Category Archives: SEC
Today, the Big 12 and SEC announced that they have entered into a five-year contract which will allow champion of each conference to play each other in a New Year’s Day bowl game beginning in 2014. The contract is tailored to fit in with the new four-team playoff model, in that if the respective Big 12 and SEC champions are set to play in that game, different schools from each conference will play in the Big 12 and SEC match-up.
In making this announcement, the Big 12 and SEC have kept themselves ahead of the game when it comes to the reorganization of the college football playoff structure resulting from the expiration of the BCS’ current deal. This should come as no surprise to college football fans, as SEC commissioner Mike Slive has been at the forefront of proposing captivating alternatives to the current BCS system. It was Slive who first suggested the four-team playoff system, which will likely be adopted as the new BCS alternative. Today, Slive has once again protected the football notoriety of his conference, and the Big 12 has done the same, by ensuring that one team from each conference is present in a major, New Year’s Day bowl game.
The possibilities for this match-up are nearly endless, and quite fascinating. When considering the conference realignment landscape that took Big 12 programs Missouri and Texas A&M to the SEC, this proposal raises the possibility that those two teams could someday face off against former rivals on national television on New Year’s Day. For fans mourning the end of the Texas-Texas A&M rivalry, this agreement presents the opportunity for the rivalry to flourish on a large-scale stage. Understandably, that would require both teams to become the champion of their football-competitive conference–but, at least it’s a possibility.
Questions remain about how the bowl will be orchestrated. For instance, it is unknown whether it will be held in a set location annually, like the Pac-12 and Big Ten’s Rose Bowl, or if it will travel to a new location each year. Given that SEC and Big 12 fans travel more than fans from other conferences, it may be worth each conference’s time to investigate the possibility of rotating the bowl game throughout various sites. This would open up the possibility of attending the game to more of the fans who are diehard supporters of SEC and Big 12 football. Additionally, it would raise the possibility of introducing each conference’s respective teams to new markets.
In the future, issues that will need to be addressed as a result of this bowl marriage relate to the bowls that each conference is currently aligned with. For instance, the Big 12 champion plays in the Fiesta Bowl each year. Will that continue? Is it possible that the agreement will result in the Fiesta Bowl being one of the sites that the bowl rotates through? Furthermore, what will happen to the current Big 12 No. 2-SEC No. 4 or 5 matchup, better known as the Cotton Bowl? Like the possibility just noted about the Fiesta Bowl, could this new bowl also rotate through the Cotton Bowl location? What will become of the SEC champion hosting Sugar Bowl?
My hunch is that the bowls will not agree to a game which rotates amongst them. Such would not be lucrative to the bowls. Thus, what the Big 12 and SEC have done with this move, is to strip the respective bowls of their power and transfer it to themselves. In doing so, they’ve opened up a bidding war of sorts, where the bowls will be expected to woo them with options. If none is suitable to the conferences, my guess is that they will launch a new bowl which will rotate throughout Big 12 and SEC locations.
Overall, this is a great move by the Big 12 and SEC. It is so, because it is a move that keeps them on top of the bowl shuffling/college football playoff landscape.
To conclude this week’s series, BusinessofCollegeSports.com will list in order the athletics departments earning the highest net income in 2010-11.
Issue has been raised by some over the classification of revenue minus expenses in this series as “profit,” since athletics departments are nonprofit organizations. It should be noted, that in the disclosures to the Department of Education, the athletics departments do not report either profit or net income. Rather, they report their revenues and expenses. For this series, profit/net income was calculated by subtracting the total expenses reported from the total revenues reported.
