What about GT back to the SEC??

GunnerFanOffline · **Posted:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:28 am

The more important correlation, which I thought we'd already noted, was the cultural sports history of the regions. The northeast and midwest have deeper ties established with their older pro sports teams while the southeast had few/none, instead relying almost exclusively on college sports to build their ego.

dogsncocks · **Posted:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:47 pm

GT in the ACC appears to be a good fit and a good decision for them. I don't think the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 will have any changes for a long time.
The fundamental questions reside with:
a) any additions that may come with the PAC 10, Big 10, or few of the others such as the MWC; any conference not at twelve one could see the potential of additions, whether or not any of them are seeking it at this time
b) if the BE splits, and the fb schools go on their own, they are expected to expand from one to four teams which will have a ripple effect starting with C-USA
c) if Notre Dame makes a move to play conference fb, and it is the Big10, that will urge a PAC 10 expansion
d) What will Temple do? and other individual teams, i. e. Navy, Army may make for some interesting scenarios
e) if the 1-A/1AA divisions get deleted/overhauled, the non-BCS conferences will get more options and would result in another ripple effect.

dogsncocks · **Posted:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:55 pm

Quote:

Well since Indiana went solidly Republican and Ohio and Iowa went Republican while Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania went barely Democratic and Illinois went heavily Democratic, the Big 10 country looks pretty split.

Michigan, arguably the top public university in the country, has majors designed for athletes who can't cut it in the general student population. Ohio St. makes Auburn look like good by comparison. Have you been following the news lately?

So yes you are being smug. The Big 10 and SEC are two peas in a pod. Both would look for new members who are similar to the existing schools. The only difference is that the Big 10 schools are more highly regarded academically, so a similar school is a little different than a similar school in the SEC. In the slack cut for athletes, there is not much difference. The SEC actually banned Prop 12s (I think that was the term-that was a couple of academic reforms back) while the Big 10 set no official limits.

Both the SEC and Big 10 are the leaders in settling for less money by avoiding a playoff. That's because both want control more than they want money now.

Actually, Iowa was still a blue state; barely ;). Also there is much blue in red states and visa versa.

dogsncocks · **Posted:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:05 pm

Quote:

here's one i hate to bring up. it borders on red state/blue state insanity and i don't want to get into an insulting, conceited and smug one-upsmanship.

that said, there is certainly a perception that the SEC feels the way that Gunner describes. The universities, of course, take themselves seriously, but they see SEC membership about sports and athletics only and could well live without Vandy.

but look at the Big Ten. There is no way that it would take a 12th member in that would not be a good academic fit as well as athletic. In fact, the Big Ten, as a conference, often stresses academics over athletics and makes no bones about the fact that it would accept a lower return for sports to keep integrity and academic image high.

Two conferences, each with all public universities (except for one in each)...yet the philosophy is so different.

I can't help but feel some of the philosophy behind this is part of the divide we have in our country today.

I'm sorry; that may sound smug on my part and probably is, but I do believe the record is in place for both the B10 and SEC

The Big10 academic consortium is recognized. However, to suggest the Big10 is mostly about academics over athletics, there are other opinions.
The Big10 schools pump a lot of money into fb et. al. Compare the expenditures, that's the bottom line in measuring values in this. Certainly, Ohio State in the last few years has embarked on some questionable fb activities that challenges the notion that academics trumps athletics in the quest to find that edge.

lash · **Posted:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:06 pm

DogsNCo@cks, you are so right!

When the Big 10 starts placing a fraction of the money generated from sports into paying academic employees we can talk about emphasis being made on academics.

Maybe we should have some figures on Big 10 coaches pay verses professor of history, etc.

Since we are dicussing Ohio State, a couple years back the school added Aids Awarness as a credit to help one of the star football players remain eligible. Important subject, just not a really big emphases on academic acheivments.

The leader of the NCAA got on board in Virginia last year and stated in public the ACC expanded for academics. I could buy this argument if Boston College were leaving the Big East for the Ivy League.

The Ivy League is the only conference that really has emphases on academics.

Until the Big 10 drops football to 1AA, limits regular season games to 10 games, drops the basketball tournament, the conference is no more academic savy for sports than any other conference.

The Ivy League is the academic conference we all need to keep as the standard and compare to see how the Big 10 stacks up.

bigdoz · **Joined:** Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:28 am **Posts:** 115

Politics asside, weren't the folks in South Carolina and Georgia better served when each state had its two major public universities in the same conference:

ACC: SoCar, Clemson
SEC: UGA, GT

than today, when the in-state, season ending battle doesn't count in the league standings?

GunnerFanOffline · **Posted:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:47 pm

Depends, especially given that the politics are tough to remove from the equation.

Reasons favoring the division
- Builds the ACC-SEC rivalry
- Allows each institution a sense of freedom from the other; ie Tech isn't always in UGa's shadow
- IMO, raises the value of both the in-state and cross-state match-ups. We still enjoy warring with the in state rep, but also now enjoy the ramped value of GA state schools vs SC state schools, which may not happen as regularly under the old alignment.

Reasons against
- Sucks to lose for both your team and your conference
- Places extra pressure on an out of conference game

bullet · **Joined:** Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm **Posts:** 979

<<Reasons favoring the division
- Builds the ACC-SEC rivalry
- Allows each institution a sense of freedom from the other; ie Tech isn't always in UGa's shadow
- IMO, raises the value of both the in-state and cross-state match-ups. We still enjoy warring with the in state rep, but also now enjoy the ramped value of GA state schools vs SC state schools, which may not happen as regularly under the old alignment.>>

I'm inclined to agree with you on the benefit to GT. They are much smaller and they aren't in UGA's shadow.

I think the conferences benefit. The SEC gets a whole lot more of the SC TV market with South Carolina and not much difference in GA w/o Ga. Tech. The ACC would get none of GA w/o Ga. Tech and wouldn't get that much more of SC.

But it all depends on the school and conference. Texas Tech would suffer if they were in a different conference than Texas and Texas A&M. UT and A&M are similar size to each other and wouldn't be hurt or helped by splitting. Iowa St. is little sister to Iowa, but would probably be more so in the Big 10. With the SEC/ACC, the ACC at least has a clear superiority in basketball (on a historical and perceptual basis, not any particular year) which helps GT.

What about GT back to the SEC??

Who is online