Stoops gets another raise.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Wow.  That's all you need to hear, huh?   I'd like to hear WHO the opponents where, and how they performed ATS.   And, if YOU would read more, you would understand that I place ALL THREE in the powerhouse catagory, which they are.   Auburn went UNDEFEATED 13-0 playing in the SEC in 2004, and that was anything but a flash in the pan season. 

It doesn't matter who the opponents were, they were all BCS level team from BCS level conferences. If you want to measure between the two conferences you have to have a common measurable. You can't use in-conference games because as we all know, the SEC is the more competitive of the two week in and week out. You can't measure by Div I-AA(FCS) teams or Div II teams that each played because then you get into an argument and assessment of how strong each of those teams were. Using OOC BCS Conf. teams that each have played, and the results of those games over an extended period of time, is the only feasible and common measuring stick. I did that and as I said, it does show that the SEC is the strongest of the two(which we already knew). But it also shows that the top half of both conferences are not that far apart.

That being said, Georgia and LSU have been far more successful vs. BCS OOC opponents than anyone in either of the conferences. But Texas, Nebraska and OU all sit above Tennessee, and Missouri has essentially become the Tennessee of the Big 12.

K-State has had better success over OOC BCS opponents than Alabama has and Iowa State(of all schools...unbelieveable) comes in just between Alabama and Vandy in terms of success in these type games.

And don't come with that, "Oh yeah? Who did they play?" Look at both conferences records vs. OOC BCS teams.

Pac 10-        Big 12: .511   SEC: .476
Big Ten-       Big 12: .581   SEC: .593
Big East-      Big 12: .455   SEC: .452
ACC-           Big 12: .429   SEC: .595
Averages-              .494           .529

How about the MWC?
                  Big 12: .667   SEC:  .600

So the bottom line is that at least in the top 6 in each conference, there may be an ebb and flow where some teams advance for a time and then regress and do less well, but there is still little difference between the two. The SEC is still the stronger of the two conferences week in and week out in regard to in-conference games(or at least the teams are closer in terms of talent and abilities), but they are very similar in the one common criteria that both can be measured by and that is the OOC BCS opponents they each play.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Great question, Wilson.  Glad you asked. Some "GREAT" coaches, in my opinion:

Meyer
Saban
Carroll
Bryant
Paterno
Switzer
Wilkenson
Royal
Osborne
Robinson
Bowden

"Great" is not limited to current.  "Great" means among the best ever, to me.  Is Stoops one of those?  Not yet, imo.

But wait, you said earlier that Stoops shouldn't be considered "great" because of the school he is at and that should make it so easy "anyone" could do it. Yet everyone you just named coached at schools that fall into that same category of a top notch, storied program with great history.

Based on your criteria, none of these guys should be considered either because of where they coach. "Anyone" should be able to win a lot of games and make it to NCG/BCS games that coach at these schools...right? I mean you named two coaches each from USC, OU and Alabama  and then one coach each from Texas, Penn State, Florida State, Florida and Nebraska.

If that is your criteria, what about Ohio State under both Woody Hayes and Jim Tressel? They have had 7 BCS appearances since the inception of that system and are 4-3 in those games even though they lost two NCG's.

One might have to add Stoops under the most recent version of your criteria because OU, like USC and Ohio State, have been to BCS games seven times, even though they are only 2-5 in those games.

You have Bowden at Florida State on your list, who has been to six BCS Bowls, yet he is only 1-5 in those games. Penn State has been to two BCS games and is 1-1.

And you know, I don't disagree with your list, it is a good list and I agree that they are all great coaches. What I do disagree with is your ever-moving target of measurables that decide who is and who is not, a great coach.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I thought you were smarter than this.  What you consider an "ever-moving taget of measurables" is actually different methods of trying to demonstrate the same point to what appears to be a mentally challenged audience.

If that is all you took from that post and all that you choose to respond to, then that just makes my point. You thought I was smarter than this? I pose some legitimate questions about your parameters and all you can come back with is to insult Hogville posters intelligence? Apparently I am smart enough to see the holes in your theory and since it sounds like you don't have a good answer, as I said, point made.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Ok... 
1. How many teams would you call POWERHOUSES in the Big12 over the last decade?  
2. How many teams would you call POWERHOUSES in the SEC over the last decade?
3. Which teams have consistently challenged OU for the big12 championship over the last decade?
4.  Which teams have consistently challenged for the the SEC championship over the last decade?

