Started By
Message
re: Underachieving and Overachieving Programs in the SEC?
Posted on 10/8/14 at 4:34 pm to Korin
Posted on 10/8/14 at 4:34 pm to Korin
quote:
Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I mean, I get it. It exists to measure performance of the ENTIRE athletic department and not just the visible programs (football and basketball). Trust me, I am sad to admit I used to follow our Director's Cup (thank you for that) rankings back when our AD priorities were all screwed up.
But the WHOLE point of big athletic programs is to bring visibility to the university, and basically only two sports do that. They rest just spend the money football and basketball make.
They are consolation cups because to my knowledge no one who has won one of them has gotten the REAL prizes that season-IE the exposure from a basketball or football national title. It is a way for the ADs to pat themselves on the back and work non-revenue creating bonuses into their paycheck.
The honest truth is if the sport isn't football or basketball it is basically a student activity that exists to provide balance to that students education and maybe a scholarship. The big business is football and basketball, and only they really matter.
1
Posted on 10/8/14 at 4:37 pm to bgator85
quote:
I don't know if it is cheap so much as he has a very set formula that he seems to use when hiring a coach for any sport. He looks for young coaches obsessed with recruiting (usually assistants somewhere) and then once they are successful he will give them big contracts. It has worked in every sport but football, hopefully the experiment has ended.
Very interesting, I never knew that.
I hope for yalls sake it has ended too, but I am scared for yall that if Boom is canned this season there won't be that obvious expensive hire out there. Penn State, USC, Texas and Washington kinda cleaned out the queue on hot coaches.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 4:39 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
I mean, I get it. It exists to measure performance of the ENTIRE athletic department and not just the visible programs (football and basketball). Trust me, I am sad to admit I used to follow our Director's Cup (thank you for that) rankings back when our AD priorities were all screwed up.
But the WHOLE point of big athletic programs is to bring visibility to the university, and basically only two sports do that. They rest just spend the money football and basketball make.
They are consolation cups because to my knowledge no one who has won one of them has gotten the REAL prizes that season-IE the exposure from a basketball or football national title. It is a way for the ADs to pat themselves on the back and work non-revenue creating bonuses into their paycheck.
The honest truth is if the sport isn't football or basketball it is basically a student activity that exists to provide balance to that students education and maybe a scholarship. The big business is football and basketball, and only they really matter.
The Capital One Cups are presented during the Espys (unlike the Director's Cup, which is awarded in some hotel lobby).
Posted on 10/8/14 at 4:47 pm to cardboardboxer
You are still a moron. If we are talking about traditionally, I would say Tennessee is probably the most overachieving program in the SEC. Their home state usually has produced few players, yet they are the 2nd best program in the SEC historically.
OTHO, A&M's potential is way overblown in my opinion. You always have been and always will be Texas' litte brother and why any recruit would want to associate themselves with the Aggies weirdness is a complete and total mystery to me
OTHO, A&M's potential is way overblown in my opinion. You always have been and always will be Texas' litte brother and why any recruit would want to associate themselves with the Aggies weirdness is a complete and total mystery to me
Posted on 10/8/14 at 4:50 pm to Korin
quote:
The Capital One Cups are presented during the Espys
Ok, I don't want to offend you so I will drop it lol.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 4:52 pm to cardboardboxer
UGA is definitely one of the most underachieving programs in NCAA history.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 4:53 pm to auburnphan23
quote:
If we are talking about traditionally, I would say Tennessee is probably the most overachieving program in the SEC.
In 1998 I would have agreed.
quote:
OTHO, A&M's potential is way overblown in my opinion. You always have been and always will be Texas' litte brother and why any recruit would want to associate themselves with the Aggies weirdness is a complete and total mystery to me
So we HAVEN'T underachieved?
