(05-28-2014 11:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:32 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:24 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:18 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:04 AM)john01992 Wrote:  it has nothing to do with milage but basic geography. MO and those KY/TN borders are not the same as regular border rivalries.

border rivalries are great because the fanbase are so close and have overlap. is that really the case with MO and those two sec programs when they share less than 5% of their border with each state?

It has everything to do with culture, and the Mississippi River doesn't impede that. Missouri and Arkansas have not played each other for a lot of reasons, but once they do, it will be on. My statement on cultural similarities stands. Go to any of these states as a Missourian, shut your eyes, and turn around three times. When you open your eyes and start talking to the folks, there is no difference. You will think you are somewhere close to home...

cultural similarities doesn't apply here IMO. syracuse and ann arbor "look the same" but you don't see me pimping a cuse-michigan rivalry.

id say your statement to be a lil offensive because I don't think that anyone from any state "looks different" from another.

Now you are just being silly John. Everyone here knows what I am talking about when I compared our SEC states. My comment was " Looks and feels like Missouri". I was referring to the way folks act, think, and yes, the geography. If you cannot grasp that comment of mine, just ask others for assistance. As for you earlier comments regarding Missouri looking historically at the Texas schools...um, No. That all started in 1992 with the Big XII, and you can verify that with 10th Mountain if you care to ... As far as Illinois as Mizzou's biggest rival, that series ceased to exist before we even joined the SEC.

it's not a matter of not grasping your geography comment but that comment not mattering. using your logic upstate new york is not that different from california because as far as I can tell because the folks there act & talk the same. at the same time i am not even sure if i should believe you because I have seen others on this own forum say that mizz isn't as culturally aligned with SEC schools as you are trying to make them out to be. now history is history. doesn't matter if it was 1914-1920 or 1996 to 2011 ==> it's there. and TBH you are wrong on that comment as even before 1996 mizz had racked up more games with smu/texas than they have today with any sec team today.

granted Mizz prior to 96 looked closer to the midwest teams to than texas teams. at the same time they still looked closer to texas teams than sec teams.

Using your SEC thesis here, a case can be made that Syracuse and Boston College have no cultural similarities to the rest of the ACC either. Maybe you are correct regarding the Syracuse and California cultures. You chose the wrong conference I guess. Borders are not worth discussing every day. It is what it is, with both your school and mine. We did good, you did good. Done...

(05-28-2014 12:17 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:32 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:24 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:18 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  It has everything to do with culture, and the Mississippi River doesn't impede that. Missouri and Arkansas have not played each other for a lot of reasons, but once they do, it will be on. My statement on cultural similarities stands. Go to any of these states as a Missourian, shut your eyes, and turn around three times. When you open your eyes and start talking to the folks, there is no difference. You will think you are somewhere close to home...

cultural similarities doesn't apply here IMO. syracuse and ann arbor "look the same" but you don't see me pimping a cuse-michigan rivalry.

id say your statement to be a lil offensive because I don't think that anyone from any state "looks different" from another.

Now you are just being silly John. Everyone here knows what I am talking about when I compared our SEC states. My comment was " Looks and feels like Missouri". I was referring to the way folks act, think, and yes, the geography. If you cannot grasp that comment of mine, just ask others for assistance. As for you earlier comments regarding Missouri looking historically at the Texas schools...um, No. That all started in 1992 with the Big XII, and you can verify that with 10th Mountain if you care to ... As far as Illinois as Mizzou's biggest rival, that series ceased to exist before we even joined the SEC.

it's not a matter of not grasping your geography comment but that comment not mattering. using your logic upstate new york is not that different from california because as far as I can tell because the folks there act & talk the same. at the same time i am not even sure if i should believe you because I have seen others on this own forum say that mizz isn't as culturally aligned with SEC schools as you are trying to make them out to be. now history is history. doesn't matter if it was 1914-1920 or 1996 to 2011 ==> it's there. and TBH you are wrong on that comment as even before 1996 mizz had racked up more games with smu/texas than they have today with any sec team today.

granted Mizz prior to 96 looked closer to the midwest teams to than texas teams. at the same time they still looked closer to texas teams than sec teams.

