The baseball 3rd coach officially failed...
- Thread starter 57stratdawg
- Start date
I do not really care until they figure out how to give them scholarships. It is criminal at this point.
I know it is a Title 9 issue. I do not have to hear that once again.
You cannot tell me that you cannot create another system in which to give baseball more scholarships. Fund women's gymnastics if you have to. This is entirely bureaucratic.
I know it is a Title 9 issue. I do not have to hear that once again.
You cannot tell me that you cannot create another system in which to give baseball more scholarships. Fund women's gymnastics if you have to. This is entirely bureaucratic.
Yeah. You could easily just add more scholarships to softball. The simple fact is the NCAA and most of the conferences would rather hold baseball back and keep it a minor sport than let it be something people might want to watch. Surprising and disappointing that even the Big 12 and ACC fall into that category. I guess the SEC really is the only conference that gives a **** about baseball.
Semi-related question: Doesn't Bama have an insane number of jobs/roles/assistants on their staff? Have the rules changed to allow that? Or was there never a rule in place about off field coaches and they just have the revenue to support the inflated staff?
ETA: I'd love to hear Cohen's take on this in the booth tonight.
ETA: I'd love to hear Cohen's take on this in the booth tonight.
Last edited:
What’s the opposition?
It’s not any money. It’s not mandatory. If your school doesn’t care about baseball, who cares? Why not?
It’s not any money. It’s not mandatory. If your school doesn’t care about baseball, who cares? Why not?
Aaron Fitt has these same questions.
https://d1baseball.com/columns/fitt-defeat-of-third-assistant-plan-deals-college-baseball-a-major-blow/
https://d1baseball.com/columns/fitt-defeat-of-third-assistant-plan-deals-college-baseball-a-major-blow/
Basically they already have the 3rd assistant as a volunteer coach but they don't get any type of real benefits like insurance and retirement. They also can't recruit off campus. The ratio of athletes to coaches is really crappy and that is before a coach is on the road recruiting during practices.
I think it boils down to some schools don't want to spend money if they don't have to. It is similar to how Bama has an insane amount of support staff and analysts that other schools can't afford. They also use former NFL players in practices so there is a competitive advantage there.
Most of the smaller schools just looked at it by the coaches at those schools want the jobs for their profession more than the issue that they might be at a slight disadvantage against schools with the money to add the positions.
I agree, I think it will get there, as the sport grows. The streaming market and networks are great for college baseball. I think we are on the precipice of a huge amount of growth. Kid baseball participation is up, travel ball is insane, seems baseball is making a comeback after it was dealt a huge amount of blows in the 90s and early 00s, combined with football peaking, and making the mistakes that go with that.
Last edited:
But the smaller schools that voted for it; it was the Big10 and Big12 that voted it down. How much will the 3rd coach make at Purdue or Iowa State? $100k? Their budgets are $80M+.
They don’t care about baseball anyway, so don’t hire a third coach. Why do they care if the SEC pays big bucks for that third coach when you don’t compete anyway?
I don’t get it. There’s got to be a logical reason other than “I don’t like you, so I’m voting against what you want.”
Because it makes an unlevel playing field for schools within the same conference (and nationally) when one school doesn’t want to hire the 3rd coach and others do. That would turn into a revolving door position at the “have not” schools where any good coaches would get poached by those that approved the 3rd coach. The end result would be that every school would have to staff that position for competitive reasons, even if they didn’t want to.
Iowa State voted for it, Per Kendall Rogers, and they don’t even field a baseball team (they do have softball). If you want to blame someone in the Big XII, aim towards Texas and Tech.
This is just 17ing Moronic and it is not a Title 9 issue. The Power 5 Conferences totally control the vote and should have tons of cash. Add a coach for baseball and one for any one women's sport, the same logic would apply for additional baseball scholarships. There is not a logical reason that the Big 12 & the Big 10 and maybe even the ACC voted against the extra coach.
That makes even less sense. Texas and Texas Tech are great at baseball and have good fan support for the sport.
Texas is the wealthiest school in the NCAA with a budget over $200M. Texas Tech is Top 50 with a budget around $90M.
I can’t think of a single reason to vote against it other than, “we don’t like the schools that are for it.”
Could this be a Texas-hates-TexasA&M thing? What about Big10? Why are they against it? They hate the SEC?
No one caring is one part of it, the additional (and perhaps more important component) is that just about everyone (including MSU) is losing money on college baseball. And the additional coach is just another $150k - $200k in the red for schools to strap their budgets with.
This article is from less than 2 years ago, and illustrates how big of a money pit college baseball is as a whole. The SEC is by far and away the biggest revenue generator of all conferences for baseball, and you still only have 2 of the 14 schools making anything close to a substantial profit.
- LSU and A&M are the only ones doing somewhat well, each making over $1 million per year.
- 9 of 14 schools are in the red
- 3 of the 14 are more or less at a break even point: Vandy, OM, and Arkansas
- MSU was losing $1.28 million per year, and is no doubt losing more now until the new stadium is paid off.
- The sum total of cash flow for the 14 schools is -$17.1 MILLION per year. That’s for the most popular college baseball league in the country, folks. Imagine what it is for the Big 10, PAC 12, and other smaller conferences.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...5edd22c0-465c-11e7-8b99-c709d5eb08c1.amp.html
Last edited:
Of course Iowa State voted for it. What do they have to lose? They have no team, and they can both avoid rocking the boat and push forward legislation that forces other Big XII schools to divert resources away from sports they do compete in and towards one that they don’t. I would expect every school that didn’t have a team to be in favor of it.