Posted on 10/8/14 at 4:54 pm to cardboardboxer
For as much talent that comes out of Louisiana, and LSU being the only major university in the state, I would say LSU should be ranked higher.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 4:55 pm to LanierSpots
quote:
Alabama has had 6 straight years of #1 recruiting classes. They basically pick who they want. The supposedly have the best coach in college football and possible one of the best ever. The best facilities, the best everything And yet, they failed last year. They will fail again this year. Once they fail this year, what will be the opinion of them? How do you take all that talent and you have shite for a QB, shite for a kicking game, etc. With that talent and that coaching staff, they should totally dominate everybody
You are missing the OP's point. Badly.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 5:00 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
4. Kentucky - this program is pretty bad and it should be better. Their state is so-so in talent, but right next to them is talent rich Ohio and Virginia. I think UK is too quick to give up and focus on basketball when it should be a Arky-level program
Kentucky isn't even so-so in talent in state. It's typically one of the lowest rated per capita.
Stoops has the right idea with recruiting Ohio and you're right about that much. But I think you're really overstating how easy it is to build a program at a non-traditional school. Just parked next to a rich recruiting state doesn't cut it.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 5:01 pm to td01241
quote:
Tech has a national title
The fact that Tech has more hardware than UGA makes it worse
Posted on 10/8/14 at 5:01 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
But I think you're really overstating how easy it is to build a program at a non-traditional school. Just parked next to a rich recruiting state doesn't cut it.
Maybe I am. I guess I just keep thinking "Bear did it, why hasn't anyone else?" But maybe there is my answer too.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 5:02 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
not ready to stand toe-to-toe to a Texas, tOSU or USC on anything other than the Capital One Second Place Cup (because lets be honest that is the ceiling on that thing).
You dumb. We finished ahead of all those schools mentioned above last year in the men's and the women actually won the Capital One Cup.
Might want to try a different troll angle and maybe even attempt to hide your disdain for a former UTx coach a little better.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 5:03 pm to LanierSpots
quote:
Its not overachieving to do something that you are equipped to do.
I think they OP's point is that Alabama has overachieved in equipping themselves to be the best in the first place.
Many schools are bigger, have more money for facilities/coaches/etc, have less instate competition, have better natural recruiting footprint, etc. and haven't become half the program Alabama has become and sustained throughout many different eras.
I don't think the OPs point was that Alabama is necessarily overachieving now that they have built this program (although three NCs since 2009 is pretty fricking good no matter what heightened standard you want to apply to Alabama), but, rather, that they have overachieved in becoming probably the most successful program in college football history in the first place.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 5:17 pm to roadGator
quote:
We finished ahead of all those schools mentioned above last year in the men's and the women actually won the Capital One Cup.
Dude, I was saying y'all won't be a consistent elite program In FOOTBALL until you make it a priority to put real money into head coaching hires.
I promise I am not flaming UF fans and I don't give a shite about Boom. The facts are he was a risky and cheap hire. That is not debatable.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 5:28 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Ok, I don't want to offend you so I will drop it lol.
You're the one acting like it's a "consolation" for not winning the Director's Cup.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 5:31 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Maybe I am. I guess I just keep thinking "Bear did it, why hasn't anyone else?" But maybe there is my answer too.
Are you talking about Bryant at Alabama?
Posted on 10/8/14 at 6:04 pm to elposter
quote:
I don't think the OPs point was that Alabama is necessarily overachieving now that they have built this program (although three NCs since 2009 is pretty fricking good no matter what heightened standard you want to apply to Alabama), but, rather, that they have overachieved in becoming probably the most successful program in college football history in the first place.
Yeah, its that and a little of the other thing too. Y'all would be #14 if y'all did it in the 70's instead of the 20's. Auburn is #14 because they dealt with that for a near century.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 6:05 pm to Korin
No, Bryant at UK.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 6:14 pm to cardboardboxer
UGA is #1. With the amount of talent we're able to recruit and put on the field year in and year out, there's just not an excuse for coming up short.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News