Using your SEC thesis here, a case can be made that Syracuse and Boston College have no cultural similarities to the rest of the ACC either. Maybe you are correct regarding the Syracuse and California cultures. You chose the wrong conference I guess. Borders are not worth discussing every day. It is what it is, with both your school and mine. We did good, you did good. Done...

yeah I know. however while i am not a proponent of the type of argument you are making. it may or may not be true, however it is a very minor factor in the thick of things. rivalries & partner schools is ultimately what makes these transitions work.

i have been through missouri, kentucky, & tennessee pretty frequently in the past 2 years and was last there less than a month ago. I have visited the mizz campus as well. so telling me that I was making ridiculous assumptions that i shouldn't be making because I haven't traveled there is what annoyed me more than anything in this discussion.

(05-28-2014 02:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 12:17 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:32 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:24 AM)john01992 Wrote:  cultural similarities doesn't apply here IMO. syracuse and ann arbor "look the same" but you don't see me pimping a cuse-michigan rivalry.

id say your statement to be a lil offensive because I don't think that anyone from any state "looks different" from another.

Now you are just being silly John. Everyone here knows what I am talking about when I compared our SEC states. My comment was " Looks and feels like Missouri". I was referring to the way folks act, think, and yes, the geography. If you cannot grasp that comment of mine, just ask others for assistance. As for you earlier comments regarding Missouri looking historically at the Texas schools...um, No. That all started in 1992 with the Big XII, and you can verify that with 10th Mountain if you care to ... As far as Illinois as Mizzou's biggest rival, that series ceased to exist before we even joined the SEC.

it's not a matter of not grasping your geography comment but that comment not mattering. using your logic upstate new york is not that different from california because as far as I can tell because the folks there act & talk the same. at the same time i am not even sure if i should believe you because I have seen others on this own forum say that mizz isn't as culturally aligned with SEC schools as you are trying to make them out to be. now history is history. doesn't matter if it was 1914-1920 or 1996 to 2011 ==> it's there. and TBH you are wrong on that comment as even before 1996 mizz had racked up more games with smu/texas than they have today with any sec team today.

granted Mizz prior to 96 looked closer to the midwest teams to than texas teams. at the same time they still looked closer to texas teams than sec teams.

Using your SEC thesis here, a case can be made that Syracuse and Boston College have no cultural similarities to the rest of the ACC either. Maybe you are correct regarding the Syracuse and California cultures. You chose the wrong conference I guess. Borders are not worth discussing every day. It is what it is, with both your school and mine. We did good, you did good. Done...

yeah I know. however while i am not a proponent of the type of argument you are making. it may or may not be true, however it is a very minor factor in the thick of things. rivalries & partner schools is ultimately what makes these transitions work.

i have been through missouri, kentucky, & tennessee pretty frequently in the past 2 years and was last there less than a month ago. I have visited the mizz campus as well. so telling me that I was making ridiculous assumptions that i shouldn't be making because I haven't traveled there is what annoyed me more than anything in this discussion.

Who is the Syracuse rival in the ACC John? It takes effort to make new things work, and the Aggies and Tigers are doing just that. Nothing is ever perfect. You have to do a bit more than travel a few days to understand the people. I was raised in Missouri and spent part of my adult life there until joining the military. I have lived in Mississippi for 26 years now, so I think I can speak as to cultures between the two. I respect your opinion, just differ with you on this issue. Just like Missouri, Syracuse will have to put a lot of effort into becoming a member of the ACC. That is what Missouri and A&M are doing right now. I think the overwhelming number of SEC folks would agree that they have put the effort into belonging in their new home. Best wishes.

(05-28-2014 07:12 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 02:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 12:17 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:32 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Now you are just being silly John. Everyone here knows what I am talking about when I compared our SEC states. My comment was " Looks and feels like Missouri". I was referring to the way folks act, think, and yes, the geography. If you cannot grasp that comment of mine, just ask others for assistance. As for you earlier comments regarding Missouri looking historically at the Texas schools...um, No. That all started in 1992 with the Big XII, and you can verify that with 10th Mountain if you care to ... As far as Illinois as Mizzou's biggest rival, that series ceased to exist before we even joined the SEC.

it's not a matter of not grasping your geography comment but that comment not mattering. using your logic upstate new york is not that different from california because as far as I can tell because the folks there act & talk the same. at the same time i am not even sure if i should believe you because I have seen others on this own forum say that mizz isn't as culturally aligned with SEC schools as you are trying to make them out to be. now history is history. doesn't matter if it was 1914-1920 or 1996 to 2011 ==> it's there. and TBH you are wrong on that comment as even before 1996 mizz had racked up more games with smu/texas than they have today with any sec team today.

granted Mizz prior to 96 looked closer to the midwest teams to than texas teams. at the same time they still looked closer to texas teams than sec teams.

