NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:33 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 956 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 ... 64  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:30 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1320
sec03 wrote:
'Bama's permanent cross game in the east has been Tenn. They don't want to switch that to Auburn if Auburn moves or potentially play Auburn twice, in close timing, for a championship game.

Some in the east, if Mizzou is moved to the east, are concerned about travel.

Nevertheless, it looks like Mizzou is on track to be added.

Arkansas would be their permanent rival so every year they'll play the three closest schools to them, Arkansas, Vandy, and Kentucky, the difference between Alabama/Auburn and Tennessee/Georgia is insignificant, so the only negative to joining the East for Mizzou is losing a yearly game in recruit rich Texas and Louisiana since those recruit would be more likely to go to Mizzou than ones from South Carolina and Florida, however that my be offset by playing in the weaker East division where they could conceivably win more games each year. Still not having to travel to Mississippi every year has to be considered a benefit.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:00 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1427
Oxford and Starkeville would be pretty central to the SEC if Mizzou is added.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:17 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1359
Location: Baltimore, MD
Quote:
Arkansas would be their [Missouri's] permanent rival so every year they'll play the three closest schools to them,


So, tkalmus, you are predicting that SC and A&M would be permanent crossover opponents?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:19 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:47 pm
Posts: 252
westwolf wrote:
Quote:
Arkansas would be their [Missouri's] permanent rival so every year they'll play the three closest schools to them,


So, tkalmus, you are predicting that SC and A&M would be permanent crossover opponents?


That makes the most sense. Adding Mizzou to the East would allow them and Arkansas to become permanent crossover rivals while A&M takes up SCAR. All other rivalries stay in tact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:25 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1320
sec03 wrote:
Oxford and Starkeville would be pretty central to the SEC if Mizzou is added.
I wasn't referring to travel, out of all the schools in the SEC, the two in Mississippi are the most worthless to Mizzou, Kentucky/Vandy/Arkansas are all close, A&M and LSU are great for Mizzou recruiting and possibly a nationally televised game, Auburn Bama Florida Georgia Tennessee are all historic programs that garner national attention and energize their fans/alum, South Carolina is good but not great and won't do that much for Mizzou fans or recruiting but clearly Ole Miss and Miss St are the worst, they don't have the same cache that many other SEC schools have little market penetration and rarely attract the attention of the nation, have pretty bad academics which give the administration less of a reason to associate with them outside of athletics, offer very little in terms of recruiting and or energizing the fan base which won't help much in selling tickets or fan travel. While yes their inclusion in the SEC is very centralized they do very little for Mizzou, they aren't close enough to be a "rival" and are far enough away for Mizzou to feel indifferent about them (like how most Big 12 schools in Texas feel about Iowa St). Obviously if they are ranked then that may change things but it would only be a temporary fix. I'm not trying to be down on Mississippi but from most of the Mizzou fan I've been hearing from those two schools don't do anything for the school, program, or fanbases.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:44 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1320
diabsoule wrote:
westwolf wrote:
Quote:
Arkansas would be their [Missouri's] permanent rival so every year they'll play the three closest schools to them,


So, tkalmus, you are predicting that SC and A&M would be permanent crossover opponents?


That makes the most sense. Adding Mizzou to the East would allow them and Arkansas to become permanent crossover rivals while A&M takes up SCAR. All other rivalries stay in tact.

That what I'm thinking, the Ark/SC rivalry was forced on them when they joined back in the 90's and from the few Arkansas fans I know they couldn't care less about it. another option would be if to also mix up the newer Kentucky v Miss St rivalry if those schools wanted a change, but I think A&M would rather play SC than UK and SC would rather play in Texas than in MS.

Logically Arkansas plays a more regional rival which is a plus (like Bama/Tenn UGA/Aub Vandy/Ole Miss), SC plays in a recruiting hotbed, A&M established a rivalry with one of the better teams in the SEC, and Mizzou is allowed play the closest three schools to them while avoiding playing many of the SEC juggernauts every year (LSU, Bama, and Auburn) that makes their SEC schedule easier to manage and makes them feel more comfortable with the move.

Of course the SEC could just be really lazy and put Mizzou in the East and make A&M their rival...but if Mizzou was having doubts about joining the East this would be the easiest way to appease them but I'm hearing that many Mizzou fans want to join the West and have Alabama and Auburn move East and Vandy move West and have Kentucky as their permanent rival.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:08 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:47 pm
Posts: 252
tkalmus wrote:
diabsoule wrote:
westwolf wrote:
Quote:
Arkansas would be their [Missouri's] permanent rival so every year they'll play the three closest schools to them,


So, tkalmus, you are predicting that SC and A&M would be permanent crossover opponents?


