|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 26, 2022 11:30:48 GMT -5
That's basically asking some coach or someone "Hey, what do you think about Vandy athletics?" and them replying: [NASCAR accent] "They got a tiny football stadium, and they suck at football ... so their athletics sucks! But they have a bar scene in downtown Nashville, so great quality of life!" Football stadiums and practice facilities, (men's) basketball arenas and practice facilities, and baseball stadiums and practice facilities, don't mean jack ____ to a volleyball team (*assuming* that the team plays games in a/the secondary arena, which is usually the case at larger schools) Football facilities and department revenue isn’t a deciding factor but the shared services for all athletes can make a big difference. The success of Nebraska football in the 90s and the investment into the athletic department helped keep and propel husker volleyball to its heights. Training table, academic support, devany remodel, hawks weight room etc. were built on revenue from the football program. Those matter to the volleyball team. I can’t speak to Kentucky basketball but having that cash cow in the athletic department helps all sports. Vandy doesn’t have that. Hence the question on what level of commitment they can afford/want to put into volleyball. Right. The football stadium itself may not impact the volleyball team directly, but the shared facilities matter. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 26, 2022 11:34:58 GMT -5
Unfortunately several SEC teams took that same look in recent years and are trying to step into that same void. It's already not the easy pickings it appeared to be not that long ago. Yeah, I think the SEC has the biggest P5 gap between their actual performance and their potential given how much football money they have. I've mentioned this before, but they kind of remind me of women's soccer in Europe. Once the big men's powers actually started caring about their women's programs, they improved rapidly to the point that seven of the eight quarterfinalists at the last Women's World Cup were from Europe. With the increasing popularity of women's volleyball, I think it's only a matter of time before the Alabamas and Georgias of the world figure it out and start investing more heavily. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 26, 2022 11:39:56 GMT -5
Unfortunately several SEC teams took that same look in recent years and are trying to step into that same void. It's already not the easy pickings it appeared to be not that long ago. Yeah, I think the SEC has the biggest P5 gap between their actual performance and their potential given how much football money they have. I've mentioned this before, but they kind of remind me of women's soccer in Europe. Once the big men's powers actually started caring about their women's programs, they improved rapidly to the point that seven of the eight quarterfinalists at the last Women's World Cup were from Europe. With the increasing popularity of women's volleyball, I think it's only a matter of time before the Alabamas and Georgias of the world figure it out and start investing more heavily. SEC salaries and budgets are already on par with the Pac-12. In areas with significantly lower cost of living. www.avca.org/res/uploads/media/NCAAIWVBPubSalSurv-ProgSupp_1.pdf |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2022 11:45:53 GMT -5
1) Florida and Kentucky are known. Sure, fine. I would think TA&M has fantastic potential to keep great in-state talent home, and plenty of money to spend. Other than that ... what other SEC schools seem to have turned a corner or consistently have converted either potential and/or big spending into significant, national success in vball? There could easily be some programs that can reasonably be argued to have done that, I don't know. Asking the question. (I'm talking the current SEC schools, not Texas and OU)
2) I understand the point about a school having a great football team generating more revenue that can then be spent on other sports. Fair point. But my response is this: when the SEC updates/renegotiates/signs a new TV contract with Texas/OU in the fold, Vanderbilt athletic dept will be receiving a check from the conference for something like $70M per year (maybe more?), for nothing other than being a member of the conference. That's it. They could place last in every sport. They still get the check.
3) (to n00b's post above) .... how much money can you possibly spend on the sport of college volleyball, before the spending saturates, in terms of success? You can't just buy wins. You can't buy players, in college. Maybe NIL will become more and more of a significant factor, but that is completely independent of the school's athletic dept spending. I would suspect that it only takes maybe $2-3M per year (??) before you've reached that saturation point. That's really not that much, relative to SEC overall budgets.