And again, when confronted with solid logic, instead of answering, you try to go a different direction and change the criteria/parameters. Just try answering the questions posed. If you are going to debate an issue and make your point, it is helpful if you don't take off in a different direction every time you can't answer a question.

[The Hogfather]

You know Hogfather, I really do like you, but dude, you have a way of making things up to make your posts seem more legit than they really are. This is not unusual...many of the media do the exact same thing to make themselves look smarter than they are(Hog media excepted)...maybe you have an untapped calling?

I never said that the Big 12 was the best conference in the country last year. You made that up.

You are indeed regurgitating the same stats over and over and no, I didn't ignore them, I acknowledged them and agreed that Stoops has way underachieved in bowl games. Again, something you made up.

I said earlier in this thread that being a great HC in Div I today takes a lot more than just coaching. What he is responsible for is . His greatest failing, as I stated earlier, was that he was overly and exceedingly loyal to his staff and often errs in keeping some members of his staff longer than he should when they fail to make their individual units produce or fail to get them ready for big games. His brother was the guy he really brought all fo that together at Oklahoma and again, as I said before, OU has not been the same since Mike Stoops left. Ultimately, the responsibility for success or failure falls on the shoulders of the HC, as it should. I said all of this, so you and I are not that far apart in our analysis of the situation. It is just that you and Nolan think that if a coach gets to the BCS 6 times and doesn't win all 6 or doesn't win 5 of 6, he isn't a great coach. We just disagree.

Would you say that Phil Mickelson is a great golfer? He has finished 2nd in major tournaments 5 times. Does that make him just a "good" golfer and not a "great" golfer?

How about Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer or Ben Hogan? They each finished 2nd in the Majors 4 times. Are they just "good but not great" golfers as well?

There is no doubt that being at Oklahoma in an established and storied program makes the recruiting of quality athletes much easier. But if you think the pressure cooker is any less at Oklahoma to win than at Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, LSU or Arkansas...you are dreaming. You still have to win. And of course the Big 12 schedule isn't as difficult as the SEC schedule is week in and week out. No one said it was. Oklahoma does benefit from that but keep in mind that the success of OU, Texas, Texas Tech, Missouri, Kansas and soon to be Nebraska, has "upped the ante" in the Big 12 and has improved recruiting overall throughout the conference, which makes it ever more difficult. Not SEC difficult at this point, but it is getting stronger.

Now this is a rational response to your post. I challenge you to try to be as rational in response to me, without having to make things up to support your argument.

I didn't say that you said the Big XII was the best conference last year.  I didn't even imply such.  I said that Joe Public thought they were the best conference last year and were proven wrong, in my opinion.

On a separate issue, Joe Public also thinks Bob Stoops is such a great coach because of his gaudy regular season record and BCS bowl and National Championship game APPEARANCES.  Joe Public is wrong on this issue as well.  This gets shown a little more everytime Oklahoma is matched up against a legitimate opponent at the end of the year.

You are only acknowledging the 2-5 in BCS bowl games and 0-5 in his last 5 as a passing comment.  "Yeah, Stoops has underachieved in bowl games, BUT....."

That's the difference between you and I.  You like to basically skim over things like 2-5 in BCS bowl games and say "yeah, but".  Well, of course it is easy to say Stoops is a great coach if you overlook things like his horrible record against BCS bowl game opponents, the games that provide the most evenly matched teams, outside of the National Championship game (unless Oklahoma plays USC).  These are the games where coaching, preparation, and strategy are most important.  These are the games where Stoops fails.

Please don't use golf as an attempt to provide an analogy.  If Mickelson, Hogan, Nicklaus, or Palmer were playing one on one with another player and finished with a 2-5 record in those matches, then you would have an argument.  These guys compete with over 100 other players when trying to win these matches.  Stoops' teams are playing one other team when they get to these bowl games.  So, he's finishing 2nd out of 2 consistently.  And please don't give me the "he finished 2nd out of 117 teams in college football...." argument.  We've already established that Oklahoma has distinct advantages over all other teams in the Big XII besides Texas.  That makes it easier for them to get to BCS bowl games and National Championship games. 