As noted above, the data was obtained from the Department of Education and is for 2010-11. The data from the Department of Education is by no means perfect. Throughout this series, net income was calculated by subtracting the “grand total expenses” from the “grand total revenues” that the athletic department reported to the Department of Education. Expenses in this instance included: head and assistant coach salaries, athletically related student aid, recruiting expenses, operating (game-day expenses) and “not allocated” expenses. The expenses faced by athletic departments, however, may be greater than those reported in this snapshot provided by the Department of Education. For example, an athletic department may have capital expenses outside of those expenses included in the report. This all being said, this data is the only data publicly available for both public and private institutions. Thus, it at least provides some insight into athletic department revenues, expenses, and net income before taking into consideration additional expenses, like capital projects.
In 2010-11, 48 athletics departments in BCS AQ conferences generated a positive net income.
|School||Athletic Department Net Income
|Penn State||$31,619,687.00||Big Ten|
|Kansas State||$23,395,408.00||Big 12|
|Notre Dame||$19,147,710.00||Big East|
|Ohio State||$18,630,964.00||Big Ten|
|Oklahoma State||$14,365,376.00||Big 12|
|Michigan State||$13,512,269.00||Big Ten|
|Texas A&M||$3,224,429.00||Big 12|
|Texas Tech||$3,124,246.00||Big 12|
|North Carolina State||$192,151.00||ACC|
|Iowa State||$121,686.00||Big 12|
In previous posts from this series, you’ll remember that every Big Ten athletics department ranked in the top-50 for revenues and expenses. However, neither Minnesota nor Northwestern achieved a net income above zero.
The conference with the highest percentage of members having a positive net income was the SEC. All but one SEC member (Ole Miss) generated a positive net income in 2010-11. The SEC was also home to the athletics department with the highest net income of any BCS AQ school, Alabama. However, the ten schools generating the greatest net income in 2010-11 are from a mix of conferences. The only conference not represented in the top-10 is the ACC.
|Conference||# of Athletics Departments||% of Conference|
This week, BusinessofCollegeSports.com showed you the revenues, expenses and net income of athletics departments in the BCS AQ conferences. To conclude this series, BusinessofCollegeSports.com is ranking the top-50 athletics departments with the highest revenues, expenses and net income. In this installment, we will show you which athletics departments spend the most.
The data was obtained from the Department of Education and is from 2010-11. While this data is not perfect, it is the only data publicly available for both public and private institutions.
|School||Athletic Department Expenses||Conference|
|Ohio State||$113,184,855.00||Big Ten|
|Penn State||$84,498,339.00||Big Ten|
|Notre Dame||$75,360,209.00||Big East|
|Texas A&M||$71,719,872.00||Big 12|
|Michigan State||$67,450,913.00||Big Ten|
|Oklahoma State||$55,757,830.00||Big 12|
While 80 percent of the Big 12’s members ranked in the top-50 in terms of revenue generated, only 70 percent ranked in the top-50 for expenditures. Thus, it is expected that at least several Big 12 members should generate a net income in the black. Only four Big East members ranked in the top-50 for revenue generated. However, five Big East members ranked in the top-5o for expenditures (Pittsburgh did not generate enough revenue to make the top-50 list, but is on the top-50 list for expenditures). Again, every Big Ten athletics department made the top-50 list for expenditures.
The chart below depicts how many places each conference held in the list and the percentage of the conference which made the list.
|Conference||# of Athletics Departments||% of Conference|
This week, BusinessofCollegeSports.com has shown you the revenues, expenses and net income (profit) of athletics departments in the BCS AQ conferences. To conclude this series, BusinessofCollegeSports.com will rank the top-5o athletics departments with the highest revenues, expenses and net income. First up is athletics department revenues.
|School||Athletic Department Revenue||Conference|
|Ohio State||$131,815,819.00||Big Ten|
|Penn State||$116,118,026.00||Big Ten|
|Notre Dame||$94,507,919.00||Big East|
|Michigan State||$80,963,182.00||Big Ten|
|Texas A&M||$74,944,301.00||Big 12|
|Oklahoma State||$70,123,206.00||Big 12|
|Kansas State||$68,875,266.00||Big 12|
Several things stand out in this list. First, every Big Ten team made the list. This is notable, as the SEC is typically viewed as the “power conference” when it comes to all things finance. The SEC had a great showing in the top-50, but only nine of its twelve athletics departments made the list. The conference with the least athletics departments on the list was the Big East, which only placed four of its members on the list.
