1
Started By
Message
re: Guys…stop watching, stop caring.
Posted on 10/8/26 at 8:21 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
Posted on 10/8/26 at 8:21 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
That is what it shows the low end to be. The high end shows a much larger gap. Numbers from last year show a more than $10 million gap. So they appear to consistently be in the top half of the conference while spending in the bottom half.
But remember, you have to spend more than anybody else to have a decent roster…
But remember, you have to spend more than anybody else to have a decent roster…
This post was edited on 10/8/26 at 8:23 pm
Posted on 10/8/26 at 8:33 pm to SabansHairDye
The high end shows a $2.5 M gap. The low end shows a $1M gap. What table are you looking at?
ETA: are you trying to compare one team’s high end number to the other teams low end number? That’s not how it works
ETA: are you trying to compare one team’s high end number to the other teams low end number? That’s not how it works
This post was edited on 10/8/26 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 10/8/26 at 8:57 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
Where did I compare a low end to high end? Is the gap larger at the high end? Yes. Is Mizzou a better team? Yes. Have they been? Yes. Who else below us on that list has a better team? Pretty much destroys your argument that you spending level=level of success.
In fact, two of the best teams in our conference fall below Auburn on that list.
In fact, two of the best teams in our conference fall below Auburn on that list.
Posted on 10/8/26 at 9:13 pm to SabansHairDye
quote:
Where did I compare a low end to high end?
I mean it’s the only way to come up with the $10M number you keep claiming. Either way, going from $1M to $2.5M on the high end is not a “much larger gap” as you said.
Again, at no point have I once claimed we are spending well or efficiently. Merely said I don’t think it is true they are spending $10M less than us, which was your original claim. Your own data proves this. The reasonable assumption based on the data across multiple sources is we are spending somewhere in the $1-2M more than they are. That makes things a very different analysis than if the results are what they are and they were actually spending $10M less than us.
This post was edited on 10/8/26 at 9:14 pm
Posted on 10/8/26 at 9:20 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
Posted on 10/8/26 at 9:33 pm to SabansHairDye
Yes, that was for the 2024 year. I already address that in the last page. Auburn’s estimate for that period was in the 31-35M for all sports.
Here is the Sideline’s estimates for this year.
LINK
Again, I’m not diminishing how much better they’ve done than us with what they are spending. The claim they are spending $10M less than us is just wrong though.
Here is the Sideline’s estimates for this year.
LINK
Again, I’m not diminishing how much better they’ve done than us with what they are spending. The claim they are spending $10M less than us is just wrong though.
This post was edited on 10/8/26 at 9:40 pm
Posted on 10/9/26 at 1:28 am to tilco
These players didn’t do anything to deserve hate or non support. Don’t be such a little bitch
Posted on 10/9/26 at 9:16 am to AU_251
quote:
These players didn’t do anything to deserve hate or non support. Don’t be such a little bitch
It's pro ball now. The "don't be mean to these kids" no longer applies.
Posted on 10/9/26 at 9:56 am to AUCom96
Everything is money now.
“Market rate” rules.
“Market rate” rules.
Posted on 10/9/26 at 1:24 pm to AUCom96
quote:
It's pro ball now. The "don't be mean to these kids" no longer applies.
And when people start attacking you because you are criticizing the players for their play then they have no leg to stand on anymore because they are getting paid period. Makes them pros. Very few are getting true NIL payments. Most are getting paid to university advertising. Very few are doing the Dr Pepper, MILO etc...
Posted on 10/10/26 at 8:42 am to tilco
I've followed Auburn through thick and painfully thin for 62 years. That's not going to change.
Posted on 10/10/26 at 8:50 am to makersmark1
quote:
In 1975 most games took between 2 and 3 hours.
Commercial breaks are very badly done these days. Sometimes, there will be a string of commercials, then a kick-off into the endzone with no real action, and then another string of commercials. That sucks.
There needs to be a limited number of commercials that interrupt the game's flow. There are ways to put commercial messages into HD that don't interfere with the game's progress.
Posted on 10/11/26 at 3:19 pm to jvilletiger25
Many of us donate and watch our money be given to a kid who wants 40 grand to put on his uniform for a game that we still lose. Those of us who donate are not seeing much of a return on our investment.
Posted on 10/11/26 at 6:24 pm to LRB1967
There is no ROI…. Extortion is the rule. My donations now go to the specific programs I graduated from at AU.
Posted on 10/11/26 at 9:41 pm to AUCom96
quote:Cam Coleman raise his hand..........wearing two watches.
It's pro ball now. The "don't be mean to these kids" no longer applies.
Used to be, a kid grew up in State, a fan of a team, and dreamed of wearing that uniform and playing in it. Now, it's just about who pays the most.
It's hard to watch, but I still do knowing almost no player has any real loyalty to the team that has them on TV, playing in front of 90K rabid fans.
College football may not be dying, but it surely has changed from what I grew up with. It's just an NFL minor league now.
Posted on 10/12/26 at 8:07 am to SabansHairDye
quote:they also have an HC that has been there for 7 years
Yes. Is Mizzou a better team? Yes. Have they been? Yes.
a guy who finished 5-5, 6-7 and 6-7 his first three seasons
and in his 26th game as Mizzou’s HC, he still somehow managed to lose to the worst AU football team in a decade, led by whom is almost universally described on this forum as the worst HC in AU history
Posted on 10/12/26 at 8:14 am to FearlessFreep
Drink would take a while to win 9 games at Auburn and he's already expensive. Quite possibly money is why he isn't already our HC.
Posted on 10/12/26 at 9:03 am to jangalang
quote:which was kinda my point directed at the “fire Goulash, he sux” posts 5 games into his tenure
Drink would take a while to win 9 games at Auburn
i mean, it may be true that he sux, but we dont exactly have a body of work to judge him on
that said, some improvement in any area would be a welcome sign - still waiting for that
Posted on 10/12/26 at 9:28 am to FearlessFreep
I’m not interested in talking about firing Golesh for at an absolute minimum, the next 12 calendar months.
Posted on 10/12/26 at 10:27 am to auburnnyc94
We shouldn't like at it as he gets "X" number of years. As with any other job, if you aren't hitting certain metrics, there is no reason to continue the contract
Page 4 of 5
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News