains a program......there is also the factor or schools wanting to be associated with schools they see as peers which clearly plays a part in the decisions by the B1G and the ACC and PAC to a degree as far as academics (though the B1G is really the only conference where academics firmly over athletics can clearly be pointed to in the case of Maryland and Rutgers and even they have the Nowledge booted from the AAU fiasco to deal with)

eventually there will be a break apart for D1-A and it will probably not be purely on financial or conference lines, but it WILL be on the ability to actually have a chance in hell of regularly competing or even occasionally competing and having winning seasons....hopefully there will be a STRONG academic component to the break apart as well such as highly ELEVATED academic requirements to actually step on the field of play even if you are admitted to the university and on scholarship.....is schools want to carry mush moufed fools on scholarships they will be free to do so, but those idiots will be nothing more than practice dummies

your analogy was not a strong one at all

I think you missed the point I was making so to state it simply the point is that money has only a certain level of productivity and after that it becomes a point of diminishing returns. It doesn't matter if the money is put into facilities, players, coaches or whatever, it doesn't add much more. I referenced the examples I did not to point to a certain expenditure, but to the diminishing returns parts.

yes there is a diminishing level of return to a degree

but in another thread on here it has Bama at 36 million on football and Texas, Meatchicken, and Florida in the mid 20s and then on down to 6 million or less

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=622837

many (especially on here) would say that Texas and Meatchicken under perform and I would say Bama is probably flushing money down the toilet.....but the reality is Texas, Meatchichen, and the like will always have a chance to compete and the ability to bonce back from down years while the schools spending 6 million will NEVER compete

and yes Boise is at 8 million and they do compete well, but that is probably the one exception that proves the rule and they have had the benefit of a long line of quality coaches and then finally a coach that really likes to be where he is and they also can pull from California easily with players that do not want to deal with PAC academics and yet to not want to be an after thought at Fresno or San Jose or SDSU (even though I respect what those programs accomplish).....Boise became sexy and an alternative to being in the shadow of the PAC even if Fresno and others were often out performing the PAC on the field of play

if you can't spend 15-20 million on football consistently you will consistently not compete and you will fade over time with one exception so far

Bama spends $36m and has the BCS titles to show for it. Money stands on the side of the big battalions. No, money does not guarantee anything... but it sure as hell makes things easier than it is when you don't have much.

(03-08-2013 05:50 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  Bama spends $36m and has the BCS titles to show for it. Money stands on the side of the big battalions. No, money does not guarantee anything... but it sure as hell makes things easier than it is when you don't have much.

so when is money too involved in the process? I think we get to simple minded about it in our discussions and we start to rationalize that money is needed to run programs and update things, but at what point to say enough is enough? I for one am sick and tired of seeing programs elevated that frankly has, at best, a middle of the road success, but because they are in a big TV market, or have more wealthy alumni, they move on because of the money.

My adoptive mother thought money was the measuring stick for almost everything. She once told me that a man we knew well, was a very good man, and then justified her statement with "because he is filthy rich" even though he made most of his money taking advantage of people who were on the edge financially, come in buy them out for a very cheap price knowing they would sell out of desperation, and then he would profit. I asked her after that statement if being "filthy rich" was the measuring stick if she thought drug dealers who had amassed a fortune were also very good because they were filthy rich? She told me not to be silly. Sadly, I think her logic has been the standard in college football, and even fans are accepting it because maybe their favorite school can buy it's way to the top.

There has to be a point where we draw a line and say if you don't earn your advancement on the field or court, then no matter your money potential you can not move on until you do.

Oh never mind, I guess I am just an old man who doesn't understand the world even though I have normally lived longer than those saying that, I guess I should just accept it and shut up.