The chart below depicts how many places each conference held in the list.
|Conference||# of Athletics Departments on List||% of Conference|
The last conference to be covered in BusinessofCollegeSports.com’s look into athletic departments with the highest net income is the SEC. Tomorrow, BusinessofCollegeSports.com will rank the top-50 most athletic departments with the highest net income, as well as the athletic departments which generate the most revenue and those with the greatest expenses.
The data was obtained from the Department of Education and is for 2010-11. The data from the Department of Education is by no means perfect. Throughout this series, net income was calculated by subtracting the “grand total expenses” from the “grand total revenues” that the athletic department reported to the Department of Education. Expenses in this instance included: head and assistant coach salaries, athletically related student aid, recruiting expenses, operating (game-day expenses) and “not allocated” expenses. The expenses faced by athletic departments, however, may be greater than those reported in this snapshot provided by the Department of Education. For example, an athletic department may have capital expenses outside of those expenses included in the report. This all being said, this data is the only data publicly available for both public and private institutions. Thus, it at least provides some insight into athletic department revenues, expenses, and net income before taking into consideration additional expenses, like capital projects.
|School||Total Athletic Department Revenues||Total Athletic Department Expenses||Net Income|
In terms of SEC athletic department net income, for anyone who is familiar with the conference, there really aren’t any surprises. Perhaps the only surprise, is that one athletic department turned zero net income in 2010-11: Ole Miss. Ole Miss generated the lowest amount of revenue in the SEC, but had the second-lowest expenses (Mississippi State’s were lower). Outside of Ole Miss, every other athletic department, save for South Carolina and Tennessee, generated at least $1 million in net income. Alabama’s athletic department generated the greatest amount of net income in 2010-11, with $31,684,872.00
In 2010-11, three SEC athletic departments had expenses exceeding $100 million: Auburn, Florida and Tennessee. In terms of revenue, five SEC athletic departments generated over $100 million in revenue: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, LSU and Tennessee.
Recently, NCAA Division I institutions and their conferences voted on whether to overturn a measure enacted by the NCAA Board of Directors in October 2011 which allowed Division I institutions to offer student-athletes multi-year scholarships. The effort to overturn the measure was narrowly defeated. Of those eligible to vote, 125 voted to uphold the measure, 205 voted to overturn it, 2 abstained and 35 did not cast votes. To overturn the measure, 5/8 of those voting (or, 62.5 percent) were required to vote in favor of overturning the measure. Thus, the vote to overturn the measure was short by 0.38 percent of votes.
Given how close Division I institutions came to overturning the right to offer multi-year scholarships, one may wonder how votes were split on the issue. First, consider those BCS automatic qualifying conferences and schools which voted to continue to allow Division I institutions to offer multi-year scholarships:
|BCS AQ Conferences & Schools Voting to Allow Multi-Year Scholarships|
|Atlantic Coast Conference|
|Big East Conference|
|Big Ten Conference|
|North Carolina State|
Most notably, the only BCS AQ Conference which voted to overturn the multi-year scholarship measure was the Big 12. The ACC, Big Ten, Big East, Pac-12 and SEC conferences, on the other hand, all voted in favor to continue allowing schools to offer multi-year scholarships. The only Big 12 member to vote to uphold the multi-year scholarship measure was Missouri. However, it should be noted that Missouri will join the SEC later this year. Many of the SEC’s member institutions voted similarly to continue to allow multi-year scholarships.
Of those 125 conferences and schools voting to allow schools to offer multi-year scholarships, 36.8 percent were BCS automatic qualifying conferences or schools. This is a significant number, especially when considering that the majority of schools casting a vote on the issue were non-BCS AQ schools. It further demonstrates that a majority of BCS AQ institutions are in favor of granting multi-year scholarships. This is important, as whether a school offers multi-year scholarships may greatly affect recruiting and athletic department budgets going forward.
