Leaving the SEC. A case study............

[thekimmer]

Several years ago some idiotic writer in alabama pontificated that the mississippi schools should be kicked out of the SEC. That won't happen of course but ever wondered what it would happen if State did leave the SEC? Some have pontificated that we would easily become bowl eligible every year, others a descent to the bottom.

As food for thought there is a relevant case study. Ga Tech left the SEC in 1963. Like the MS schools, they had a bitter in-state rival in the same conference, UGA that they were highly competitive with. Prior to leaving the SEC the GT-UGA series was very close with GT leading 28-27-5. GT had a stadium that held 53K which was way above average for the time. UGA had a stadium that held 39K. 51 years later, the GT stadium has grown a whopping 2K to 55K. UGA's holds 94K. This despite GT being located smack in the middle of a metropolitan area of over 5 million to UGA's 166K. UGA has also since opened up a 24 game lead in the rivalry series. Now GT did not completely fall off the map having won a NC in 1990 and competed admirably in the ACC. However, clearly overall their leaving the SEC was a boon for UGA and not so much for GT.

Question is, based on this scenario, what would happen to either State or UM if they left the SEC? Thoughts?

 

[vhdawg]

As a point of order, the writer was Mike Bianchi from the Orlando Sentinel.

 

[HD6]

I think Kevin Scarbinsky also gave that piping hot take in a column.

 

[FQDawg]

Another example of a school that left the SEC is Tulane...

Trust me, we don't want to be Tulane. They almost shut down their program completely about 12 years ago. They have a brand new 30,000 seat stadium and can't even fill it for home games.

 

[thatsbaseball]

In all fairness GT`s "metropolitan" location is not an advantage IMO.

 

[thf24]

To your GT example, I think their relative stagnation has more to do with the type of school they are along with changing college demographics. They might be a little better off if they'd stayed in the SEC, but they might also be another Vanderbilt to a lesser degree.

 

[BiscuitEater]

The OP is ..

Several years ago some idiotic writer in alabama pontificated that the mississippi schools should be kicked out of the SEC. That won't happen of course but ever wondered what it would happen if State did leave the SEC? Some have pontificated that we would easily become bowl eligible every year, others a descent to the bottom.

Correct. He is talking about a September 2006 article at the University of Alabama, Crimson White and or course it was reprinted everywhere. It was written by a sophomore at Bama and turns out he is a really great guy. He gets kidded and reminded about the article frequently.

In the writer's defense .. MSU had just started the season 0-3, had not scored against South Carolina or Auburn .. and then got beat by Tulane and all three where at DWS.

Of course as many recall, State would go on to only win 3 games that season under Croon .. UAB, Jacksonville State and BAMA at Tuscaloosa.

I have a message for Mississippi State: You suck! Get out of my conference.

How about this? You leave and go to a conference where you can lose to teams such as Tulane every year.

Seriously, can we expect a team like Mississippi State to really stay in the SEC with two shutout losses and then a loss to Tulane? While they didn't lose to UAB this week, it was still too close of a game for comfort.

 

[esplanade91]

I'd be for leaving the SEC if the juice was worth the squeeze. Right now that would be somewhere north of $31mm/yr.

In 10 years when everyone has 4 divisions of 4 I don't think it'll matter.

 

[thekimmer]

OK but.........

To your GT example, I think their relative stagnation has more to do with the type of school they are along with changing college demographics. They might be a little better off if they'd stayed in the SEC, but they might also be another Vanderbilt to a lesser degree.

They were clearly competitive in the SEC at the time of their departure and had one of the largest stadiums in the conference. Had beaten UGA like 6 out of the last 10. Didn't look like a team already on the way down to me. Vandy already had sucked for years.

 

[OzarkaNSW]

Cheeeeeeesseeee! Didn't we lock you in a dumpster one time?

 

[OleMissLogo]

One problem with the GT example is that they went Independent for 15 years after leaving the SEC.

 

[PBRME]

See Southern Miss.