(03-09-2013 01:02 PM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(03-08-2013 05:50 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  Bama spends $36m and has the BCS titles to show for it. Money stands on the side of the big battalions. No, money does not guarantee anything... but it sure as hell makes things easier than it is when you don't have much.

so when is money too involved in the process? I think we get to simple minded about it in our discussions and we start to rationalize that money is needed to run programs and update things, but at what point to say enough is enough? I for one am sick and tired of seeing programs elevated that frankly has, at best, a middle of the road success, but because they are in a big TV market, or have more wealthy alumni, they move on because of the money.

My adoptive mother thought money was the measuring stick for almost everything. She once told me that a man we knew well, was a very good man, and then justified her statement with "because he is filthy rich" even though he made most of his money taking advantage of people who were on the edge financially, come in buy them out for a very cheap price knowing they would sell out of desperation, and then he would profit. I asked her after that statement if being "filthy rich" was the measuring stick if she thought drug dealers who had amassed a fortune were also very good because they were filthy rich? She told me not to be silly. Sadly, I think her logic has been the standard in college football, and even fans are accepting it because maybe their favorite school can buy it's way to the top.

There has to be a point where we draw a line and say if you don't earn your advancement on the field or court, then no matter your money potential you can not move on until you do.

Oh never mind, I guess I am just an old man who doesn't understand the world even though I have normally lived longer than those saying that, I guess I should just accept it and shut up.

When is $$$ too involved? See Miami with Nevin Shapiro, IMO. Sgt, you do bring up a good point about academics though. IMO, the AAU really needs a serious overhaul. It seems like to me that the AAU is like a label (like "Levi" blue jeans) and nothing more. It needs to be more like the CIC of the Big Ten or even the similar academic consortiums being established in the SEC and the ACC. The CIC is a body of the Big Ten schools plus the University of Chicago who collaborate, share, and give their faculty and their students access to all the CIC's resources. Can you imagine being able to go to Southern Miss, and being able to check out a book that was only carried at Penn State for several years? Or being able to get a Penn State's professor's notes on advanced teaching?? That's what a good AAU would be, IMO.

(03-09-2013 02:28 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-09-2013 01:02 PM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(03-08-2013 05:50 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  Bama spends $36m and has the BCS titles to show for it. Money stands on the side of the big battalions. No, money does not guarantee anything... but it sure as hell makes things easier than it is when you don't have much.

so when is money too involved in the process? I think we get to simple minded about it in our discussions and we start to rationalize that money is needed to run programs and update things, but at what point to say enough is enough? I for one am sick and tired of seeing programs elevated that frankly has, at best, a middle of the road success, but because they are in a big TV market, or have more wealthy alumni, they move on because of the money.

My adoptive mother thought money was the measuring stick for almost everything. She once told me that a man we knew well, was a very good man, and then justified her statement with "because he is filthy rich" even though he made most of his money taking advantage of people who were on the edge financially, come in buy them out for a very cheap price knowing they would sell out of desperation, and then he would profit. I asked her after that statement if being "filthy rich" was the measuring stick if she thought drug dealers who had amassed a fortune were also very good because they were filthy rich? She told me not to be silly. Sadly, I think her logic has been the standard in college football, and even fans are accepting it because maybe their favorite school can buy it's way to the top.

There has to be a point where we draw a line and say if you don't earn your advancement on the field or court, then no matter your money potential you can not move on until you do.

Oh never mind, I guess I am just an old man who doesn't understand the world even though I have normally lived longer than those saying that, I guess I should just accept it and shut up.

When is $$$ too involved? See Miami with Nevin Shapiro, IMO. Sgt, you do bring up a good point about academics though. IMO, the AAU really needs a serious overhaul. It seems like to me that the AAU is like a label (like "Levi" blue jeans) and nothing more. It needs to be more like the CIC of the Big Ten or even the similar academic consortiums being established in the SEC and the ACC. The CIC is a body of the Big Ten schools plus the University of Chicago who collaborate, share, and give their faculty and their students access to all the CIC's resources. Can you imagine being able to go to Southern Miss, and being able to check out a book that was only carried at Penn State for several years? Or being able to get a Penn State's professor's notes on advanced teaching?? That's what a good AAU would be, IMO.