That makes the most sense. Adding Mizzou to the East would allow them and Arkansas to become permanent crossover rivals while A&M takes up SCAR. All other rivalries stay in tact.

That what I'm thinking, the Ark/SC rivalry was forced on them when they joined back in the 90's and from the few Arkansas fans I know they couldn't care less about it. another option would be if to also mix up the newer Kentucky v Miss St rivalry if those schools wanted a change, but I think A&M would rather play SC than UK and SC would rather play in Texas than in MS.

Logically Arkansas plays a more regional rival which is a plus (like Bama/Tenn UGA/Aub Vandy/Ole Miss), SC plays in a recruiting hotbed, A&M established a rivalry with one of the better teams in the SEC, and Mizzou is allowed play the closest three schools to them while avoiding playing many of the SEC juggernauts every year (LSU, Bama, and Auburn) that makes their SEC schedule easier to manage and makes them feel more comfortable with the move.

Of course the SEC could just be really lazy and put Mizzou in the East and make A&M their rival...but if Mizzou was having doubts about joining the East this would be the easiest way to appease them but I'm hearing that many Mizzou fans want to join the West and have Alabama and Auburn move East and Vandy move West and have Kentucky as their permanent rival.


I've thought about that but I don't think Slive wants Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee all in the same division


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:35 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1320
diabsoule wrote:
tkalmus wrote:
diabsoule wrote:
westwolf wrote:
Quote:
Arkansas would be their [Missouri's] permanent rival so every year they'll play the three closest schools to them,


So, tkalmus, you are predicting that SC and A&M would be permanent crossover opponents?


That makes the most sense. Adding Mizzou to the East would allow them and Arkansas to become permanent crossover rivals while A&M takes up SCAR. All other rivalries stay in tact.

That what I'm thinking, the Ark/SC rivalry was forced on them when they joined back in the 90's and from the few Arkansas fans I know they couldn't care less about it. another option would be if to also mix up the newer Kentucky v Miss St rivalry if those schools wanted a change, but I think A&M would rather play SC than UK and SC would rather play in Texas than in MS.

Logically Arkansas plays a more regional rival which is a plus (like Bama/Tenn UGA/Aub Vandy/Ole Miss), SC plays in a recruiting hotbed, A&M established a rivalry with one of the better teams in the SEC, and Mizzou is allowed play the closest three schools to them while avoiding playing many of the SEC juggernauts every year (LSU, Bama, and Auburn) that makes their SEC schedule easier to manage and makes them feel more comfortable with the move.

Of course the SEC could just be really lazy and put Mizzou in the East and make A&M their rival...but if Mizzou was having doubts about joining the East this would be the easiest way to appease them but I'm hearing that many Mizzou fans want to join the West and have Alabama and Auburn move East and Vandy move West and have Kentucky as their permanent rival.


I've thought about that but I don't think Slive wants Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee all in the same division

I agree, NTM South Carolina and UK in bball...

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:48 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1427
The SEC divisions began with TWO permanent cross-overs. Mississippi State, for example, played South Carolina and Kentucky. The later complaint was that certain schools had easier conference schedules, which was part of the reason for dropping it to one. South Carolina played Arkansas and MSU as cross-overs. Auburn, in the beginning, wanted to play both Florida and Georgia, later cut to Georgia. The Arkansas-So. Carolina permanent matchup had something to do with being newbies', but the stated rationale at the time was to bond the conference together at the geographic extremes. Florida got LSU, and they probably wanted it. The central schools seem to get closer regular matchups, i. e. Vandy-Ole Miss, Ala.-Tenn. The deciding had also much to do with allowing big traditional rivalries as much as possible. Of course, near all see Georgia as a big rival; could add Clemson from the ACC to the list.

The SEC could go back to two permanents, but with increasing the conference to 14, substaining a bigger rotation is probably preferable. As to Mississippi schools, maybe not Mizzou, but Alabama, Auburn, and LSU are not wanting to give any of that up. Perhaps Arkansas as well. Miss. State and Alabama are very close. OK, 'Bama dominates bigtime, but that does not mean they de-value the series at all. And every decade, there are a couple of seasons Miss. and/or Old Miss rise to the occasion.

Mississippi actually has a good higher education system for a state with less industry and a largely rural population, particularly in the delta. While Mississippi is often criticized for public education, they have done better in recent decades in reading scores and graduation rates compared to some sister and other states. The state system including schools such as Delta State, MUW, Southern Miss., and historically black colleges in Jackson State, Alcorn A&M, and Mississippi Valley State have defined missions that have kept each afloat. While a poor state, Mississippi was spending the highest percentage, not quantity, of its tax dollars on public and higher education. The governing body in higher education has done a decent job in not duplicating unnecessary programs of study and keeping the three largest public institutions at comparable size. Often characterizing Mississippi in an unflattering way has an element of racial stereotyping.