 

[tenureplan]

I got out

 

[patdog]

My dad always told me that GA Tech left the SEC because they wanted to be the Notre Dame of the South. That didn't quite work out the way they hoped it would.

 

[OleMissLogo]

My dad always told me that GA Tech left the SEC because they wanted to be the Notre Dame of the South. That didn't quite work out the way they hoped it would.

Most accounts show that Tech was fed up with Alabama's preferential treatment in the conference. Seems like things haven't changed.

 

[BrunswickDawg]

Most accounts show that Tech was fed up with Alabama's preferential treatment in the conference. Seems like things haven't changed.

It had to do with Bama and changes in scholarships. And Dodd hated Bear.

 

[Dawgpile]

I understand the Big 12 has an opening... Or two.

 

[tatedog]

I understand the Big 12 has an opening... Or two.

There are a few radio personalities in Memphis pimping the U of M for one of those spots on an almost daily basis. I don't see it happening but I guess Memphis' 3 hour stint in the Big East gives them hope.

 

[mstateglfr]

I wouldn't hate seeing us leave the SEC and de-emphasizing athletic spending. We are quickly becoming a sporting club that fields teams for multiple sports first and an institution of higher learning second. I say this because I cant remember the last time someone found out I went to MSU or saw me with an MSU hat and mentioned the school. For years now, they have mentioned the football program, baseball program, basketball program, or the SEC in general. Oh, and a handful have mentioned 'Rebels' because they are dumb.
I honestly cant remember the last time the university's actual reason for existence was mentioned.


Constantly trying to keep up with the Joneses in a proverbial arms race towards a bubble is beyond dumb.



I would love to be Tulane. Tulane is a world respected university in an amazing historic area of an incredibly complex city. Sure itd be cooler if their major sports programs were more competitive on a national level, but the university exists to educate first and foremost. I went to Tulane baseball, basketball, and football games when visiting my wife in college who went there. They were fun- exactly what college sports should be. The students were apathetic, but that's sorta how it is at most smaller colleges and non major universities. Drake University here is Des Moines is D1 for all sports, but they play in the Pioneer League for football, which is non-scholarship. Students go to the football games, but they also still follow ISU and UofI since if they are from Iowa they most likely grew up following the programs from one of those schools. This is similar to Tulane.


University of Chicago- they somehow have managed to survive no longer being in a major conference.
Grinnell College- they somehow have managed to survive even though they've never been in a major conference.
The list could go on and on because universities are supposed to exist to educate first and foremost.

More money towards quality faculty, student living and amenities, and student educational opportunities- The football stadium doesn't need its 5th facelift in 9 years or whatever its been.

 

[engie]

Good thing we offer an elite education like Tulane, etc... Oh, wait** How do you propose that we raise admission standards in accordance with Ayers to become this elite school?

And where do you propose this "more money" for faculty to come from? News flash -- our athletics dept is not only self-sustaining, but it is cutting checks to the university now. Big checks. It will actually probably be the single largest "donation" to the university side on more years than not. But I guess you think that the football team spending money that was given TO the football team is a terrible thing -- and that money should actually be redistributed to the university huh? Seeing how that athletics dept didn't spend $1 of state money this year.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

Tulane. Chicago. Grinnell. Notice anything about those schools? They're all private and smaller than State. Even if State wanted to become a public elite like, say, Georgia Tech, there are factors in play that will not let that happen. First, the state of Mississippi does not have a large enough and educated enough of a population to sustain an elite public. When Georgia Tech split off from the SEC, Georgia had a population of 4 million, compared to nearly 3 million in Mississippi now. Their enrollment in the 1960s was significantly smaller than it is today. Simply put, Mississippi State could not apply elite public admission criteria and admit enough students. Even if it could attract enough out-of-state talent, it would be politically untenable as the number of MS students would become unacceptably low.

It will not happen so long as the political and population situation of Mississippi remains the same. We would have to get a large influx of well educated citizens and improve the education situation for the existing population (think test scores in the top 20% of states).