Next, consider which BCS AQ conferences and schools voted to overturn the NCAA’s measure allowing multi-year scholarships:
|BCS Conferences and Schools Voting to Disallow Multi-Year Scholarships|
Of the 205 conferences and schools which voted to override the NCAA’s measure allowing schools to offer multi-year scholarships, only 25 were BCS AQ conferences and schools. Thus, BCS AQ conferences and schools only accounted for 15.6 percent of those wishing to disallow multi-year scholarships. Most interesting, however, is that the Big 12 and its member institutions accounted for 31.25 percent of the BCS AQ schools and conferences voting to disallow multi-year scholarships.
The question to be raised given these numbers is, what competitive disadvantage does the Big 12 believe it faces if multi-year scholarships are allowed to be granted? Opponents of the multi-year scholarship measure have made the reasons as to why they do not support the measure clear. First, granting multi-year scholarships binds schools and athletic departments to student-athletes who may not be able to perform up to required standards either on the field or in the classroom. Additionally, granting multi-year scholarships may impose a greater financial burden on athletic department budgets and may provide those schools offering multi-year scholarships with a recruiting advantage over those which do not offer multi-year scholarships.
These factors may have been relevant in the Big 12 voting in large measure to not support multi-year scholarships. In 2010-11, the Big 12 only had one school (Texas) which broke into the top-10 in terms of its recruitment expenses. Likewise, in terms of the top-50 most profitable NCAA programs, the Big 12 once again only placed one of its teams (Texas football) into the top-10. Given these factors, it is likely that the Big 12’s largest concern with offering multi-year scholarships rested upon a cost-benefit analysis of the measure, and what its teams would be able to offer budgetary-wise in terms of multi-year scholarships.
One thing is certain: because NCAA Division I institutions and conferences voted to uphold allowing multi-year scholarships, it will be interesting to see the recruiting advantages those schools offering them receive going forward.
It seems like almost weekly that a story arises about a coach banning players’ use of social media websites or about student-athletes making controversial remarks on websites like Twitter. Given the commonality of these stories in this social media age, BusinessofCollegeSports.com reached out to numerous Division I athletics departments to learn what type of social media policies their departments have adopted. The following demonstrates how some of the top athletic departments in the nation are allowing their student-athletes to utilize social media.
Athletics Department Allows Use of Social Media
Teams Restricting Social Media Use
|Arizona’s Director of Athletics Greg Byrne said, “Student-athletes must register their accounts with our compliance department. We talk with them regularly about what they post.”|
|Football student-athletes are not allowed to use Twitter and are told to make their Facebook accounts private.||Boise State’s Assistant Athletic Director of Media Relations Max Corbet said, “There is not a department policy. It is pretty much left up to each individual head coach.”|
|FSU’s Assistant Athletic Director/Sports Information Director Elliott Finebloom said, “We try to educate [student-athletes] on the positives and negatives of engaging in various social media platforms.|
|Georgia’s Assistant Sports Communication Director Kate Burkholder said, “Our feeling on this is that we make it as clear as possible that they are accountable for what they share, and they shouldn’t make any comments they wouldn’t make if they were getting interviewed on SportsCenter. This year our media training team (outside company) incorporated a lot of social media etiquette into their lesson. Every team goes through this training regardless of the level of exposure the team receives. Any further policies are left up to the coaches, but generally speaking, our policy is to educate and monitor rather than to ban.|
|While individual coaches are allowed to determine whether their student-athletes can use social media, none have prevented their student-athletes from using social media.||Kansas’ Associate Athletics Director for Communications and Media Relations Jim Marchiony said, “Kansas Athletics has a general student-athlete policy regarding how individuals are expected to present the university. . . Student-athletes’ use of social media falls under our general student-athlete conduct policies.”|