Broke California has taken a big hit in subsidy for public higher education. Other states have as well. Pennsylvania's State System of Higher Education, once having the best paid professors, has steadily declined. And academics and athletics? Texas Tech while asking their professors to accept a take-back on a promised pay increase, at the same time, extended to Tommy Turbeville a huge boost. Maybe think of Texas as one big Mississippi is some respects. Rice is the real academic school in Texas. And if one is to pick from flawed US NEWS rankings (discredited by even some Ivy League sources), Texas is ranked near Georgia who doesn't have the AAU label.
GA Tech recently got theirs', while Nebraska lost theirs. Georgia doesn't even have the engineering and medical schools whereby so much of the research grants are based upon. But, Georgia is adding a new medical school along with their well established VET school. Try applying to Miss. State Vet school if one thinks it is so inadequate.

I am not defending SEC academics; but neither am I bashing them to promote the B12 who are losing many of their top schools, at least one to the SEC. They need to improve as elsewhere. But using terms as "worst" has a envious agenda behind it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:19 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1320
sec03 wrote:
The SEC divisions began with TWO permanent cross-overs. Mississippi State, for example, played South Carolina and Kentucky. The later complaint was that certain schools had easier conference schedules, which was part of the reason for dropping it to one. South Carolina played Arkansas and MSU as cross-overs. Auburn, in the beginning, wanted to play both Florida and Georgia, later cut to Georgia. The Arkansas-So. Carolina permanent matchup had something to do with being newbies', but the stated rationale at the time was to bond the conference together at the geographic extremes. Florida got LSU, and they probably wanted it. The central schools seem to get closer regular matchups, i. e. Vandy-Ole Miss, Ala.-Tenn. The deciding had also much to do with allowing big traditional rivalries as much as possible. Of course, near all see Georgia as a big rival; could add Clemson from the ACC to the list.

The SEC could go back to two permanents, but with increasing the conference to 14, substaining a bigger rotation is probably preferable. As to Mississippi schools, maybe not Mizzou, but Alabama, Auburn, and LSU are not wanting to give any of that up. Perhaps Arkansas as well. Miss. State and Alabama are very close. OK, 'Bama dominates bigtime, but that does not mean they de-value the series at all. And every decade, there are a couple of seasons Miss. and/or Old Miss rise to the occasion.

Mississippi actually has a good higher education system for a state with less industry and a largely rural population, particularly in the delta. While Mississippi is often criticized for public education, they have done better in recent decades in reading scores and graduation rates compared to some sister and other states. The state system including schools such as Delta State, MUW, Southern Miss., and historically black colleges in Jackson State, Alcorn A&M, and Mississippi Valley State have defined missions that have kept each afloat. While a poor state, Mississippi was spending the highest percentage, not quantity, of its tax dollars on public and higher education. The governing body in higher education has done a decent job in not duplicating unnecessary programs of study and keeping the three largest public institutions at comparable size. Often characterizing Mississippi in an unflattering way has an element of racial stereotyping.

Broke California has taken a big hit in subsidy for public higher education. Other states have as well. Pennsylvania's State System of Higher Education, once having the best paid professors, has steadily declined. And academics and athletics? Texas Tech while asking their professors to accept a take-back on a promised pay increase, at the same time, extended to Tommy Turbeville a huge boost. Maybe think of Texas as one big Mississippi is some respects. Rice is the real academic school in Texas. And if one is to pick from flawed US NEWS rankings (discredited by even some Ivy League sources), Texas is ranked near Georgia who doesn't have the AAU label.
GA Tech recently got theirs', while Nebraska lost theirs. Georgia doesn't even have the engineering and medical schools whereby so much of the research grants are based upon. But, Georgia is adding a new medical school along with their well established VET school. Try applying to Miss. State Vet school if one thinks it is so inadequate.

I am not defending SEC academics; but neither am I bashing them to promote the B12 who are losing many of their top schools, at least one to the SEC. They need to improve as elsewhere. But using terms as "worst" has a envious agenda behind it.

I agree with most of your points, the SEC academics aren't at the top but they aren't near the bottom. Adding Mizzou and A&M helps, and I agree UGA will be AAU soon too. But nowhere in my post did I used the word worst referring to the SEC's academics at all...I said...they were the worst schools in the SEC in relation to Mizzou, they aren't geographically close (UK, Vandy, Ark), in recruiting hotbeds (A&M, LSU) or national programs that energize fans/alums/recruits that get national attention that puts their games on major TV (Bama, Auburn, UGA, Florida, Tenn).

