Started By
Message
SEC Championships Since 2012 Expansion
Posted on 3/24/24 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 3/24/24 at 5:31 pm
A final* ranking of the SEC from 2012-Present prior to OU and Texas joining this summer, counting SEC regular season and SEC tournament championships across all SEC-sanctioned sports:
Florida - 72
Arkansas - 62
Texas A&M - 31
Alabama - 28
Georgia - 25
South Carolina - 23
LSU - 17
Kentucky - 17
Auburn - 14
Vanderbilt - 14
Tennessee - 11
Ole Miss - 6
Mississippi State - 6
Missouri - 2
*Spring 2024 results for Baseball, Golf, W. Golf, Softball, Tennis, W. Tennis, Outdoor T&F, W. Outdoor T&F are still TBD.
Mizzou has been exceptionally pathetic as an Athletic Department compared to the rest of the SEC. It is almost certain that OU and Texas will surpass Mizzou in Year 1 of their membership.
Good luck to the next AD that comes through
Florida - 72
Arkansas - 62
Texas A&M - 31
Alabama - 28
Georgia - 25
South Carolina - 23
LSU - 17
Kentucky - 17
Auburn - 14
Vanderbilt - 14
Tennessee - 11
Ole Miss - 6
Mississippi State - 6
Missouri - 2
*Spring 2024 results for Baseball, Golf, W. Golf, Softball, Tennis, W. Tennis, Outdoor T&F, W. Outdoor T&F are still TBD.
Mizzou has been exceptionally pathetic as an Athletic Department compared to the rest of the SEC. It is almost certain that OU and Texas will surpass Mizzou in Year 1 of their membership.
Good luck to the next AD that comes through
2
Posted on 3/24/24 at 11:23 pm to KCM0Tiger
No one gives a shite about 80% of those championships.
If Mizzou had won 3 gymnastics championships and 2 golf championships, I would feel no better about our Athletic Department.
The only ones that count are men’s basketball and football.
If Mizzou had won 3 gymnastics championships and 2 golf championships, I would feel no better about our Athletic Department.
The only ones that count are men’s basketball and football.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:21 am to the808bass
That's fair. I'd like to be somewhat competitive at other sports too, but I can't argue that football and basketball are king.
By that approach though, I'd argue we need to be cutting some dead weight programs from the budget. Mizzou sponsors 20 programs which is more than Arkansas, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, and Vanderbilt and is the same amount as Tennessee and Texas A&M. If Mizzou is going to keep up in the SEC, it would behoove them to cut bait on several programs.
By that approach though, I'd argue we need to be cutting some dead weight programs from the budget. Mizzou sponsors 20 programs which is more than Arkansas, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, and Vanderbilt and is the same amount as Tennessee and Texas A&M. If Mizzou is going to keep up in the SEC, it would behoove them to cut bait on several programs.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 1:44 pm to KCM0Tiger
quote:
I'd argue we need to be cutting some dead weight programs from the budget.
Agreed. Call the question.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 3:42 pm to the808bass
quote:
Call the question.
Aye
Posted on 3/25/24 at 7:26 pm to the808bass
Second
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:18 pm to KCM0Tiger
Yes, Mizzou isn't competitive at the highest levels in the non-revenue sports other than Wrestling, which isn't an SEC sport.
I will also add that eight schools ahead of Mizzou in that list didn't win (or even tie for) a division championship in football, and Mizzou did it twice, both times outright.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'd say that winning a division title in football is worth about a dozen track and field conference titles.
I will also add that eight schools ahead of Mizzou in that list didn't win (or even tie for) a division championship in football, and Mizzou did it twice, both times outright.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'd say that winning a division title in football is worth about a dozen track and field conference titles.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:49 pm to the808bass
quote:
If Mizzou had won 3 gymnastics championships and 2 golf championships, I would feel no better about our Athletic Department.
I would. It’s important to win and win championships and produce good athletes no matter what sport. Not all boosters like football or basketball. Boosters that don’t care about sports are more likely to give to a successful athletic department or NIL. I want the NIL collective to give more money to the non-revenue sports. Being good at women’s tennis could help football.
DRF only spent money on football and basketball. She screwed over all the other sports. She didn’t set the other sports up for success. We field 8 men’s 10 women’s sports teams. In 2023 the athletic department spent $2,259,147 in recruiting. Football spent $1,270,252, men’s basketball spent $791,463, and baseball got a little over $46,000. The other 15 sports programs get $150,000 or a little over $10,000 per team.
quote:
By that approach though, I'd argue we need to be cutting some dead weight programs from the budget
The six non-revenue men’s and 10 women’s sports do not hurt the athletic department budget or take away from football or basketball.
It probably wouldn’t hurt if we added a few sports. Missouri State has Beach Volleyball, Central Missouri has Bowling, SLU has Field Hockey, UMKC has men’s Tennis, S&T has men’s Volleyball, Missouri Western has Lacrosse and ESports(Olympic sport in 28). Mizzou doesn’t sponsor any of these sports.
How can Missouri be successful in the SEC with a recruiting budget of $46,000. Arkansas baseball lost $2.6 million last year. I don’t think the Mizzou Athletic Department is willing to lose a third of that to be competitive. We will be in the SEC baseball basement until we are ready to take a significant loss.
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 11:55 pm
Posted on 5/22/24 at 12:40 am to MizzouBS
why do we have more womens sports than mens?
also, if Mizzou isn't willing to lose money, I don't think that is a bad thing.
also, if Mizzou isn't willing to lose money, I don't think that is a bad thing.
Posted on 5/22/24 at 9:13 am to deputyfife
quote:
why do we have more womens sports than mens?
Serious question or sarcasm?
Posted on 5/22/24 at 12:37 pm to deputyfife
quote:
why do we have more womens sports than mens?
SEC has 9 sports for men and 12 for women. For some reason we are the only school without a men’s tennis team.
Women don’t participate in Equestrian even though we have the 4th ranked equine degree in the country.
We have 20 sponsored teams because indoor and outdoor track are considered 2 separate teams.
This post was edited on 5/22/24 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 5/22/24 at 7:42 pm to deputyfife
quote:
why do we have more womens sports than mens?
Title IX it has killed many men’s teams around the nation. Football has so many athletes it offsets the equation. It is bullshite they just don’t set football aside in its own category as no woman’s sport has that number.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News