Yes, being a great coach these days means doing more than just coaching.  Ok, he brings in great coaches to surround himself with, and then uses those great coaches to GO 2-5 IN BCS BOWL GAMES (including 0-5 in his last 5) and 1-3 IN NC GAMES (including 0-3 in his last 3).  Yes, he's a great recruiter.  He brings in enough talent to dominate a weakER-than-his-team conference and then get his arse kicked when matched-up with comparable teams in the postseason.  And, again, you are simply passing over important pieces of information, as to not disturb your argument.  You say a great coach must "get the best coaching crew put together that he can and then monitoring and managing the overall process" and then you admit that he hasn't done a great job of it because he's " overly and exceedingly loyal to his staff and often errs in keeping some members of his staff longer than he should when they fail to make their individual units produce or fail to get them ready for big games".  So, he's causing his teams to fail in big games by keeping staff that he shouldn't keep?

Yeah, but.........he's great.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I didn't say that you said the Big XII was the best conference last year.  I didn't even imply such.  I said that Joe Public thought they were the best conference last year and were proven wrong, in my opinion.

On a seperate issue, Joe Public also thinks Bob Stoops is such a great coach because of his gaudy regular season record and BCS bowl and National Championship game APPEARANCES.  Joe Public is wrong on this issue as well.  This gets shown a little more everytime Oklahoma is matched up against a legitimate opponent at the end of the year.

You are only acknowleding the 2-5 in BCS bowl games and 0-5 in his last 5 as a passing comment.  "Yeah, Stoops has underacheived in bowl games, BUT....."

That's the difference between you and I.  You like to basically skim over things like 2-5 in BCS bowl games and say "yeah, but".  Well, of course it is easy to say Stoops is a great coach if you overlook things like his horrible record against BCS bowl game opponents, the games that provide the most evenly matched teams, outside of the National Championship game (unless Oklahoma plays USC).  These are the games where coaching, preparation, and strategy are most important.  These are the games where Stoops fails.

Please don't use golf as an attempt to provide an analogy.  If Mickelson, Hogan, Nicklaus, or Palmer were playing one on one with another player and finished with a 2-5 record in those matches, then you would have an argument.  These guys compete with over 100 other players when trying to win these matches.  Stoops' teams are playing one other team when they get to these bowl games.  So, he's finishing 2nd out of 2 consistently.  And please don't give me the "he finished 2nd out of 117 teams in college football...." argument.  We've already established that Oklahoma has distinct advantages over all other teams in the Big XII besides Texas.  That makes it easier for them to get to BCS bowl games and National Championship games. 

Yes, being a great coach these days means doing more than just coaching.  Ok, he brings in great coaches to surround himself with, and then GO 2-5 IN BCS BOWL GAMES and 1-3 IN NC GAMES.  Yes, he's a great recruiter.  He brings in enough talent to dominate a weakER-than-his-team conference and then get his arse kicked when matched-up with comparable teams in the postseason.  And, again, you are simply passing over important pieces of information, as to not disturb your argument.  You say a great coach must "get the best coaching crew put together that he can and then monitoring and managing the overall process" and then you admit that he hasn't done a great job of it because he's " overly and exceedingly loyal to his staff and often errs in keeping some members of his staff longer than he should when they fail to make their individual units produce or fail to get them ready for big games".  So, he's causing his teams to fail in big games by keeping staff that he shouldn't keep?

Yeah, but.........he's great.

It's nice to have a logical discussion. I appreciate that.

AllI am saying is that there is a lot that goes into passing judgement as to whether a coach is "great" or not. I agree that Stoops, most of the time anyway, basically has one team to beat to get to the Big 12 CG and that usually, the Big 12 North most of the time offers little competition. As with any conference, I believe the strength of any two divisions, or of any conference, ebbs and flows. Auburn has been fairly steadily a top 6 team in the SEC, but then look at last year. Alabama, as an example, has only a .500 win percentage vs. OOC BCS level opponents since the inception of the SEC as we know it today...yet, look at them last year. Look at Florida prior to Urban Meyer. Not trying to compare apples to oranges here, just sayin that the strength of teams changes over time.