 

[RebelBruiser]

There are a few radio personalities in Memphis pimping the U of M for one of those spots on an almost daily basis. I don't see it happening but I guess Memphis' 3 hour stint in the Big East gives them hope.

If the Big 12 loses a few more, then Memphis will certainly be on their radar.

However, if the Big 12 loses a few more, Texas will just bail and go independent, and the Big 12 will be what the Big East has become, just another mid-major conference with all the best leftovers from around the country.

So basically, Memphis would get to the table just in time for the table to be moved...again.

 

[thekimmer]

And back that up another step..........

Tulane. Chicago. Grinnell. Notice anything about those schools? They're all private and smaller than State. Even if State wanted to become a public elite like, say, Georgia Tech, there are factors in play that will not let that happen. First, the state of Mississippi does not have a large enough and educated enough of a population to sustain an elite public. When Georgia Tech split off from the SEC, Georgia had a population of 4 million, compared to nearly 3 million in Mississippi now. Their enrollment in the 1960s was significantly smaller than it is today. Simply put, Mississippi State could not apply elite public admission criteria and admit enough students. Even if it could attract enough out-of-state talent, it would be politically untenable as the number of MS students would become unacceptably low.

It will not happen so long as the political and population situation of Mississippi remains the same. We would have to get a large influx of well educated citizens and improve the education situation for the existing population (think test scores in the top 20% of states).

To get the influx of well educated citizens you must have the white collar jobs to attract them. But, its a catch 22. To get the jobs you need a well educated citizens. MS can't even hang onto the home grown talent. What percentage of MSU graduates have to leave the state of MS to find employment right now? Count me in that group and I have been gone now for 30 years and at this point am unlikely to ever come back nor will my children for whom somewhere else is home. So many years ago I really did not want to leave but I had no options but out of state. That story is repeated thousands of times over every year.

 

[patdog]

The Big 12 isn't losing anyone. They may expand to 12 teams, but the conference isn't going anywhere. If they do expand, and that's a pretty big if, Cincy, BYU, Central Florida would all be ahead of Memphis on the list of candidates. They should have taken Louisville when they had the chance. That's a very big miss for them.

 

[WayboDawg]

There are well paying jobs here, you just have to look, be selective, and sometimes practice patience. But no one wants to work that hard to find a job in Mississippi when others are readily found in other "more desirable" states like Texas, Virginia, and Georgia. There are a good number of jobs available in Jackson, but no one wants to live near there.

 

[mstateglfr]

I am well aware we don't currently offer an elite education. I would hope that with an increased focus on education and the student experience, the level of education would increase. Money coming from alum for education rather than for athletics would allow for more competitive staff salaries. Also, I would expect an increase in grant funded research to coincide with an increased focus on education.

I have no disillusion of us being on one of those public ivy lists, but one doesn't need to think their university will be on such a list in order to want the emphasis in college to be more about education than athletics.

College athletics as a business is just not appealing. I would feel dirty as hell if I were an AD- lying to myself and others multiple times a day.

 

[mstateglfr]

Tulane. Chicago. Grinnell. Notice anything about those schools? They're all private and smaller than State. Even if State wanted to become a public elite like, say, Georgia Tech, there are factors in play that will not let that happen. First, the state of Mississippi does not have a large enough and educated enough of a population to sustain an elite public. When Georgia Tech split off from the SEC, Georgia had a population of 4 million, compared to nearly 3 million in Mississippi now. Their enrollment in the 1960s was significantly smaller than it is today. Simply put, Mississippi State could not apply elite public admission criteria and admit enough students. Even if it could attract enough out-of-state talent, it would be politically untenable as the number of MS students would become unacceptably low.

It will not happen so long as the political and population situation of Mississippi remains the same. We would have to get a large influx of well educated citizens and improve the education situation for the existing population (think test scores in the top 20% of states).

