Started By
Message
Would You Rather?
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:05 pm
Would you rather your athletic department focus on football only or basketball only and win a national championship in it every 5 years on average and let all other sports fend for themselves, meaning most will rarely if ever be ranked.
Or would you rather your athletic department spread resources and support out so that all top six sports (football, baseball, softball, mens and womens basketball, and gymnastics) are consistent top 20 programs yet they never win a national championship?
Asking as, apparently, a new fan of several sports I have never watched before.
Or would you rather your athletic department spread resources and support out so that all top six sports (football, baseball, softball, mens and womens basketball, and gymnastics) are consistent top 20 programs yet they never win a national championship?
Asking as, apparently, a new fan of several sports I have never watched before.
6
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:11 pm to captdalton
quote:
football, baseball, softball, mens and womens basketball, and gymnastics
Softball and gymnastics are not among the top 6. Answer is simple, football is king if you look at it in terms of return.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:11 pm to captdalton
I want coaches that CAN win a National Championship. Winning one is hard though.
I believe Sark can win a NC.
I believe Beard could have won a NC, but that didn't work out, and we are stuck with Terry, who most definitely can not win a NC. He needs to go.
I believe Schloss can win a NC. Pierce perhaps could have in 2021, but that ship sailed with his shitty recruiting since then..
I believe Mike White can win a NC in softball.
I believe Vic can win a NC in women's basketball.
As for how to support those teams, that's way above my pay grade.
I'm happy with all of our coaches, except Men's Basketball.
I believe Sark can win a NC.
I believe Beard could have won a NC, but that didn't work out, and we are stuck with Terry, who most definitely can not win a NC. He needs to go.
I believe Schloss can win a NC. Pierce perhaps could have in 2021, but that ship sailed with his shitty recruiting since then..
I believe Mike White can win a NC in softball.
I believe Vic can win a NC in women's basketball.
As for how to support those teams, that's way above my pay grade.
I'm happy with all of our coaches, except Men's Basketball.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:13 pm to captdalton
quote:I love Vols basketball, but if I have a deal that gives me a football national title every 5 years on average I'm taking it without really thinking twice.
Would you rather your athletic department focus on football only or basketball only and win a national championship in it every 5 years on average and let all other sports fend for themselves, meaning most will rarely if ever be ranked.
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:21 pm to captdalton
quote:
Would You Rather?
Sorry, I thought this was going to be a chick A vs chick B post. Nevermind.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:24 pm to Che Boludo
Look how hockey dwarfs baseball.
Does that illustrate how much more money Big Ten has than SEC?
Does that illustrate how much more money Big Ten has than SEC?
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:25 pm to captdalton
I'd rather not have you post as much 
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:34 pm to MtVernon
quote:
Look how hockey dwarfs baseball. Does that illustrate how much more money Big Ten has than SEC?
Does espn correctly market baseball, though?
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:37 pm to dstone12
quote:
Does espn correctly market baseball, though?
Their not really covering hockey either
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:45 pm to MtVernon
I'm beginning not to trust that chart.
Softball at the very bottom? Are you kidding me?
Softball at the very bottom? Are you kidding me?
Posted on 3/3/25 at 3:29 pm to captdalton
I mean, as a Tennessee fan, we are good at everything. I will take that.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 3:48 pm to rich4pres
quote:
I mean, as a Tennessee fan, we are good at everything. I will take that.
Tennessee is ranked in a lot of sports but they have like one natty in the last 20 years?
Posted on 3/3/25 at 4:25 pm to Che Boludo
Are you saying that ice hockey is a top six sport in the SEC? You seem to be saying that ice hockey is a top six sport in the SEC.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 4:57 pm to MtVernon
Using average revenue per sport is not an accurate stat to measure popularity of a sport. And it surely isn’t if it as weighted as this graph is based on it’s source data. It looks at only FBS football schools. Which is dumb if you are trying to truly compare sports.
For example, of the 127 FBS schools only 14 field D-1 hockey teams, almost all in the Big Ten or MAC.
There are 64 D-1 hockey programs. Citing data only from 14 of the largest hockey programs like Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State while ignoring 50 other programs like Union College, St. Cloud State University, and Mercyhurst University is going to skew the numbers significantly. Just like computing the average football revenue from only the top 14 schools would too.
I don’t have time to look at all the sports. But I can look at hockey alone and tell this is a skewed graph. It is simply garbage.
For example, of the 127 FBS schools only 14 field D-1 hockey teams, almost all in the Big Ten or MAC.
There are 64 D-1 hockey programs. Citing data only from 14 of the largest hockey programs like Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State while ignoring 50 other programs like Union College, St. Cloud State University, and Mercyhurst University is going to skew the numbers significantly. Just like computing the average football revenue from only the top 14 schools would too.
I don’t have time to look at all the sports. But I can look at hockey alone and tell this is a skewed graph. It is simply garbage.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 5:05 pm to MtVernon
quote:
I'm beginning not to trust that chart.
It is junk data. The only sport that anyone can really make any conclusions about from it is football. The methodology is junk. It only compares schools with FBS football programs.
The hockey number it shows is based on 14 of 64 D-1 programs.
The men’s basketball number it shows is based on 127 of 351 D-1 men’s basketball programs.
The women’s basketball number it shows is based on 127 of 360 D-1 women’s basketball programs.
You can keep going down the list of sports and it will just keep being fubared. It is just bad data put into a pretty graph.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 5:37 pm to dstone12
quote:
Does espn correctly market baseball, though?
They certainly market it more than college hockey.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 5:38 pm to captdalton
It's still very telling though that even LSU baseball and SCar WBB lose money.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 6:53 pm to GoGators1995
Only football and mens basketball make money
Posted on 3/3/25 at 6:54 pm to GoGators1995
quote:
It's still very telling though that even LSU baseball and SCar WBB lose money.
LSU baseball makes money more often than not.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 7:02 pm to SidewalkTiger
"Trust me, bro."
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News