Missouri wasn't much in the Big 12 before Pinkel showed up and whether we had an interim staff or not, they cleaned our clock in the Cotton Bowl. Look at Texas A&M...want to talk about how the mighty have fallen? For ten seasons in a row beginning in 1990, A&M won 9 or more games 8 times and 6 of those times were 10 win or greater seasons. Since the beginning of the 2000 season, they haven't done much. Ebbs and flows...it happens. But I digress.

On the strength of his win percentage, I do think that Stoops has done a good job and could be considered a great "regular season" coach. He is not a great "bowl season" coach if you measure by bowl wins. That's just my opinion.

And I agree about the loyalty factor, as I said above, a coach can't use that as an excuse and ultimately he is the one who is held responsible. And frankly, I don't think you would find many OU fans that wouldn't agree with you that they have had more than enough talent to have had greater success in the BCS bowls in which they have been involved.

And HF, you know better than to say something like I "skimmed over" anything. We have said it here many times and yes, we all know that Stoops is 2-5 in BCS bowls. That's fact. But they have nonetheless gotten there even though in my opinion, once there, they have failed miserably.

One question though. If Arkansas had been to 7 BCS bowls since 1999 under Bobby Petrino and only come away with a 2-5 record in those games, would we say that BP hadn't done a great job as a coach? I think maybe we just expect more from a program like OU than we expect for ourselves. Hopefully that will change soon.

[The Hogfather]

It's nice to have a logical discussion. I appreciate that.

Agreed.

But I digress.

Majorly.

On the strength of his win percentage, I do think that Stoops has done a good job and could be considered a great "regular season" coach. He is not a great "bowl season" coach if you measure by bowl wins. That's just my opinion.

Agreed.  However, I think where our opinions differ substantially is how we utilize that bowl record to draw conclusions.  I use his 2-5 BCS bowl game record as an indication that he is not as great as he is made out to be.  MAINLY due to the fact that I think BCS bowl games are USUALLY (not always---see UGA-Hawaii) the most evenly matched games of the entire season.  These are the games in which I think preparation, strategy, and in-game coaching are MOST IMPORTANT.  These are teams that OU doesn't necessarily have an advantage over, like the majority of the teams in the conference they play in (and build Stoops' gaudy regular season record against).

And I agree about the loyalty factor, as I said above, a coach can't use that as an excuse and ultimately he is the one who is held responsible. And frankly, I don't think you would find many OU fans that wouldn't agree with you that they have had more than enough talent to have had greater success in the BCS bowls in which they have been involved.

Again, pointing to the fact that he's not as great as he is made out to be by the media/OU fans/casual college football fans.

And HF, you know better than to say something like I "skimmed over" anything. We have said it here many times and yes, we all know that Stoops is 2-5 in BCS bowls. That's fact. But they have nonetheless gotten there even though in my opinion, once there, they have failed miserably.

My entire point is that OU has an advantage over everyone not named Texas in their conference, so it is easy to build up gaudy regular season records against inferior opponents and get to BCS bowl games or NC games EVERY YEAR.

One question though. If Arkansas had been to 7 BCS bowls since 1999 under Bobby Petrino and only come away with a 2-5 record in those games, would we say that BP hadn't done a great job as a coach? I think maybe we just expect more from a program like OU than we expect for ourselves. Hopefully that will change soon.

I've already said that I would love to start going to BCS bowl games regularly.  But, unfortunately, OU has been on a different college football plateau than Arkansas for basically its entire existence.  That sucks to say, but it's true.

Also, if Bobby Petrino took us to 7 BCS bowls in 10 years as our coach, I would MOST DEFINITELY expect more than 2 wins in those 7 games.  And you better believe that I would be questioning some aspects of his coaching, etc.  I wouldn't be wanting him fired or anything.  But, there would be some questioning going on for sure.  If you are good enough to get there, you are good enough to win.  0-5 in his last 5 is just horrible.