Yeah, I know my opinion isn't popular, especially on a college sports message board, but the absurdity of it all has just boiled over. ESPN airing HS summer 7s games, constant college updates by talking heads which is all just regurgitated rumor and opinion since its the dead of summer, athletic facilities across the country in a perpetual state of construction, coaches earning millions more than just a handful of years ago- its a professional business if there ever was one.
At this point, athletics completely exist separate from education at Mississippi State. Hell, we(along with most everyone else) have lower admission standards for athletes. Come on- its Mississippi State for goodness sake, I don't want to be confused with Cowherd here, but its not like our admissions are elite and selective right now.



Mississippi State University exists to educate. If you build it, they will come. It worked for Ray Kinsella and it can work in real life. It would be nice to see an increased focus on educational excellence and recognition.

 

[johnson86-1]

Mississippi State University exists to educate. If you build it, they will come. It worked for Ray Kinsella and it can work in real life. It would be nice to see an increased focus on educational excellence and recognition.

Athletics at state doesn't require a decrease in focus on educational excellence. It's self funding and with the Ayer's decision, they can't even really hurt our admission standards. If a focus on major athletics is the problem, why isn't Delta State the best academic institution in the state? Conversely, how good of a school would Stanford be without those pesky athletics holding it back?

They're just unrelated. MSU's academics are dictated by it's public nature, its location, the economic position of the State, and the demographics of the region. All things considered, MSU's academics are pretty good. And they are almost certainly better because of athletics because they are a draw and allow us to be more competitive in attracting good students.

 

[RickyWadePhilpotDVM]

That always gets parroted but I have yet to see any evidence.

Good thing we offer an elite education like Tulane, etc... Oh, wait** How do you propose that we raise admission standards in accordance with Ayers to become this elite school?

And where do you propose this "more money" for faculty to come from? News flash -- our athletics dept is not only self-sustaining, but it is cutting checks to the university now. Big checks. It will actually probably be the single largest "donation" to the university side on more years than not. But I guess you think that the football team spending money that was given TO the football team is a terrible thing -- and that money should actually be redistributed to the university huh? Seeing how that athletics dept didn't spend $1 of state money this year.

Most of the profit generated by athletics gets reinvested in athletics. By all means, show me in the budget where I'm wrong, but almost nowhere in the country does athletic revenue get siphoned off for teachers salaries or a new library.

 

[mstateglfr]

Good point on Stanford.
It would just be nice to not be known for being in the SEC and being #1 in football for a month last season since neither of those things have anything to do with academics and instead be known for what the university exists to do- educate.

 

[patdog]

How do I know you're not serious about any of this? You post on a SPORTS message board.

 

[mstateglfr]

Well sure im serious.

I would love for college athletics to be de-emphasized across the country. I have posted about this many times over in different ways. I have called the spending and arms race a total joke. I think coaching salaries are a bubble as they cant possibly continue to increase at the % they have been over the last decade and they will fall in time. I have opined on the issue of TV contracts and paying too much when there could be less households covering the costs of ESPN in their homes.

I still love watching MSU play, even though I would like to see major college football and basketball take a step back from their current paths to minor leagues.

 

[johnson86-1]

I would love for college athletics to be de-emphasized across the country.

I would like for college sports to be amateur sports again, but there's not really a way to put the genie back in the bottle. And you can't really love college sports and not contribute to them becoming professional sports. Even if you said you weren't going to spend another dime on State athletics, if you still liked it enough to come came to a message board and post or watch games on tv, you're a potential revenue source, which means there is money to be made and somebody will find a way to do it.

 

[engie]

Most of the profit generated by athletics gets reinvested in athletics. By all means, show me in the budget where I'm wrong, but almost nowhere in the country does athletic revenue get siphoned off for teachers salaries or a new library.

I missed where I said "most of the profit generated by athletics is redistributed to academics" or anything remotely like that.

https://hailstatebeat.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/msu-investing-in-students-with-sec-revenue-boost/

Showing where our ad is fully self-sufficient and giving back at least $1mil to academics this year.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

I would love for college athletics to be de-emphasized across the country.

One could argue that non-participatory athletics need to be de-emphasized. If people replaced half the amount of time they watch sports with moderate exercise we would cut obesity rates by well over half.