Using your SEC thesis here, a case can be made that Syracuse and Boston College have no cultural similarities to the rest of the ACC either. Maybe you are correct regarding the Syracuse and California cultures. You chose the wrong conference I guess. Borders are not worth discussing every day. It is what it is, with both your school and mine. We did good, you did good. Done...

yeah I know. however while i am not a proponent of the type of argument you are making. it may or may not be true, however it is a very minor factor in the thick of things. rivalries & partner schools is ultimately what makes these transitions work.

i have been through missouri, kentucky, & tennessee pretty frequently in the past 2 years and was last there less than a month ago. I have visited the mizz campus as well. so telling me that I was making ridiculous assumptions that i shouldn't be making because I haven't traveled there is what annoyed me more than anything in this discussion.

Who is the Syracuse rival in the ACC John? It takes effort to make new things work, and the Aggies and Tigers are doing just that. Nothing is ever perfect. You have to do a bit more than travel a few days to understand the people. I was raised in Missouri and spent part of my adult life there until joining the military. I have lived in Mississippi for 26 years now, so I think I can speak as to cultures between the two. I respect your opinion, just differ with you on this issue. Just like Missouri, Syracuse will have to put a lot of effort into becoming a member of the ACC. That is what Missouri and A&M are doing right now. I think the overwhelming number of SEC folks would agree that they have put the effort into belonging in their new home. Best wishes.

syracuse & BC are technically each others #1 rival. wether or not they truly are is debatable but one thing that is not debatable is that they are the closest each school has to one. so bringing them together with the ACC move was a pretty big deal.

syracuse also has a nice traveling partner coming along with us in pitt (like cu/utah). while we may be pitts 3rd most important rivalry (at best) pitt has been our most consistent scheduling partner in both FB & BB and we have more games played with them than gtown in BB and BC and any other BE member in football.

on top of that theres our old conference mates in vtech & miami (39 combined games played). maryland & cuse have some history (35 games played) but we all know that that is a mute point now. but we still have more history with louisville than any sec team & mizz do. plus i would say that even if you took pitt/bc away you could of found a nice duke-cuse mid season matchup even in football as they have a lot of cultural similarities, or louisville & cuse.

so as you can see cuse is in a very nice position to "join" the acc. with other conference moves a new team will be lucky to have 1 semi-decent matchup to exploit to help ease the transition, syracuse was lucky enough to have 2 terrific ones plus 3-4 other decent ones to take advantage of.

i am not saying that mizz will not fit in with the SEC nor will it be hard for them to do so. All I am saying is that it is gonna be harder for mizz than texas a&m. not saying your culture point is wrong, just saying that it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

(05-28-2014 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Yes, Mizzou/Arkansas is a contrived rivalry, no one is disputing that. The Battle for the Boot was similarly manufactured an to the extent necessary, work. All the MTigers and 'Backs matchup needs to do is create an atmosphere that further integrates to two programs into the SEC culture.

I'm sure you would admit that the fact that MSU/PSU never really took off as a rivalry exacerbated the the folks in Happy Valley feelings about being an outlier in the B1G. Sometimes these things work, and sometimes they don't.

arky-lsu worked so beautifully because you had LSU who needed a solid end of year rivalry with a program that was their undisputed #1 SEC rival because they lacked that themselves. it had all the right ingredients to build a successful contrived rivalry.

missouri-arkansas doesn't really have those same ingredients and is coming in under completely different circumstances. you could argue that aggie with their lsu rivalry would deemphasize arky-lsu freeing up arky-mizz (which appears to be what the sec is trying to do). but that is hard to predict how the fans will truly react to that and it doesn't account for the big elephant in the room of aggie-arky being historic rivals.

the psu-msu thing pisses me off and i really wanted that to take off as a rivalry. but apparently osu-psu was the one that took off(for one side at least) and i am still dreaming on UNL though. I think part of the failures with msu-psu was that it felt too much like a shotgun marriage and a lack of shared demographics

Clearly, if the LSU/Arkansas rivalry is worth anything, then its intensity will not be lost from moving it earlier in the year. The SEC, like the B1G, is filled with meaningful, tradition rich games in the middle of the season. But ultimately these types of things are hit or miss yet conferences and teams have to try to make them work. For example, do you honestly foresee CU/Utah becoming a big PAC rivalry? Will it equal the Civil War, Big Game or Apple Cup? Chances are it won't, but it doesn't matter since there aren't any other options for the two teams.