[NWASooner]

I would MOST DEFINITELY expect more than 2 wins in those 7 games.

What if 1 of those 2 were a national championship?  You'd sell 10 years of bowl mediocrity for one crystal football.

As an OU fan, I'm as dismayed at our recent bowl record as much as anyone.  My personal theory is that is has to do with Mike Stoops leaving.  When he was at OU, our defensive backfield (LB's and DB's) hit people and they went down.  As a result, we won big games.  Over the last 5 years, if the ball carrier gets past the defensive line, it's over.  Tons of missed tackles and open WR's.  (The Florida game went exactly like I thought it would and the West Virginia game was a horrible matchup with their quick, shifty RB's.)  Until OU's defensive backfield learns to stop people, 3 yard runs will keep being 9 yard runs and we'll keep losing bowl games.  What gets me is Bob is a good defensive coach is his own right so I'm confused on why this still happens.

That being said, to say Bob Stoops is anything but in the top tier of coaches right now is silly.

[The Hogfather]

What if 1 of those 2 were a national championship?  You'd sell 10 years of bowl mediocrity for one crystal football.

Yes, but Arkansas is not Oklahoma.  Oklahoma claims 6 AP National Championships before Stoops and 8 other non-AP National Championships before him as well.  Stop trying to bring Arkansas into this.  This is about Stoops and OKLAHOMA.  We are in completely different situations, as I'm sure you would freely admit.

As an OU fan, I'm as dismayed at our recent bowl record as much as anyone.  My personal theory is that is has to do with Mike Stoops leaving.  When he was at OU, our defensive backfield (LB's and DB's) hit people and they went down.  As a result, we won big games.  Over the last 5 years, if the ball carrier gets past the defensive line, it's over.  Tons of missed tackles and open WR's.  (The Florida game went exactly like I thought it would and the West Virginia game was a horrible matchup with their quick, shifty RB's.)  Until OU's defensive backfield learns to stop people, 3 yard runs will keep being 9 yard runs and we'll keep losing bowl games.  What gets me is Bob is a good defensive coach is his own right so I'm confused on why this still happens.

So, maybe Mike Stoops is the great coach?

That being said, to say Bob Stoops is anything but in the top tier of coaches right now is silly.

He's only considered to be in the top tier of coaches right now because he's at OU.  He's not a top tier coach.  He's a decent coach in charge of a top tier program.  Again, this is just my opinion.

[Hornkiller]

Geez Hogfather... I can understand you raggin on Stoops for 1-3 in the title game but

Tom Osborne couldn't win the big one for the longest time
Bobby Bowden couldn't beat Miami in the 80's and still has a losing record in NC games
Spurier couldn't get past Bowden for the longest time and got drilled the first time he got a shot at the crystal
Even Pete Carrol lost a shot a national title to a coach most Hog fans consider average

Would you not say those coaches aren't great coaches? Is Urban any less of a coach because his team lost 4 games between national titles, including a bowl game to Michigan?

I'm just amazed at how high the bar is these days. Stoops and Tressel aren't great coaches because they're 1-3 and 1-2 in national title games. I see the Hogfather's point, but to me it's like dating 4 hot cheerleaders but only getting one in the sack and then hearing smack from your boys who nailed the goth chick or the flute player. Ain't the same standards of success were comparing ourselves to is it?

[Hornkiller]

I'm bored, I'll give it a crack.

.
True or False:   Auburn, LSU, and Alabama have been the only consistent competitors for the SEC West title over the last decade.

True or False:  Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida have been the only consistent competitors for the SEC East title over the last decade.

True or False:  Texas and OU have been the only consistent competitors for the Big12 South title over the last decade.

True or False:  There has been NO consistent competitor for the Big12 North title over the last decade.

A. False, Arkansas won the west a few times

B. True... Vandy, Kentucky and USC have had some nice runs, but none have been to Atlanta for the CCG.

C. True, even though Tech and A&M has stirred the pot a few times. (Texas beat OU but later losses cost the Horns the Big XII south title in 05 and 07)

D. False, Colorado won the North in 01,02,04 and 05. Granted the average 8.5 wins during that run isn't rarified air... but you can't say they didn't dominate early in the decade.