|
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 26, 2022 11:49:06 GMT -5
I would guess that Vandy recognized that outside of a few outstanding, nationally competitive programs, that SEC volleyball is like the JV league of the P5. So it's a great opportunity for them to invest some money, and potentially step up to a very competitive spot in the league relatively quickly. Look at Kentucky. Could they have achieved their meteoric rise in the Big Ten? Hell no. I think it’ll be an appealing job for ANY coach. Fair. Just hoping they’re committed to making it a top25 level program and not just satisfying a requirement. Not sure I would call UK's rise meteoric, especially if you place a lot of the success on Skinner (which I think we should). He became the head coach in 2004 and didn't win his first SEC title until 2015. Since 2015 maybe its been "meteoric" but I think if you place Skinner at a B1G (or PAC) school in 2004, you'd see similar success from him. I'd probably use UF as a better example of a program benefiting primarily from being in the SEC (and I oop-)... I would imagine (of course) that Vanderbilt has a goal to be competitive in volleyball. But they won't be a top 25 program in their first season (or probably even in their first 5 seasons). That's not a realistic expectation. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 26, 2022 11:52:19 GMT -5
Football facilities and department revenue isn’t a deciding factor but the shared services for all athletes can make a big difference. The success of Nebraska football in the 90s and the investment into the athletic department helped keep and propel husker volleyball to its heights. Training table, academic support, devany remodel, hawks weight room etc. were built on revenue from the football program. Those matter to the volleyball team. I can’t speak to Kentucky basketball but having that cash cow in the athletic department helps all sports. Vandy doesn’t have that. Hence the question on what level of commitment they can afford/want to put into volleyball. Right. The football stadium itself may not impact the volleyball team directly, but the shared facilities matter. To that point, Vandy is building a brand new basketball facility which will free up space in Memorial for the volleyball program. vucommodores.com/basketball-operations-center-and-practice-facility-timeline-revealed/ |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 26, 2022 11:55:17 GMT -5
Unfortunately several SEC teams took that same look in recent years and are trying to step into that same void. It's already not the easy pickings it appeared to be not that long ago. Sure. But there are several valid reasons for getting more excited about Vandy than, say, Mississippi State. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 26, 2022 11:55:46 GMT -5
1) Florida and Kentucky are known. Sure, fine. I would think TA&M has fantastic potential to keep great in-state talent home, and plenty of money to spend. Other than that ... what other SEC schools seem to have turned a corner or consistently have converted either potential and/or big spending into significant, national success in vball? There could easily be some programs that can reasonably be argued to have done that, I don't know. Asking the question. (I'm talking the current SEC schools, not Texas and OU) 2) I understand the point about a school having a great football team generating more revenue that can then be spent on other sports. Fair point. But my response is this: when the SEC updates/renegotiates/signs a new TV contract with Texas/OU in the fold, Vanderbilt athletic dept will be receiving a check from the conference for something like $70M per year (maybe more?), for nothing other than being a member of the conference. That's it. They could place last in every sport. They still get the check. 3) (to n00b's post above) .... how much money can you possibly spend on the sport of college volleyball, before the spending saturates, in terms of success? You can't just buy wins. You can't buy players, in college. Maybe NIL will become more and more of a significant factor, but that is completely independent of the school's athletic dept spending. I would suspect that it only takes maybe $2-3M per year (??) before you've reached that saturation point. That's really not that much, relative to SEC overall budgets. You can definitely buy players. How do you think Texas A&M got the No. 1 class in football? They haven't won a title since 1939. |
|
|
|
Post by nellynel on Apr 26, 2022 11:59:30 GMT -5
1) Florida and Kentucky are known. Sure, fine. I would think TA&M has fantastic potential to keep great in-state talent home, and plenty of money to spend. Other than that ... what other SEC schools seem to have turned a corner or consistently have converted either potential and/or big spending into significant, national success in vball? There could easily be some programs that can reasonably be argued to have done that, I don't know. Asking the question. (I'm talking the current SEC schools, not Texas and OU) 2) I understand the point about a school having a great football team generating more revenue that can then be spent on other sports. Fair point. But my response is this: when the SEC updates/renegotiates/signs a new TV contract with Texas/OU in the fold, Vanderbilt athletic dept will be receiving a check from the conference for something like $70M per year (maybe more?), for nothing other than being a member of the conference. That's it. They could place last in every sport. They still get the check. 3) (to n00b's post above) .... how much money can you possibly spend on the sport of college volleyball, before the spending saturates, in terms of success? You can't just buy wins. You can't buy players, in college. Maybe NIL will become more and more of a significant factor, but that is completely independent of the school's athletic dept spending. I would suspect that it only takes maybe $2-3M per year (??) before you've reached that saturation point. That's really not that much, relative to SEC overall budgets. You can definitely buy players. How do you think Texas A&M got the No. 1 class in football? They haven't won a title since 1939. Insert Aggie Joke here: www.si.com/.amp/extra-mustard/2022/01/19/eric-dickerson-origin-legendary-gold-trans-am |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Apr 26, 2022 11:59:54 GMT -5