I felt the main reason the Land Grant game never took off was because PSU felt they were being slightly by playing the Spartans. I agree with you that the Happy Valley faithful felt they were on the same level of Michigan or tOSU and should have been paired with one of those schools.

The transitions can of course vary. In the Big Ten, in 10 years, it will be easier to forget that Nebraska was a newbie recently than Penn State as Nebraska is a big public Midwestern college, and fits so seamlessly into the Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota triangle that they feel like an old guard program. Penn State will be grouped a bit more with Maryland and Rutgers with the whole attempt seeming like an east coast attack plan. That said, the whole move will also integrate Penn State better as they go from being an outpost to having a basically custom made division.

The cost of those full integrations though will be that things like there will start to be a new divide between schools in the east and west. Ohio State fans identify a lot closer with Wisconsin, Illinois, etc right now than Maryland and Rutgers, but that will start to change (very sadly).

(05-28-2014 07:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 07:12 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 02:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 12:17 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  it's not a matter of not grasping your geography comment but that comment not mattering. using your logic upstate new york is not that different from california because as far as I can tell because the folks there act & talk the same. at the same time i am not even sure if i should believe you because I have seen others on this own forum say that mizz isn't as culturally aligned with SEC schools as you are trying to make them out to be. now history is history. doesn't matter if it was 1914-1920 or 1996 to 2011 ==> it's there. and TBH you are wrong on that comment as even before 1996 mizz had racked up more games with smu/texas than they have today with any sec team today.

granted Mizz prior to 96 looked closer to the midwest teams to than texas teams. at the same time they still looked closer to texas teams than sec teams.

Using your SEC thesis here, a case can be made that Syracuse and Boston College have no cultural similarities to the rest of the ACC either. Maybe you are correct regarding the Syracuse and California cultures. You chose the wrong conference I guess. Borders are not worth discussing every day. It is what it is, with both your school and mine. We did good, you did good. Done...

yeah I know. however while i am not a proponent of the type of argument you are making. it may or may not be true, however it is a very minor factor in the thick of things. rivalries & partner schools is ultimately what makes these transitions work.

i have been through missouri, kentucky, & tennessee pretty frequently in the past 2 years and was last there less than a month ago. I have visited the mizz campus as well. so telling me that I was making ridiculous assumptions that i shouldn't be making because I haven't traveled there is what annoyed me more than anything in this discussion.

Who is the Syracuse rival in the ACC John? It takes effort to make new things work, and the Aggies and Tigers are doing just that. Nothing is ever perfect. You have to do a bit more than travel a few days to understand the people. I was raised in Missouri and spent part of my adult life there until joining the military. I have lived in Mississippi for 26 years now, so I think I can speak as to cultures between the two. I respect your opinion, just differ with you on this issue. Just like Missouri, Syracuse will have to put a lot of effort into becoming a member of the ACC. That is what Missouri and A&M are doing right now. I think the overwhelming number of SEC folks would agree that they have put the effort into belonging in their new home. Best wishes.

syracuse & BC are technically each others #1 rival. wether or not they truly are is debatable but one thing that is not debatable is that they are the closest each school has to one. so bringing them together with the ACC move was a pretty big deal.

syracuse also has a nice traveling partner coming along with us in pitt (like cu/utah). while we may be pitts 3rd most important rivalry (at best) pitt has been our most consistent scheduling partner in both FB & BB and we have more games played with them than gtown in BB and BC and any other BE member in football.

on top of that theres our old conference mates in vtech & miami (39 combined games played). maryland & cuse have some history (35 games played) but we all know that that is a mute point now. but we still have more history with louisville than any sec team & mizz do. plus i would say that even if you took pitt/bc away you could of found a nice duke-cuse mid season matchup even in football as they have a lot of cultural similarities, or louisville & cuse.

so as you can see cuse is in a very nice position to "join" the acc. with other conference moves a new team will be lucky to have 1 semi-decent matchup to exploit to help ease the transition, syracuse was lucky enough to have 2 terrific ones plus 3-4 other decent ones to take advantage of.

i am not saying that mizz will not fit in with the SEC nor will it be hard for them to do so. All I am saying is that it is gonna be harder for mizz than texas a&m. not saying your culture point is wrong, just saying that it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

All of rivalries you point out for Syracuse is a real stretch, but we can agree to disagree. Missouri has played Ole Miss a few times and that was good for both schools. Personally I like the Cuse much more as an ACC member. The B1G had a chance to take them, just like Missouri, but that ship has sailed. The B1G probably already regrets it...