[NWASooner]

Have you noticed that all the "great" coaches are always at football schools that are "easy" to win at?  Do you think that's a coincidence? 

Have you also noticed that those schools that are "easy" to win at have a long list of coaches that didn't win there?

If you think Bob Stoops is a 2nd tier coach, name 5-10 that are better.

[hawgsav1]

Have you noticed that all the "great" coaches are always at football schools that are "easy" to win at?  Do you think that's a coincidence? 

Have you also noticed that those schools that are "easy" to win at have a long list of coaches that didn't win there?

If you think Bob Stoops is a 2nd tier coach, name 5-10 that are better.

might want to add some reasoning behind their picks. 

[MuskogeeHogFan]

You are a trip, man.  A freaking trip.  All I am doing is making the argument that OU has a much easier path to the BCS than any SEC team.  I am trying different ways to make you see that, but you are simply too DENSE.   Answer the questions and you will understand, goofus.

Look DH, all you do is go shopping around for arguments and when people don't bow down and agree with you, you start trying to insult people to get reactions. Well, you got one from me this time. You act like you are some insecure child that is about 14 and doesn't get enough attention from anyone else so you come on here looking for negative attention.

As for the OU thing, you can get off of it now. We have ALL heard it and said it ourselves several times. No one has disagreed with you about OU having an easier shot at getting to a BCS game than a team in the SEC. What's wrong? Can't stand being right and the argument being over? Why you continue to assert a point that everyone has said they basically agree with, is beyond me. Oh yeah, I forgot, you are looking for an argument and attention.

[Hornkiller]

Then here is the question... name the coaches who haven't won national titles at other programs in the last decade that could accomplish as much if not more then Stoops. And if he left tomorrow (put yourself as OU's AD) who would you hire to replace him?

[NWASooner]

Then here is the question... name the coaches who haven't won national titles at other programs in the last decade that could accomplish as much if not more then Stoops. And if he left tomorrow (put yourself as OU's AD) who would you hire to replace him?

I'd hire Charlie Strong out of Florida and not think twice about it.  Despite what other posters on this thread think, most "good/great" coaches are already at big time football schools.  Most up and comers are at mid level football schools.  The Urban Meyers of the world are not leaving their gigs.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Don't have any problem with honest disagreement.  Do have a problem with people spoiling for a fight and not even reading what they are spewing about. 

Sorry I got PO'd.  But you have the reason wrong.

Get P.O.'d less often. The reason may be wrong, but that is how it comes off. And I don't see anyone spoiling for a fight but you. There are a lot of good opinions on this site, and not all of them belong to you and I.

[Hornkiller]

I'd hire Charlie Strong out of Florida and not think twice about it.  Despite what other posters on this thread think, most "good/great" coaches are already at big time football schools.  Most up and comers are at mid level football schools.  The Urban Meyers of the world are not leaving their gigs.

Unless Florida and OU give the "head coach in waiting tag" (and why would they since Meyer and Stoops seem to have a lot left in the tank) Strong and Kevin Wilson will be running their own program this time next year. In fact I'm shocked that Strong didn't get any offers last year. (ie, the Auburn gig)

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Can't.  Wouldn't know where to begin.  I don't have a problem with Stoops.  My problem is with the way the NCAA has evolved to where a 2 horse conference becomes such a player.  A playoff would solve all problems.

I agree, a play-off would be the best scenario for the fans who sit at home and watch t.v. and perhaps because that is mostly the case, the entire country and maybe even the teams themselves. Problem is, the NCAA and the schools are never going to do it. Why? Traveling fan bases. Can you imagine if you had say, the top sixteen teams playing it off? You would have sixteen making one trip, eight teams making two trips in back to back weeks, then have four of those making another trip, and then finally two of the orginal 16 making yet another. Four trips in back to back to back to back weeks for the winners. You can see the problem, and not so much for the teams, but for schools trying to sell tickets. Especially in this day and age, how many fans could afford to buy tickets, plane fare and hotels four weeks in a row? Addtionally, how many people would buy tickets in advance not knowing who they were going to see playing?