The mosing damning thing I said was that "clearly Ole Miss and Miss St are the worst (schools in relation to Mizzou), they don't have the same cache that many other SEC schools have little market penetration and rarely attract the attention of the nation, have pretty bad academics which give the administration less of a reason to associate with them outside of athletics."

I'm not down on Mississippi academics, I just stated that Mizzou isn't telling its supporter that they are join the SEC in order to do research with the schools in Mississippi. But yeah Ole Miss and Miss St are the worst schools academically speaking in the SEC http://outkickthecoverage.com/west-virg ... happen.php and it is not racist to state that as a fact, which is ironic for you to say since Ole Miss had a racist Confederate as a mascot until last year.

And at no time during my post did I say one single thing about the Big 12 so your comment is extremely out of place. And to keep things fair Texas Tech is ranked worse than both Mississippi schools but still if Missouri stays in the Big 12 it won't be for the ability to associate with them either.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:49 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1359
Location: Baltimore, MD
Has anyone other than Pete Thamel of the NY Times been cited authoritatively on this Missouri-to-SEC matter? It seems that everything I've read on the situation this week quotes Thamel. Any corroboration?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:21 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1320
westwolf wrote:
Has anyone other than Pete Thamel of the NY Times been cited authoritatively on this Missouri-to-SEC matter? It seems that everything I've read on the situation this week quotes Thamel. Any corroboration?

KC Star was also reporting it...

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:34 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1427
tkalmus, near all of us may be jumping ahead of ourselves with the speculation and the somewhat rapid manner expansion announcements are made, with injected share that turns out to be misleading and/or confusing. I am not fully confident Mizzou will ultimately end up in the SEC. It looks that way for the moment, but also can visualize something derailing it. Personally, I liked the A&M move from the SEC standpoint. My first choice for #14 went against the grain even for an "east" pick. I'd like that to be NC State, but that was beyond a longshot for reasons no need to rehash.
Pondering a conference change, is a two-sided dance, and the Gestalt of it should be examined. Of course Mizzou, if given a firm assurance they may join, would/should examine who they would be associating with--all of them---and where they would have to travel and who travels to them. If it all comes to fruitation, we don't know for sure how the divisional placements and rotations shall ultimately pan out. Mizzou will have to make trips to the State of Mississippi, even as a rotation, fairly frequently. If that is something they cannot bare, then they need to look away from the SEC. They may end up being thankful having a "down" Mississippi or Vanderbilt or Kentucky team on the slate along with tangles with power-houses near each week in the season. I've been at games in near all the SEC stadiums, and the only real adjustment Mizzou would have to make is get used to the cowbells in Starkeville---which, speaking of mascots, some version of this 4-legged dairy animal could be more unique than the multiple bulldogs about---but still less than more tigers. By the way, Miss. State has a great campus cheese store and creamry, so Mizzou fans would not be at a total loss.
Why the SEC would focus on Mizzou is understandable. They seem not to have good options in the east--which means no ACC schools are begging to jump at this time, and the somewhat ingrained resistance to in-state additions. Fla. State would appear logical, but logic finds barriers. WVU got placed "not in the direction we want to go for now" by the ACC and the SEC. I did hear the SC President speaking of an "academic valued" choice, so Mizzou, in addition to certain other variables, must fit the acceptable criteria the SEC seeks.

The SEC and ACC picked from BCS conferences that had internal dissatisfaction. Slive was clear he wanted to add a school that was "free to move". The B12, while excellent individual schools, never really got bonded when the Big8 merged with the Texas 4 after the SWC breakup. Schools like Nebraska held resentment about it. The LHN network may have been the excuse for some to leave or seek to leave, but the divisiveness appears to have been existing long before and not that much below the surface. The old Big8 and returned Commissioner is trying to reach a new and perhaps improved identity with quality additions. UT, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, etc. are very prominent institutions to rebuild the conference in solid and stable fashion. I was not keen on them going to the PAC10 much anyway. I don't point at Texas as the sole source of discontent. Others got complicit and a few had their own agendas. I am old enough to miss the old Southwest conference, and the breakup aftermath of that left residual bitterness. Baylor and TTU got the go-alongs, while SMU, Rice, TCU, and Houston had to resort to lesser desired options.

Attitudes and circumstances change, and if Mizzou does end up in the SEC along with A&M, it may be less of a raid, and a market opportunity too positive to let pass by. Frankly though, travel to Columbia, SC may be a lot nicer than travel to Columbia, Mo.---particularly in the late season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:52 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1359
Location: Baltimore, MD
I am still looking forward to seeing an SEC team play in the snow sometime in Mo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:23 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1359
Location: Baltimore, MD
Missouri meeting moved up to tonight.

http://www.missourinet.com/2011/10/19/mu-curators-to-decide-to-move-to-sec-tonight/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 956 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 ... 64  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group