The following quote was taken from an article in today's Raleigh News & Observer, about super-conferences. It comes from SC hoops coach Dave Odom, and I thought it was an interesting comment, especially since the SEC does not have a men's soccer conference. "If you can pick up almost $1 million per school from a [football] championship game, that can help fund a lot of Olympic sports," Odom said. "Corporate sponsorships are bottoming out. You need other ways to find those funds, and a larger league broadens the financial base." You can see the full article at: www.news-observer.com
The SEC is noted for it's innovation, excellence, tradition in every way except MEN's soccer. The time is right for the SEC to "do the right thing" and bring MEN's soccer into the conference. This is a win-win situation for soccer and the SEC. Visionary leaders of the SEC need to speak out... Do what is right not what is politically right.....
What incentive does the SEC have to add men's soccer? Is it gonna make them money? No. Is it going to bring them widespread attention or publicity? No. Is it gonna cause the member schools to add a women's program in another sport to balance out the additional money spent on men's soccer? Yes. Will the SEC be able to attract the best soccer player's in the country the way they do in football, basketball, track and baseball? No, because the best soccer players in the country, for the most part, don't go to college, and that trend is only going to continue. Sure, there will still be a lot of very good players who go to college for a couple of seasons and there will be a few elite players who still play four seasons of college ball. But, for the most part, the elite players, the Donovans, Beasleys, (Eddie) Johnsons, Mapps, Gavens, Szetelas and Adus are skipping college ball altogether. And, for the few elite players that do go to college, they are spread out across the country and no one conference, not even the ACC, gets the best talent. Good talent? Yes, absolutely. But not elite talent, at least not a lot of it. For every Kyle Martino or Clint Dempsey or Ramon Nunez on a college roster, there are 4-5 players who are only on the team because they don't have enough scholarships to get better players. Look, I'd love to see the SEC, as well as the Big 12 and more teams in the Pac 10 and even the ACC (Ga. Tech, Fla. State) add men's college soccer. But the reality is that with the cost, the realities of Title IX and the diminished impact of college ball in pro development, it just doesn't make much sense for these schools and conferences to add men's soccer.
Sandon, your points are exactly why the SEC does not have Men's soccer. I totally disagree with that position because the issue is about offering male student athletes the opportunity to play SEC soccer plain and simple. You dont have to make money in all sports to exist. Success with your school brings prestige to the University in many areas that dont bring in revenue including the research areas. Why is Creighton spending millions on a new soccer specific stadium right now? Regarding professional development, it is true in all sports that some elite players skip the college ranks. Lots of high school players in the NBA now right. Doesn't mean you drop NCAA basketball from the SEC does it? Look at it another way, as soccer grows in tradition, other conferences such as the ACC will become the powerhouse conferences and the SEC will be left in the dust wondering who was the idiot back at the turn of the 21st century that thought NCAA men's soccer wasn't feasible.
Creighton doesn't have a football program and built a stadium because men's soccer is considered one of the school's major "national championship" sports, and because both men's and women's teams can use the facility. All things considered, Sandon's right. The SEC doesn't have much incentive to add men's soccer, especially given the Title IX headache it would create for most of the schools.