Why Is The SEC Thriving In Football, Struggling In Basketball? Money

 Send This Story To A Friend

The Southeastern Conference is known for football.  Seven BCS titles in row.  Five different schools with BCS crowns since the system’s inception in 1998.  Big name coaches, famous stadiums, dominant recruiting.

Mention the words “college football” and the letters S-E-C will pop into most people’s minds.

But utter the words “SEC basketball” and a different three letters come to mind: B-A-D.

Spin it any way you like, Mike Slive’s league is struggling through an abysmal season.  Florida has been dominant.  Kentucky finally appears to be rounding into shape.  Missouri has been a little worse than expected; Ole Miss a little better.  After that, it’s unlikely any of the conference’s 10 remaining teams will receive at-large invitations to the NCAA Tournament.  Saddled with a #8 RPI ranking among conferences, four bids might be generous.

In an age when the NCAA Tournament has been expanding, the number of SEC tourney berths has been declining.  This is more than a down year… it’s a trend:

From afar, the SEC has continued to have success — in most years — in the NCAA Tournament regardless of its dwindling number of bids.  But in many of those seasons, the SEC was dominated by just one or two teams.  That’s a far cry from the top-to-bottom toughness produced by the very same schools on the gridiron.

Using mathematician/hoops guru Ken Pomeroy’s computer rankings as a guide, here’s a look at the SEC teams that finished in his top 20 over the past decade:

2012:  #1 Kentucky, #12 Florida, #16 Vanderbilt

2011:  #6 Kentucky, #16 Florida

2010:  #3 Kentucky

2009:  None

2008:  #14 Tennessee

2007:  #2 Florida, #14 Kentucky

2006:  #1 Florida, #10 LSU, #15 South Carolina, #17 Arkansas, #20 Kentucky

2005:  #6 Florida, #10 Kentucky, #18 Alabama

2004:  #9 Kentucky, #17 Mississippi State

2003:  #2 Kentucky, #12 Mississippi State, #14 Florida, #17 LSU, #18 Georgia

As you can see, the number of top 20-caliber teams from the SEC has fallen drastically.  There were 17 SEC teams in the final top 20 of Pomeroy’s rankings from 2003 to 2007.  From 2008 to 2012, there have been just seven teams in his final top 20 rankings.

Worse, of the 24 top 20 slots filled by SEC squads in the last decade, 14 were filled by two schools: Florida and Kentucky.  Compare that to the SEC’s football success where in the last five years Alabama, Auburn, Florida, LSU, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas and Texas A&M have all had top 10-type seasons.

(In case you’re wondering Pomeroy’s current hoops rankings have Florida #1 and Kentucky #18.  No other SEC schools rank in his top 20.  Same song, different verse.)

So why do 14 schools that recruit the same areas in both sports have such drastically different results when it comes to football and basketball?

Money.

Now, the SEC honchos in Birmingham as well as basketball coaches and athletic directors across the league would tell you that basketball is just as important as football.  They would say that there has been no conscious decision on the part of any league schools to build up football while ignoring basketball.

We say otherwise.  And so do the facts.

Of the 25 highest-paid head coaches in college football, 10 currently conduct their business in the SEC.  That number will likely jump to 11 when Texas A&M’s Kevin Sumlin receives a raise and extension for his fine work this past year.

Needless to say, few SEC schools make anywhere near that kind of investment in basketball.  In fact, here’s a side-by-side comparison of SEC salaries for head football coaches and head basketball coaches.  (Keep in mind that bonuses can skew the average value of a deal.  These, however, are the most accurate numbers we could find for annual salaries):

Is it a coincidence that the SEC’s two most consistent winners in basketball also happen have the two highest-paid coaches in the league?  The only two basketball coaches who make more than their football-coaching counterparts?

Television revenue is now the cash cow for America’s athletics departments.  Television revenue is driven by college football, not basketball (just ask the ACC or Big East).  So is it any wonder that SEC schools — oh, so dominant in football already — continue to invest more money into football than into basketball?  There’s simply a greater return on investment when it comes to hiring the biggest-name coach with the winningest track record on the gridiron.

This, of course, says nothing of the facilities race currently being waged across the league.  New multi-million dollar football complexes are all the rage.  Meanwhile, Ole Miss is making plans to finally/hopefully build a replacement for rickety old Tad Smith Coliseum, a building that saw a rain out in basketball just a couple of years ago.

If anyone wonders why the SEC is more dominant than ever in football while its basketball product appears to be in decline, the answer is simple — money.  Those schools (Florida and Kentucky) that make greater investments into hoops have more success.  Those that funnel the vast, vast majority of their cash toward football are much less successful and consistent on the hardwood.

It’s not rocket science, folks.  It’s math and economics.