|While the athletics department adopted a “Use of Social Networking Policy” last year, it encourages the use of social media by its student-athletes.||In 2010, football coach Butch Davis banned the use of Twitter when UNC was under NCAA investigation. However, new football coach Larry Fedora is not banning the use of Twitter.As of two weeks ago, women’s basketball coach Sylvia Hatchell banned the use of Twitter so that her team can focus on basketball.||UNC’s Associate Athletic Director for Communications said, “We have a policy that was put into place last year, the Use of Social Networking Policy. There are guidelines and a monitoring component. Each sport has a designated coach or administrator who monitors social media. Each student-athlete who wishes to participate in social media, which we encourage, has to accept the monitor as a friend on Facebook, or the monitor must follow them on Twitter.|
|Each sport sets its own social media guidelines.||Ohio States’ Associate Athletics Director for Communications Dan Wallenberg said, “Our student-athletes are not restricted from using social media, however each team has the discretion to establish rules and penalties as they see fit.”|
|Oklahoma’s Assistant Director for Communications said, “We allow our student-athletes to participate in social media. Our coaches do not have a ban on them.”|
|Each sport sets its own social media guidelines.||One Oklahoma State coach (unidentified by the university) doesn’t allow student-athletes to use social media.||Oklahoma State’s Associate Athletic Director for Media Relations Kevin Klintworth said, “Our policies vary between programs. We have one coach that doesn’t allow social media at all. Most of them do as long as coaches are “friends” or “followers.”|
|Certain teams restrict student-athletes’ use of social media. Last season, Coach Spurrier didn’t allow the football team to use Twitter during the season so they could focus on football. Players were allowed to resume use after the season.||South Carolina’s Media Relations Director Steve Fink said, “We aim to educate [student-athletes] with guidelines and tips for using these sites wisely.”|
|TCU’s Assistant Athletics Director for Media Relations Mark Cohen said, “TCU student-athletes are permitted to use Facebook and Twitter. Each sport at TCU sets its own social media guidelines. No sports at TCU have banned the use of Facebook or Twitter.”|
|USC’s Sports Information Director Tim Tessalone said, “We work hard to educate [student-athletes and coaches] on the proper use of social media.”|
|Each sport sets its own social media guidelines. However, no coach has banned the use of social media by student-athletes.||Wisconsin’s Director of Athletic Communications Brian Lucas said, “I know that Coach Bielema [football] deals with his players on a case-by-case basis. If he has an issue with something a student-athlete has posted, he deals with the student-athlete one-on-one as opposed to imposing limitations on the team.|
There’s no need to beat around the bush: The SEC’s recruiting budgets blow every other conference’s out of the water. The SEC is home to six schools that spent over one-million dollars on recruiting student-athletes for its men’s sports teams.
Yesterday, recruitment expense data from the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12 and Conference USA was posted. Today, data for the MAC, Mountain West, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt, and WAC will be posted. On Monday, a spreadsheet listing the top-50 spenders in terms of recruiting will be listed, sorted by total recruitment expense budget, amount spent per team on average and amount spent per player on average.
The data was obtained from the Department of Education. Although this data is not perfect, it is the only data available for both public and private institutions. Furthermore, the data provided is for the 2010-11 school year. Additionally, it should be noted that the “Amount Per Player” column was calculated using the total amount of student-athletes at a given school. The Department of Education data does not disclose how many student-athletes a school recruited in a given year. Thus, using the data alone, it is impossible to calculate how much it cost a school to recruit a specific class.
|Schools||Men’s Sports Recruitment Expenses||Average Per Team||Average Per Player|
|Schools||Women’s Sports Recruitment Expenses||Average Per Team||Average Per Player|
In a surprising twist, the school which spent the most on recruiting for its men’s teams in 2010-11 was not Alabama, Auburn or LSU, but rather, Tennessee. The Vols spent $1,878,771.00 on recruiting student-athletes for its men’s sports teams in 2010-11.
