State of UM Football and Basketball

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Currently, the state of the union is in the crapper. Last in the SEC West in football and basketball in the immediate past seasons in these two sports.

BUT, there at least now appears to be hope. Or does it? Is there light at the end of the tunnel, or is it a runaway train?

Football: Despite the piss poor on the field results this past season, Orgeron was able to hire two new quality offensive coaches ---Werner/OC and Kehoe/OL (definate upgrades), and recruited a top 15 ranked recruiting class, including a likely upgrade at the QB position --B. Shaeffer. Lane decided to stay and has accepted his new role in the offense at TE/HB with enthusiasm. Willis decided to return to anchor the defense. And Orgeron showed a rare display of common sense and lack of ego for a new head football coach in the SEC ----he scrapped the so-called "USC offense" run ineptly by Mazzonne this past season. Some would say things are looking up and UM could turn the corner this fall. And yet, for every positive, I can see a negative to counter it --- new offense will take some time to learn ---B. Shaeffer, even if he is not a bust, will take some time to adjust, and his not being on campus until fall will cause the progress of the offense to be slower than otherwise --- Lane will need some time to adjust to his new role at TE ---- the OL, despite better coaching, will still likely be shaky --- the incoming freshman talent will most likely only include, at best, one to two true immediate impact type players(excluding Shaeffer), so the good recruiting year will not likely not have a significant impact until the 2007 season ---- lack of experience at WR ---Coach O still learning ropes somewhat as a head coach, etc.

Basketball: UM fired Rod Barnes after 4 straight losing seasons, hired an up and coming new head coach ---Andy Kennedy, who appears to have both the ability to recruit and coach on the floor, retained assistant coaches Dildy and White for continuity and their recruiting abilities, and has just announced plans for major improvements to Tad Smith Coliseum and plans for an adjoined practice facility with 2 full courts, coaches offices, locker rooms, weight room, etc. Most of the current players have now announced that they are definately staying with the program, including Curtis and transfer Cerasoli, PG who had to sit out this past season. One could certainly say that things are now looking up. But are they? It appears that next season we will still have primarily the same assistant coaches and players that just lost 13 of their last 14 games. The only difference will be a new head coach , one, yet unnamed, assistant coach, Cerosoli, and a couple of new recruits. Will AK and his new assistant, be able to pump new life into these players and unleash whatever potential Dildy and White have that caused AK to retain them? Will Cerasoli be the answer at PG? Will the two new incoming frosh make that much of an impact? With little room on the roster for many new players, how fast can AK turn the program around if it turns out that lack of talent is the primary reason for UM's lack of success? If we have another losing season, will a new coach and a shinier Tad Pad bring the fans back to the seats to create some excitement in the Tad Pad? And even if we are impoved, just look at the rest of the SEC, especially the West. LSU is young and very talented ----in the Final Four and could be the national champs this season. Arkansas made a big jump this season. MSU, while only winning one more game than UM did, looked more competitive in their losses and had a couple of young players turn the corner with a break out type season, providing promise of a good future nucleus for a contender. Alabama, with its tough schedule, made it back to the NCAA tourney and has some talent returning. A young Auburn team will likely be better as well, and finished with the same record as UM did this past season. To make inroads, we will not only have to be better, but significantly better. The so-called "experts" who said the SEC was "weak" or "down" before this season started, pretty much look like a fool now.

So, needed changes have been made. Steps taken in the right direction. Enough to make a real difference in 2006-2007? Potential or hype? Gold or fool's gold? I don't know. But, if the past is any indicator, it could once again be the latter.

[bigwater]

po monkey..

yall suk we suck we all suck now

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Yeah, we do. And the most frustrating and perhaps ironic things about all the sucking going on at Ole Miss, is that all of this below mediocre performance is happening AFTER huge ticket price increases in both football and basketball, mucho $$ spent on facility upgrades, and the painful purging of politically incorrect symbols and mascots. Hell, we could have finished last in the SEC in both sports with me as the head coach (I would only charge $250k or so to coach both sports), $5 sideline or courtside seats, and every SOB in the place singing dixie, waving a Rebel flag, and drinking whiskey before, during, and after the game and during every timeout, with Colonel Reb on the sideline or courtside in full confederate war dress on a white horse, leading the cheers and the band. We may not win a lot, but everyone would at least have fun.

[Bankermane]

especially GH22

[Po Monkey Lounger]

These recent NCAA stats explain a lot of things: (Note Vandy did not provide information):

Total Football Revenues

1. University of Georgia $50,895,838

2. University of Florida $43,417,641

3. University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa $42,979,669

4. Auburn University $40,563,927

5. Louisiana State University $40,107,764

6. University of Tennessee $29,326,709

7. University of Arkansas $28,562,866

8. University of Kentucky $19,973,591

9. University of South Carolina $17,451,963

10. University of Mississippi $15,958,445

11. Mississippi State University $9,792,405

Total Football Expences

1. Auburn University $16,379,077

2. University of Florida $16,244,658

3. University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa $14,175,824

4. University of Tennessee $13,586,845

5. University of Georgia $12,532,495

6. University of Arkansas $12,474,166

7. Louisiana State University $12,175,610

8. University of South Carolina $10,331,418

9. University of Kentucky $7,812,126

10. University of Mississippi $7,264,838

11. Mississippi State University $7,097,439

[big gumbo]

If you also notice that the rankings bout translates into stadium capacity.

Missisippi schools seems like cheap basturds compared to the rest

[Deltamud77]

It's astounding to me that the state of Alabama, which is geographically the same size as MS and population wise (AL = 4.5 million to MS 3.0 million), is not that much greater than MS (50% larger), generates over $80 million in football revenue compared to MS's $26 million (330% larger). If schools like UAB and Southern MS and other smaller schools in the respective states cancel each other out revenue wise and my math is correct, the average Alabama resident, or at least AU/UA fan spends 2 times as much on football than the average Mississippi resident and/or OM/MSU fan when you take population into account. Of course stadium size generates most of the revenue as previously indicated.

Georgia and LSU are really the only game in town (I guess there is GA Tech but that is not saying much), so I can understand them having high numbers as well as Tennessee and Arkansas. Florida is in the state of Florida, so that is self explanatory.

[Deltamud77]

What is the seating capacity at Vaught Hemingway now? What about Scott Field?