Would you say money is too involved when a school goes out and buys a house for a recruits parent, the recruit a nice car? Oh by the way they don't bother to see he has money to keep gas in that car.

(03-09-2013 02:36 PM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(03-09-2013 02:28 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-09-2013 01:02 PM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(03-08-2013 05:50 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  Bama spends $36m and has the BCS titles to show for it. Money stands on the side of the big battalions. No, money does not guarantee anything... but it sure as hell makes things easier than it is when you don't have much.

so when is money too involved in the process? I think we get to simple minded about it in our discussions and we start to rationalize that money is needed to run programs and update things, but at what point to say enough is enough? I for one am sick and tired of seeing programs elevated that frankly has, at best, a middle of the road success, but because they are in a big TV market, or have more wealthy alumni, they move on because of the money.

My adoptive mother thought money was the measuring stick for almost everything. She once told me that a man we knew well, was a very good man, and then justified her statement with "because he is filthy rich" even though he made most of his money taking advantage of people who were on the edge financially, come in buy them out for a very cheap price knowing they would sell out of desperation, and then he would profit. I asked her after that statement if being "filthy rich" was the measuring stick if she thought drug dealers who had amassed a fortune were also very good because they were filthy rich? She told me not to be silly. Sadly, I think her logic has been the standard in college football, and even fans are accepting it because maybe their favorite school can buy it's way to the top.

There has to be a point where we draw a line and say if you don't earn your advancement on the field or court, then no matter your money potential you can not move on until you do.

Oh never mind, I guess I am just an old man who doesn't understand the world even though I have normally lived longer than those saying that, I guess I should just accept it and shut up.

When is $$$ too involved? See Miami with Nevin Shapiro, IMO. Sgt, you do bring up a good point about academics though. IMO, the AAU really needs a serious overhaul. It seems like to me that the AAU is like a label (like "Levi" blue jeans) and nothing more. It needs to be more like the CIC of the Big Ten or even the similar academic consortiums being established in the SEC and the ACC. The CIC is a body of the Big Ten schools plus the University of Chicago who collaborate, share, and give their faculty and their students access to all the CIC's resources. Can you imagine being able to go to Southern Miss, and being able to check out a book that was only carried at Penn State for several years? Or being able to get a Penn State's professor's notes on advanced teaching?? That's what a good AAU would be, IMO.

Would you say money is too involved when a school goes out and buys a house for a recruits parent, the recruit a nice car? Oh by the way they don't bother to see he has money to keep gas in that car.

To add to my thought a little. I recall during my days at USM I would usually hang around the athletes at Vann Hall and I can remember a starter on the football's defensive unit one day talking to some of us. He was struggling in a class and he told one of the other football players he just wanted to stay eligible and hated school. His goal was to play in the NFL and didn't see any use in being forced to keep his grades up. One player told him that he use to think that way, but he was not going to ever come close to the NFL since he would never be given a chance to be a starter, and it made him realize he should be glad that he could get an education. The starter said why don't you just transfer to a school you can start and maybe you could get in the NFL? The answer was something like because the best school in his career field he could go to was USM and now that was more important than football. The starter just shook his head and laughed. The starter turned up not making the NFL, not graduating and who knows his fate today. The other went on to graduate and last time I heard anything about him, he had a good job and was doing well.

I also knew a guy who had a dream of playing at Auburn. He was thrilled when he got and signed a scholarship to play there, but when he got on campus he was shocked to see all these new Monte Carlos in the dorm parking lot that other players got for signing at Auburn. He then found out how much that being offered to players that he felt ripped off because he signed out of love for Auburn but had to compete with others who signed just for the added benefits. He told me he was so disillusioned he never really go over it and his opinion of Auburn was devalued enough he didn't like to mention he played at Auburn.

Do these examples raise to the level of too much money in college sports?