The SEC programs which spent at least $1 million on recruiting student-athletes for their men’s sports programs were: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee. Interestingly, LSU, which participated in this year’s BCS National Championship Game was one SEC school whose men’s sports recruitment expenses did not top $1 million. LSU spent $574,182.00 on recruiting for its men’s sports teams in 2010-11.
The school which spent the most on recruiting student-athletes for its women’s sports programs was Auburn. Auburn expended $586,728.00 to recruit student-athletes for its women’s sports teams in 2010-11.
When reviewing the Department of Education’s most recent Equity in Athletics Disclosure Report, one item stood out: Missouri’s football expenses rose sharply between 2009-10 and 2010-11.
In 2009, Missouri’s total football expenses were reported as being $13.76 million. In its initial 2010-11 Equity in Athletics Disclosure, Missouri reported that its football team’s expenses totaled around $20 million. A jump of $6.24 million led several media outlets to question Missouri about the sharp rise in its football team’s expenses.
As it turns out, Missouri did not go gangbusters in spending during the 2010-11 season. Rather, it was merely a typo which caused the school to report that its football expenses increased by $6.24 million over a one-year period.
While it truly was most likely a typo which caused this reporting error, other media outlets noted that Missouri’s initial 2010-11 football expense reporting value of $20 million was closer in par to that of SEC football teams. Late last year, Missouri announced that it would be leaving the Big 12 to join the SEC. When the announcement was made, many wondered if Missouri could compete in the SEC in football.
Along with Missouri, Texas A&M will be leaving the Big 12 to begin play in the SEC this upcoming season. If Missouri and Texas A&M were members of the SEC during the 2010-11 season, how would their football expenses stack up amongst those of the rest of the conference?
The chart below depicts each football team’s total expenses during the 2010-11 season, as reported to the Department of Education. This data is the best available to gauge such expenses, as it is the only public report available providing this type of data for both public and private institutions. However, the data is not perfect. For instance, there are no set guidelines as to how expenses are calculated, other than the Department of Education does not allow schools to add in capital expenses to their expense value. Nonetheless, it does provide insight into which football teams are spending the most.
|5. South Carolina||$22,482,479.00|
|9. Ole Miss||$17,764,174.00|
|11. Texas A&M||$15,560,216.00|
|14. Mississippi State||$11,766,024.00|
The good news for Missouri and Texas A&M, is that if they were members of the SEC during the 2010-11 season, their football teams would not have expended the least amount of money in the SEC. The bad news for Missouri and Texas A&M, is that Kentucky and Mississippi State have never been known for their SEC football competitiveness.
In 2010-11, SEC football teams had total expenses averaging $22,209,165.00. Thus, there is room to argue that if Missouri and Texas A&M want to be competitive within the conference in football, they will need to raise their expenditures to this level. It is unknown what SEC football teams expended on football during the 2011-12 season, as that data is not available yet.
To see how Missouri and Texas A&M’s football teams stacked up financially in 2010-11 in the Big 12, click here. (NOTE: The PDF chart was created using the expense amount initially reported by Missouri to the Department of Education. This chart will be updated shortly).
To see how Missouri and Texas A&M’s football teams stacked up financially in 2010-11 throughout the NCAA, click here.