That's basically asking some coach or someone "Hey, what do you think about Vandy athletics?" and them replying: [NASCAR accent] "They got a tiny football stadium, and they suck at football ... so their athletics sucks! But they have a bar scene in downtown Nashville, so great quality of life!" Football stadiums and practice facilities, (men's) basketball arenas and practice facilities, and baseball stadiums and practice facilities, don't mean jack ____ to a volleyball team (*assuming* that the team plays games in a/the secondary arena, which is usually the case at larger schools) Football facilities and department revenue isn’t a deciding factor but the shared services for all athletes can make a big difference. The success of Nebraska football in the 90s and the investment into the athletic department helped keep and propel husker volleyball to its heights. Training table, academic support, devany remodel, hawks weight room etc. were built on revenue from the football program. Those matter to the volleyball team. I can’t speak to Kentucky basketball but having that cash cow in the athletic department helps all sports. Vandy doesn’t have that. Hence the question on what level of commitment they can afford/want to put into volleyball. Vandy's cash cow is probably the new SEC TV contract that is estimated to increase by $30-$40 million a year for each school. As I said previously, Vandy doesn't have to add volleyball. So it doesn't make sense to add a sport that wasn't a requirement and then underfund it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2022 12:00:34 GMT -5
1) Florida and Kentucky are known. Sure, fine. I would think TA&M has fantastic potential to keep great in-state talent home, and plenty of money to spend. Other than that ... what other SEC schools seem to have turned a corner or consistently have converted either potential and/or big spending into significant, national success in vball? There could easily be some programs that can reasonably be argued to have done that, I don't know. Asking the question. (I'm talking the current SEC schools, not Texas and OU) 2) I understand the point about a school having a great football team generating more revenue that can then be spent on other sports. Fair point. But my response is this: when the SEC updates/renegotiates/signs a new TV contract with Texas/OU in the fold, Vanderbilt athletic dept will be receiving a check from the conference for something like $70M per year (maybe more?), for nothing other than being a member of the conference. That's it. They could place last in every sport. They still get the check. 3) (to n00b's post above) .... how much money can you possibly spend on the sport of college volleyball, before the spending saturates, in terms of success? You can't just buy wins. You can't buy players, in college. Maybe NIL will become more and more of a significant factor, but that is completely independent of the school's athletic dept spending. I would suspect that it only takes maybe $2-3M per year (??) before you've reached that saturation point. That's really not that much, relative to SEC overall budgets. You can definitely buy players. How do you think Texas A&M got the No. 1 class in football? They haven't won a title since 1939. Well, no, of course, you cannot. By rule.
Have "bagmen" "purchased" football and basketball players? Certainly. Is that on paper possible for the SEC volleyball programs, sure.
But again that is all money that flows completely outside the athletic dept books. So it wouldn't matter how much revenue from football the athletic dept raised.
Officially, a school cannot offer compensation to a would be vball student-athlete beyond a full-ride, "full cost of attendance" scholarship.
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 26, 2022 12:02:11 GMT -5
You can definitely buy players. How do you think Texas A&M got the No. 1 class in football? They haven't won a title since 1939. Well, no, of course, you cannot. By rule.
Have "bagmen" "purchased" football and basketball players? Certainly. Is that on paper possible for the SEC volleyball programs, sure.
But again that is all money that flows completely outside the athletic dept books. So it wouldn't matter how much revenue from football the athletic dept raised.
Officially, a school cannot offer compensation to a would be vball student-athlete beyond a full-ride, "full cost of attendance" scholarship.
NIL is effectively legalized bagmen. A school may not be able to pay a player, but a booster can through an NIL deal. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 26, 2022 12:07:26 GMT -5
Football facilities and department revenue isn’t a deciding factor but the shared services for all athletes can make a big difference. The success of Nebraska football in the 90s and the investment into the athletic department helped keep and propel husker volleyball to its heights. Training table, academic support, devany remodel, hawks weight room etc. were built on revenue from the football program. Those matter to the volleyball team. I can’t speak to Kentucky basketball but having that cash cow in the athletic department helps all sports. Vandy doesn’t have that. Hence the question on what level of commitment they can afford/want to put into volleyball. Vandy's cash cow is probably the new SEC TV contract that is estimated to increase by $30-$40 million a year for each school. As I said previously, Vandy doesn't have to add volleyball. So it doesn't make sense to add a sport that wasn't a requirement and then underfund it. This is a good point. Why add volleyball if you're not planning to try to be competitive? |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 26, 2022 12:08:23 GMT -5
Well, no, of course, you cannot. By rule.
Have "bagmen" "purchased" football and basketball players? Certainly. Is that on paper possible for the SEC volleyball programs, sure.
But again that is all money that flows completely outside the athletic dept books. So it wouldn't matter how much revenue from football the athletic dept raised.
Officially, a school cannot offer compensation to a would be vball student-athlete beyond a full-ride, "full cost of attendance" scholarship.
NIL is effectively legalized bagmen. A school may not be able to pay a player, but a booster can through an NIL deal. Texas A&M has had a top 5-6 recruiting class since Jimbo got there. NIL definitely had an impact on the #1 class, but I don't think it's accurate to say they got #1 solely because they "bought players..." |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 26, 2022 12:10:28 GMT -5
NIL is effectively legalized bagmen. A school may not be able to pay a player, but a booster can through an NIL deal. Texas A&M has had a top 5-6 recruiting class since Jimbo got there. NIL definitely had an impact on the #1 class, but I don't think it's accurate to say they got #1 solely because they "bought players..." I mean, it's obviously not the only reason. But it's definitely a factor. I agree that Jimbo is a bigger factor. And all the big schools do it. I'm not trying to single out Texas A&M or suggest that they're doing anything wrong. Just that the idea that players can't be bought is naïve. |
|
%20ii%201967-2011-Seal.jpg)