I think it comes down to logistics and money and that is why we will never see a multiple team(8 or more) play off system in the NCAA Div I ranks, though it would be great to watch.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The solution to that problem is to have award home field advantage to the conference champions.  Bowl committees are the only ones standing in the way.  And don't we already expect fan bases to travel twice in a good season -- SEC championship and then the Bowl game?  I really think that is more of a cop-out and a way to protect the Bowl committees which pay off the college admin's.

Yes, but you aren't talking about just an SEC CG and one bowl game and while awarding home field advantage to the conference champions, a team and their fans still have to travel to meet those teams. If you were a top ten team, one would assume that you could make it to at least the second, if not the third round. This would mean that fans would have encumbered the expense of whatever trips they took to their away games during the season, a possible trip to a conference CG and then two more trips, in back to back weeks, to two seperate bowl games in two seperate venues somewhere in the country. Think that wouldn't be expensive for fans? Try going today and buying tickets for a flight within the next 7 days. On top of that, the demonstrated demand for tickets to a certain airport on a particular weekend would drive the prices even higher...not to mention how much more expensive hotel rooms would become. So we aren't talking about traveling twice in a good season...we are talking about more than likely doubling that travel and expense as a minimum, especially for the teams and their fan bases that made it to the third(4 teams) and fourth rounds(two teams).

Let's say that you term a "good" fan as being one that goes to one away game during the season and then, if you get to the SECCG, another trip. What's the ante on those two trips combined, on average? Then let's say you are good enough to be in the 16 team play-off but because you didn't win your CCG, you have to travel. There's another trip. You are the #2 team from the SEC so it is more than likely you win in the first round even though you are playing another Conf Champ on their home field, so you get a trip to another venue for another game. Now you have asked your "good" fan to experience the expense of their usual one away game, the SECCG, a first round play-off game and now a second round play-off game and the last two in back to back weeks. The first two are expensive enough but the second two, even on an individual basis, are far more expensive. Most fans, even "great" fans, can't afford that kind of expense. And this scenario assumes you don't advance to the third round, let alone the fourth and final round games

I see it as reality, not a cop out. In the end, it isn't the ticket and concession revenues that generate all the money, it is t.v. money. But t.v. wants to see the stadium full, it makes the broadcast. So what's the answer?

[hawgsav1]

Yes, but you aren't talking about just an SEC CG and one bowl game and while awarding home field advantage to the conference champions, a team and their fans still have to travel to meet those teams. If you were a top ten team, one would assume that you could make it to at least the second, if not the third round. This would mean that fans would have encumbered the expense of whatever trips they took to their away games during the season, a possible trip to a conference CG and then two more trips, in back to back weeks, to two seperate bowl games in two seperate venues somewhere in the country. Think that wouldn't be expensive for fans? Try going today and buying tickets for a flight within the next 7 days. On top of that, the demonstrated demand for tickets to a certain airport on a particular weekend would drive the prices even higher...not to mention how much more expensive hotel rooms would become. So we aren't talking about traveling twice in a good season...we are talking about more than likely doubling that travel and expense as a minimum, especially for the teams and their fan bases that made it to the third(4 teams) and fourth rounds(two teams).

Let's say that you term a "good" fan as being one that goes to one away game during the season and then, if you get to the SECCG, another trip. What's the ante on those two trips combined, on average? Then let's say you are good enough to be in the 16 team play-off but because you didn't win your CCG, you have to travel. There's another trip. You are the #2 team from the SEC so it is more than likely you win in the first round even though you are playing another Conf Champ on their home field, so you get a trip to another venue for another game. Now you have asked your "good" fan to experience the expense of their usual one away game, the SECCG, a first round play-off game and now a second round play-off game and the last two in back to back weeks. The first two are expensive enough but the second two, even on an individual basis, are far more expensive. Most fans, even "great" fans, can't afford that kind of expense. And this scenario assumes you don't advance to the third round, let alone the fourth and final round games

I see it as reality, not a cop out. In the end, it isn't the ticket and concession revenues that generate all the money, it is t.v. money. But t.v. wants to see the stadium full, it makes the broadcast. So what's the answer?

