Quote:
Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP
They're going to have to spend more $$ to compete.
Rank School Athletic Expenses ’09-’10 (Millions)
1 Florida 105.2
2 LSU 102.2
3 Tennessee 96.6
4 Auburn 90.8
5 Alabama 85.3
6 S. Carolina 78.2
7t Georgia 76.2
7t Kentucky 76.2
9 Arkansas 71.8
X Missouri 53.1
10 Vanderbilt 45.7
11 Ole Miss 43.9
12 Miss. State 36.2
|
My main concerns have been: 1) Continuing to recruit the Texas pipeline; 2) Will Missouri spend what is required to compete in SEC sports
Both have been blunted recently. Despite the noise coming from KC-area sports folks, reports from closer to the situation - coaches and recruits from Texas - say that the SEC would not hurt Missouri's recruiting there (mostly due to the pipelines Pinkel has built).
And from what I've heard, the spending will increase. Part of that is due to travel (A little bit more distance on average will increase a lot of costs). A big part of that is the windfall expected from SEC membership (especially if the the SEC network happens for Tier 3 rights). And another part of it is commitment from boosters.
Based on current feelings, I'd expect the booster base to expand, everyone to donate more, etc. Part of that will be to keep tickets/parking spots.
And I expect the big donors to be polarized. I have heard that the some of the big Columbia donors relish the idea of beating the crap out of Mike Anderson (and perhaps the "kin" that drives Arkie hoops) and are willing to pony up big bucks to help with that...