The 2012 SEC schedule was released today, giving fans a first look at how new conference members Texas A&M and Missouri will be integrated into the conference. Here’s the team-by-team schedule as posted on the SEC website:
2012 SEC Football Schedule (Conference Games Only)
Sept. 15: at Arkansas
Sept. 29: OLE MISS
Oct. 13: at Missouri
Oct. 20: at Tennessee
Oct. 27: MISSISSIPPI STATE
Nov. 3: at LSU
Nov. 10: TEXAS A&M
Nov. 24: AUBURN
Sept. 15: ALABAMA
Sept. 29: vs. Texas A&M
Oct. 6: at Auburn
Oct. 13: KENTUCKY
Oct. 27: OLE MISS
Nov. 10: at South Carolina
Nov. 17: at Mississippi State
Nov. 24: LSU
Sept. 8: at Mississippi State
Sept. 22: LSU
Oct. 6: ARKANSAS
Oct. 13: at Ole Miss
Oct. 20: at Vanderbilt
Oct. 27: TEXAS A&M
Nov. 10: GEORGIA
Nov. 24: at Alabama
Sept. 8: at Texas A&M
Sept. 15: at Tennessee
Sept. 22: KENTUCKY
Oct. 6: LSU
Oct. 13: at Vanderbilt
Oct. 20: SOUTH CAROLINA
Oct. 27: vs. Georgia (Jacksonville)
Nov. 3: MISSOURI
Sept. 8: at Missouri
Sept. 22: VANDERBILT
Sept. 29: TENNESSEE
Oct. 6: at South Carolina
Oct. 20: at Kentucky
Oct. 27: vs. Florida (Jacksonville)
Nov. 3: OLE MISS
Nov. 10: at Auburn
Sept. 22: at Florida
Sept. 29: SOUTH CAROLINA
Oct. 6: MISSISSIPPI STATE
Oct. 13: at Arkansas
Oct. 20: GEORGIA
Oct. 27: at Missouri
Nov. 3: VANDERBILT
Nov. 24: at Tennessee
Sept. 22: at Auburn
Oct. 6: at Florida
Oct. 13: SOUTH CAROLINA
Oct. 20: at Texas A&M
Nov. 3: ALABAMA
Nov. 10: MISSISSIPPI STATE
Nov. 17: OLE MISS
Nov. 24: at Arkansas
Sept. 29: at Alabama
Oct. 6: TEXAS A&M
Oct. 13: AUBURN
Oct. 27: at Arkansas
Nov. 3: at Georgia
Nov. 10: VANDERBILT
Nov. 17: at LSU
Nov. 24: MISSISSIPPI STATE
Sept. 8: AUBURN
Oct. 6: at Kentucky
Oct. 13: TENNESSEE
Oct. 27: at Alabama
Nov. 3: TEXAS A&M
Nov. 10: at LSU
Nov. 17: ARKANSAS
Nov. 24: at Ole Miss
Sept. 8: GEORGIA
Sept. 22: at South Carolina
Oct. 6: VANDERBILT
Oct. 13: ALABAMA
Oct. 27: KENTUCKY
Nov. 3: at Florida
Nov. 10: at Tennessee
Nov. 24: at Texas A&M
Aug. 30: at Vanderbilt
Sept. 22: MISSOURI
Sept. 29: at Kentucky
Oct. 6: GEORGIA
Oct. 13: at LSU
Oct. 20: at Florida
Oct. 27: TENNESSEE
Nov. 10: ARKANSAS
Sept. 15: FLORIDA
Sept. 29: at Georgia
Oct. 13: at Mississippi State
Oct. 20: ALABAMA
Oct. 27: at South Carolina
Nov. 10: MISSOURI
Nov. 17: at Vanderbilt
Nov. 24: KENTUCKY
Sept. 8: FLORIDA
Sept. 29: vs. Arkansas
Oct. 6: at Ole Miss
Oct. 20: LSU
Oct. 27: at Auburn
Nov. 3: at Mississippi State
Nov. 10: at Alabama
Nov. 24: MISSOURI
Aug. 30: SOUTH CAROLINA
Sept. 22: at Georgia
Oct. 6: at Missouri
Oct. 13: FLORIDA
Oct. 20: AUBURN
Nov. 3: at Kentucky
Nov. 10: at Ole Miss
Nov. 17: TENNESSEE
If you’re an SEC fan going to College Station for the first time this year, be sure to read BusinessofCollegeSports.com founder Kristi Dosh’s guide she wrote after attending a game there last season. She also posted a facilities tour of Texas A&M’s athletic facilities.