re: Mizzou Has Been Referred to as a Sleeping Giant in Football

quote:

---

USCe has an all-time win pct of .470-.480ish. Mizzou has an all time pct of .540. You really can't compare them. Mizzou was successful in the '60s and '70s...then tanked in the 80's and 90's. We just finished a recovery decade, so I wouldn't call us "new kids on the block" like USCe

---

Past is past and this is the present.

a) Many of the Cocks losses were prior to SEC membership
b) Cocks won 1 game in 2 years before they turned the corner
c) SEC allowed Cocks to go from little brother to big brother

Where the "new kids on the block" comes in is just related to the SEC. I think only TAMU is doing better in their new conference among all the teams that moved into the Big 5 and they have unlimited money, TX recruiting, and the only freshman to win the Heisman.

Revenue generally separates the classes within the SEC



Big money folks - 120K range
Alabama $124,899,945
Florida $120,772,106
Texas A&M $119,702,222 = new SEC
LSU $114,787,786

Folks with cash - 100K range
Auburn $105,951,251
Tennessee $102,884,286
Arkansas $99,757,482 = SEC add in 90's
Georgia $91,670,613 - I put the Dawgs here because they spend less and have a better net

Folks with loyal fans* - 80K range
Kentucky $88,373,452
South Carolina $87,608,352 = SEC add in 90's
* neither was known for winning football but both have been in the NCAA Top 25 attendance multiple times

Folks with limited cash flow - 60K range
Mississippi State $69,828,880
Mississippi $51,858,993
Missouri $50,719,665 = new SEC
Vanderbilt as a private does not have to report financial numbers

With the money the bottom 7 SEC schools have they could easily compete in just about any other conference but SEC bar is just that much higher. As the Bama poster noted, it takes filling the stands in big numbers and donor cash to be a real threat at the top of the SEC.