Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/31/12 at 1:46 pm to Bose Ikard
quote:
My reason for thinking that A&M's expenditures will be growing faster than other schools in the SEC is threefold: 1) Our almuni base continues to expand as we flood our older alumni base with Ags that attended a much larger school than the old Ags before them. Older alumni have money, and they want season tickets. 2) Our previous budgets were based on Big 12 TV money. We're going to start getting SEC TV money. 3) A much larger stadium will be finished by then.
1) As do everyone else's. 2) There really wasn't that nig of a parity for A&M on this, buy there may be in the future. 3) Everyone is expanding or already bigger than Kyle will be.
1/3 maybe, more good work.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 1:46 pm to Bose Ikard
quote:
We love our football in Texas, too, but there is no school in Texas that has managed to pull a fanbase like Alabama and Auburn have with comparable size alumni bases.
The University of Alabama isn't relegated to the borders of the state of Alabama. It's a regional school with a national following in football. Arguably even moreso than Texas.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 1:48 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
Why do you think my statement lacks merit?
You should be able to prove it false easily enough. Find a school like the following:
1) Has one of the top 10-15 largest fan bases.
2) Has a comparably small alumni base.
3) Is from a region with competing in-state NFL team.
You should be able to prove it false easily enough. Find a school like the following:
1) Has one of the top 10-15 largest fan bases.
2) Has a comparably small alumni base.
3) Is from a region with competing in-state NFL team.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 1:51 pm to Bose Ikard
Let me get this straight. Your entire argument is that Alabama's 100-plus year dominance in football shouldn't have happened because of the relatively small enrollement of UA, until the last decade, and the fact that the state population is small?
Posted on 7/31/12 at 1:51 pm to Bose Ikard
quote:
You should be able to prove it false easily enough. Find a school like the following: 1) Has one of the top 10-15 largest fan bases. 2) Has a comparably small alumni base. 3) Is from a region with competing in-state NFL team.
Auburn and clemson
in-state nfl teams doesnt matter and the falcons are only an hour-hour and a half away from either
next....
Posted on 7/31/12 at 1:52 pm to NYCAuburn
Neither Auburn nor Clemson fits the criteria.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 1:52 pm to Bose Ikard
quote:
Neither Auburn nor Clemson fits the criteria.
how so?
Posted on 7/31/12 at 1:52 pm to Bose Ikard
Posted on 7/31/12 at 1:53 pm to Bose Ikard
quote:
Your entire argument is that Alabama's 100-plus year dominance in football shouldn't have happened because of the relatively small enrollement of UA, until the last decade, and the fact that the state population is small?
No.
This post was edited on 7/31/12 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 7/31/12 at 1:55 pm to Bose Ikard
quote:
No.
Stop making stuff up and answer my questions.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 1:58 pm to Bose Ikard
I don't know how you define small alumni base but the following all have less than 280,000 alumni.
FSU
LSU
MIAMI
UGA
By comparison, A&M cited 350,000 former students. And yes I know that former students do not equal alumni.
FSU
LSU
MIAMI
UGA
By comparison, A&M cited 350,000 former students. And yes I know that former students do not equal alumni.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 1:58 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
At what point in the SWC did we have bottom half resources? At what point in the Big 12 did we have bottom half resources in the conference? Do we currently have bottom half resources in the SEC?
1. Don't know. We probably had bottom half resources in the twenties, thirties, and fourties, but I'd have to check on that. It would be close.
2. Never.
3. We are right at the midpoint, and gaining. We have a fan base that is currently on par with anyone in the SEC, and that fan base will translate into a budget that can compete with the top SEC schools, and soon.
This post was edited on 7/31/12 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 7/31/12 at 1:59 pm to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
Alabama's 100-plus year dominance
Posted on 7/31/12 at 2:03 pm to Bose Ikard
quote:
(Why haven't the Mississippi school been able to capitalize on the lack of regional pro sports competition?)
Because Mississippi is the poorest state in the nation. Ole Miss is way closer to Memphis than Jackson and the other population centers of the state. State is just in the middle of nowhere. And Southern Miss has been competitive at times and I think back in the 90s USM used to have more students than either State or Ole Miss as USM is more centrally located for most of the state's population. Money is spread between 3 schools plus more than a few HBC schools to boot.
The state has tons of talent (Louisiana and Mississippi have the most NFL players per capita) but it's very hard for Ole Miss and State to keep the best players in state with LSU, Bama, Auburn, Tennessee and Arkansas next door.
It is what it is.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 2:05 pm to BrerTiger
also mississippi has plenty of fans of other schools inside its borders.
then alot of the good mississippi high school players can't get into college anyways so it hurts ole miss and state.
then alot of the good mississippi high school players can't get into college anyways so it hurts ole miss and state.
Posted on 7/31/12 at 2:05 pm to BrerTiger
This thread gave me sleepy head. 
Posted on 7/31/12 at 2:14 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
so you dont support the dress up corps and the yell leaders?
I support and understand the need for senior military colleges like NGCS, Dahlonega, Norwich, Northfield, Vermont, The Citadel, VMI, Virginia Tech, and A&M.
The last yell leader I knew personally was Boo Boo Davies back in the early 2000's. He was a pretty cool guy (non-homo).
Posted on 7/31/12 at 2:15 pm to joe.liberst
but you dont support the dress up gang and yell leaders life styles?
Posted on 7/31/12 at 2:19 pm to Bose Ikard
quote:
1. Don't know. We probably had bottom half resources in the twenties, thirties, and fourties, but I'd have to check on that. It would be close.
2. Never.
3. We are right at the midpoint, and gaining.
Not sure how these questions are relevant to anything I said.
1. The correct answer is never. We had top 3 at every point.
2. Good job!
3. Sort of right. Right we are 7th or 8th. We might be gaining, but we won't surpass the Big 6 for 20 years, if ever.
How are they not relevant? They only thing you've been blabbering on about is resources.
Page 11 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News