But that doesn’t mean that was everyone’s opinion. The no’s outweighed the yes’s by a good margin. Only legit reason out there is that those schools didn’t want the 3rd coach for financial reasons, and didn’t want to be forced into hiring one to remain competitive at the highest level.
I think it will show most leagues voting yes but that didnt mean passage. It was more
complicated. Be interesting to see the final tallies
edited: i stand corrected on most leagues being a yes. Thats unclear. But i think most of the G5 will and the southland was a hnanimous yes as well. At the end of the day it was killed by schools that can afford this
complicated. Be interesting to see the final tallies
edited: i stand corrected on most leagues being a yes. Thats unclear. But i think most of the G5 will and the southland was a hnanimous yes as well. At the end of the day it was killed by schools that can afford this
Last edited by a moderator:
You are crazy. The coverage has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 10 years alone.
That is not true. MSU makes money on baseball. Cohen outlined the whole thing a few weeks ago.
Outlined what whole thing? You got a link that shows the actual dollars and cents? Why don’t you elaborate on how a published article in a major news outlet that itemizes the revenue and expenses of every SEC school is somehow wrong?
Last edited:
The number of outlets has grown by leaps and bounds but that doesn’t necessarily mean viewership has skyrocketed.
I’m sure there is some data out there that would show whether it has or it hasn’t.
I was shocked that 50% of schools don't even use the full 11.7. Going to be hard to get more than 11.7 when half the schools aren't even using what's available.
We are bringing in more revenue with the new stadium. We also have huge short term debt obligation that outweighs that increased revenue. Once the debt is gone, I expect our margins will look like LSU and A&M, but right now they certainly do not. And overall, the point is that SEC baseball and college baseball as a whole are aggregate money losers. MSU going from losing $1.28 million per year to making $1.5ish million per year doesn’t change that in the slightest.
Anyway, my original statement stands. Provide a retort if you wish.
You still need to rethink it. So you think we’re the only one that didn’t pay cash for our stadium? And just how short term do you think those bonds were for?
This is why we need to split Div. I into 2 divisions for baseball like we do with football. Let Div. I-A have say 18 scholarships (I'd really like 25 but I'm trying to be realistic) and a 3rd full time coach. And then let the schools that don't really care about baseball continue with what we have now.
The only ones who didn’t pay cash? Are you trying to say we just came up with $68 million of straight cash and no debt? And that’s what “everybody” does?
The original borrowing plan in 2017 at the previous $55 million price tag was for $30 million to be financed, or 55% of the total cost. See link below. There’s a good chance that had to be amended to a slightly higher number once the total ballooned up to $68 million. But, I’m somewhat speculating there.....maybe we came up with another $13 million in donations that wasn’t public knowledge.
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/st...n-for-mississippi-state-baseball-stadium.html
As far as the bonds, I’m not going to pretend to know the full specifics on every bond issued out. But most times for large projects like ours, it is a mixture of short term and long term bonds, with some of the debt being financed by 5-10 year bonds. That is the short term debt I was referring to.
Last edited:
I’m saying that no one just cut a check for theirs. You are on the right trail on the bonds — which correlate to the seating licenses and renewals on the stadium.
The bottom line is — as dictated by common sense — you don’t build something like we built for it to take up the whole effective life of the stadium before it starts making money. It’s making us money, and has been since everyone sent the first $500 when it broke ground 2 years ago.
By voting no, there isn’t even the OPTION of paying a 3rd assistant, so these poontang AD’s won’t have to look their coaches in the eyes and say “no, I’m not letting you hire a 3rd assistant.”
Just weak as hell.
Just weak as hell.
Of course not. But it’s not like they just print money from Day 1 either. It’s not uncommon at all to have a 3-5 year ROI period for huge stadium projects. If it was that easy to build the most expensive stadium in college baseball history and still make money right away, basically every SEC team would build a new park every 10 years or so. See more detail on this below.
OK let’s take that $500 per seat and multiply it by the 4,800 or so chairbacks, that gives you $2.4 million. Let’s add about $600k to that in commitments for skyboxes, Omaha Club, backstop club, etc. and that puts it at $3 million in pre-groundbreaking commitments. That still leaves $27 million in debt service, at minimum. I’m gonna roll with your assumption and say that the $3 million entirely offsets the short term debt, so let’s put the rest of that $27 million on 30-year bonds at 3%. The math on that works out to having to pay out $1.71 million per year towards that long term debt to meet the bond obligations ($900k principal + $810,000 coupon rate each year) and all of that has to come from ticket sales, lounges, lofts, and donations.
In 2016, we yielded about $1.35 million in ticket sales / donation / commitment revenue in the old stadium, and were $1.28 million in the hole each year around that time. So, for your theory to be true, we would have to increase the sales / donation revenue from $1.35 million to almost $4.35 million per season from day one (more than triple the previous annual revenue for ticket sales / donations...with a stadium that seats slightly fewer people). That number is reached by adding the $1.71 million number to the $1.28 million previously to get to the breakeven point. And again, that is assuming that the borrowed amount didn’t go up at all when we added $13 million in additional cost to the project after the initial trustee borrowing approval. Did the annual revenue go up substantially with the new park? Yes. Did it more than triple, in a smaller stadium? I very highly doubt it.
The more plausible explanation is that the seating commitments covered some (but not nearly all) of the short term debt, with a lot more short term debt being taken on to borrow at a lower rate. We then probably paid off the rest (or plan to pay off the rest) out of SECN money, football revenue, existing cash on hand, or some combination of the above. We will pay the balance of the short term debt over the next 5 years or so (max), probably only putting $10-$15 million in long term bonds. That would give us much lower total liability over time, even if it doesn’t look great on the balance sheet for the next few years.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you heard but this is incorrect. We do not. We think we will at some point in the future but not at present we do NOT.