 |
|
Mizzou, Bama and Clemson
Posted on: October 3, 2021 at 11:28:05 CT
ScottsdaleTiger MU
Posts:
12769
Member For:
26.44 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
The states of Missouri, Alabama and South Carolina have approximate populations of 6.2 million, 4.8 million and 4.7 million respectively.
Mizzou is the only Power Five program in Missouri. Alabama has two, Bama and Auburn. South Carolina has two, Clemson and South Carolina.
Mizzou spends about 25-30 million a year on football. Bama spenbs about 50 millon and Clemson about 40 million.
What does the extra money buy Bama and Clemson? Part of the answer is more staff. Yes, the NCAA rules limit the size of the "coaching staff", but they don't limit "analysts", "graduate assistants", etc. This "additional staff" allows the coaches at Bama and Clemson to concentrate on the most important aspects of their jobs, namely coaching the players to perfrom at game time. They don't have to spend as much time doing less productive tasks. The "analysts" deal with those tasks. The "analysts" also allow more total work to be done by the staff, i.e. looking at more game film of opponents, more detailed analysis of opponents, etc. In recruiting it allows more and more detailed analysis of potential recruits.
The extra money also buys additional bells and whistles.
If the Tiger Athletic Department really wants a football sprogram that is a legitimate threat to win the SEC more often than not, it has to find a way to generate additional funding, probably essentially a doubling of the current level of football expenditures, i.e. 45 to 50 million a year rather than 25 million.
And the additional expenditures have to be "Mizzou only" expenditures. A 25 million a year increase for every SEC program doesn't change Mizzou's relative position vis a vie the rest of the SEC. And its the relative position that has to be changed.
I have no feel for whether Drinkwitz is the next Dabo Swinney or not. But I am certain that unless the support for Tiger football is dramatically increased, all that we'll see is more of the same, that's a winning record thanks to non-conference games against lesser programs and watching the SEC playoffs from our tv sets.
The source of the extra money is in one way or another the fan bases. If Mizzou wanta a "Bama", "Clemson" type of football program, it has to provide increased funding and that means the fanbase has to come to the party.
Mizzou is the only Power Five program in Missouri. Alabama has two, Bama and Auburn. South Carolina has two, Clemson and South Carolina.
Mizzou spends about 25-30 million a year on football. Bama spenbs about 50 millon and Clemson about 40 million.
What does the extra money buy Bama and Clemson? Part of the answer is more staff. Yes, the NCAA rules limit the size of the "coaching staff", but they don't limit "analysts", "graduate assistants", etc. This "additional staff" allows the coaches at Bama and Clemson to concentrate on the most important aspects of their jobs, namely coaching the players to perfrom at game time. They don't have to spend as much time doing less productive tasks. The "analysts" deal with those tasks. The "analysts" also allow more total work to be done by the staff, i.e. looking at more game film of opponents, more detailed analysis of opponents, etc. In recruiting it allows more and more detailed analysis of potential recruits.
The extra money also buys additional bells and whistles.
If the Tiger Athletic Department really wants a football sprogram that is a legitimate threat to win the SEC more often than not, it has to find a way to generate additional funding, probably essentially a doubling of the current level of football expenditures, i.e. 45 to 50 million a year rather than 25 million.
And the additional expenditures have to be "Mizzou only" expenditures. A 25 million a year increase for every SEC program doesn't change Mizzou's relative position vis a vie the rest of the SEC. And its the relative position that has to be changed.
I have no feel for whether Drinkwitz is the next Dabo Swinney or not. But I am certain that unless the support for Tiger football is dramatically increased, all that we'll see is more of the same, that's a winning record thanks to non-conference games against lesser programs and watching the SEC playoffs from our tv sets.
The source of the extra money is in one way or another the fan bases. If Mizzou wanta a "Bama", "Clemson" type of football program, it has to provide increased funding and that means the fanbase has to come to the party.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Mizzou, Bama and Clemson - ScottsdaleTiger MU - 10/3 11:28:05