People will fill seats at playoff games.  Look at the NCAA basketball tournament with 65 teams.  Every year the Final Four is filled up, and even the early round games are filled, and not necessarily by fans of the teams that are playing.  The NCAA tournament is played in 20~22 locations every year, and it's packed pretty solidly by fans. 

The same goes for football games.  During the 2005 season, when SC went to the championship game, it was damn near impossible for students/alumni/etc to get tickets.  Out of all of the students on campus, I only knew of ONE girl who was lucky enough to get tickets via the lottery.  If these venues for big games are in major population centers, I'd be pretty sure that they would get filled up one way or the other.

[hawgsav1]

Btw, I'm going to look up the statistics on what percentage of athletic department revenues are filled by ticket sales vs. TV contracts and the like.  That might shed some light on the mystery.

[hawgsav1]

The only information I could find with breakdowns was this NCAA FInancial Reports database, which is a bit outdated (2004-2005 is the latest year I believe).  What is interesting to note is that roughly 1/3 of our revenue came directly from football ticket sales ($16 million in sales for about $47 million overall budget). 

Interestingly enough, we were third on the list for overall ticket sales in the SEC.  However, perusing through more of the data, I think that is more of a book-keeping issue.  The other SEC schools seem to have a donation requirement in order to get tickets for football games, which explains why schools like Auburn, LSU, Alabama, Georgia and Florida have roughly anywhere from $8-$26 million in "football contributions" while we have less than $1 million.

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show_field_rank

[hawgsav1]

The only information I could find with breakdowns was this NCAA FInancial Reports database, which is a bit outdated (2004-2005 is the latest year I believe).  What is interesting to note is that roughly 1/3 of our revenue came directly from football ticket sales ($16 million in sales for about $47 million overall budget). 

Interestingly enough, we were third on the list for overall ticket sales in the SEC.  However, perusing through more of the data, I think that is more of a book-keeping issue.  The other SEC schools seem to have a donation requirement in order to get tickets for football games, which explains why schools like Auburn, LSU, Alabama, Georgia and Florida have roughly anywhere from $8-$26 million in "football contributions" while we have less than $1 million.

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show_field_rank

[Hugulus Hog]

I don't see why so many are crying about Stoops getting a raise.  The argument about over-paid coaches makes a lot more sense when you consider the guy in the #2 slot is Charlie Weis.

http://www.americasbestonline.net/index.php/pages/collegehighestpaidcoaches.html

The guy is in the mix every single year and has a team that is consistently one of the top 5 in the country.  Sustained excellence over a long period of time is as good a reason for a raise as any, and better than a lot.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The only information I could find with breakdowns was this NCAA FInancial Reports database, which is a bit outdated (2004-2005 is the latest year I believe).  What is interesting to note is that roughly 1/3 of our revenue came directly from football ticket sales ($16 million in sales for about $47 million overall budget). 

Interestingly enough, we were third on the list for overall ticket sales in the SEC.  However, perusing through more of the data, I think that is more of a book-keeping issue.  The other SEC schools seem to have a donation requirement in order to get tickets for football games, which explains why schools like Auburn, LSU, Alabama, Georgia and Florida have roughly anywhere from $8-$26 million in "football contributions" while we have less than $1 million.

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show_field_rank

The SEC's recent 15 year t.v. deal with ESPN is worth $2.25 BILLION. If broken out by 12 teams, that comes to $12.5 million per year each and that doesn't include bowl games. That's a chunk of change for just showing up to play, whether the stadium is full or not. Schools can also earn an additional $200,000 each time they elect to play on non-traditional game days.

[hawgsav1]

The only information I could find with breakdowns was this NCAA FInancial Reports database, which is a bit outdated (2004-2005 is the latest year I believe).  What is interesting to note is that roughly 1/3 of our revenue came directly from football ticket sales ($16 million in sales for about $47 million overall budget). 

Interestingly enough, we were third on the list for overall ticket sales in the SEC.  However, perusing through more of the data, I think that is more of a book-keeping issue.  The other SEC schools seem to have a donation requirement in order to get tickets for football games, which explains why schools like Auburn, LSU, Alabama, Georgia and Florida have roughly anywhere from $8-$26 million in "football contributions" while we have less than $1 million.

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show_field_rank