(05-30-2014 12:23 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 07:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 07:12 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 02:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 12:17 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Using your SEC thesis here, a case can be made that Syracuse and Boston College have no cultural similarities to the rest of the ACC either. Maybe you are correct regarding the Syracuse and California cultures. You chose the wrong conference I guess. Borders are not worth discussing every day. It is what it is, with both your school and mine. We did good, you did good. Done...

yeah I know. however while i am not a proponent of the type of argument you are making. it may or may not be true, however it is a very minor factor in the thick of things. rivalries & partner schools is ultimately what makes these transitions work.

i have been through missouri, kentucky, & tennessee pretty frequently in the past 2 years and was last there less than a month ago. I have visited the mizz campus as well. so telling me that I was making ridiculous assumptions that i shouldn't be making because I haven't traveled there is what annoyed me more than anything in this discussion.

Who is the Syracuse rival in the ACC John? It takes effort to make new things work, and the Aggies and Tigers are doing just that. Nothing is ever perfect. You have to do a bit more than travel a few days to understand the people. I was raised in Missouri and spent part of my adult life there until joining the military. I have lived in Mississippi for 26 years now, so I think I can speak as to cultures between the two. I respect your opinion, just differ with you on this issue. Just like Missouri, Syracuse will have to put a lot of effort into becoming a member of the ACC. That is what Missouri and A&M are doing right now. I think the overwhelming number of SEC folks would agree that they have put the effort into belonging in their new home. Best wishes.

syracuse & BC are technically each others #1 rival. wether or not they truly are is debatable but one thing that is not debatable is that they are the closest each school has to one. so bringing them together with the ACC move was a pretty big deal.

syracuse also has a nice traveling partner coming along with us in pitt (like cu/utah). while we may be pitts 3rd most important rivalry (at best) pitt has been our most consistent scheduling partner in both FB & BB and we have more games played with them than gtown in BB and BC and any other BE member in football.

on top of that theres our old conference mates in vtech & miami (39 combined games played). maryland & cuse have some history (35 games played) but we all know that that is a mute point now. but we still have more history with louisville than any sec team & mizz do. plus i would say that even if you took pitt/bc away you could of found a nice duke-cuse mid season matchup even in football as they have a lot of cultural similarities, or louisville & cuse.

so as you can see cuse is in a very nice position to "join" the acc. with other conference moves a new team will be lucky to have 1 semi-decent matchup to exploit to help ease the transition, syracuse was lucky enough to have 2 terrific ones plus 3-4 other decent ones to take advantage of.

i am not saying that mizz will not fit in with the SEC nor will it be hard for them to do so. All I am saying is that it is gonna be harder for mizz than texas a&m. not saying your culture point is wrong, just saying that it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

All of rivalries you point out for Syracuse is a real stretch, but we can agree to disagree. Missouri has played Ole Miss a few times and that was good for both schools. Personally I like the Cuse much more as an ACC member. The B1G had a chance to take them, just like Missouri, but that ship has sailed. The B1G probably already regrets it...

sorry but how the hell are they a stretch????? are you just trying to troll me or are you seriously saying that joining a conference that consists of SU's two biggest rivalries and 3 more former BE schools "is a real stretch"

Another key thing to realize is that having a certain level of cultural diversity can actually help a conference when it comes to tapping into all of the different demographics of an area. You do not want to be in a league where every single school feels like Auburn and Alabama.

Vanderbilt and Florida are welcomed cultural "breaks" that prevent the SEC from falling into a pit of unwashed sameness.

Adding only one outlier can have drawbacks - WVU was a good add to the Big XII, but they needed a friend. I feel for WVU as it's not really their fault that they don't have a partner. The ACC (which holds Pitt and VPI - their two natural enemies) wants nothing to do with them. Schools added on their own will struggle to fit in when compared to those with a natural peer (or enemy - which can work out just as well >:]).

Are we just talking P5 here? Because each G5 conference has their own concerns when it comes to blending as well....

(05-30-2014 03:26 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Another key thing to realize is that having a certain level of cultural diversity can actually help a conference when it comes to tapping into all of the different demographics of an area. You do not want to be in a league where every single school feels like Auburn and Alabama.

Vanderbilt and Florida are welcomed cultural "breaks" that prevent the SEC from falling into a pit of unwashed sameness.

Adding only one outlier can have drawbacks - WVU was a good add to the Big XII, but they needed a friend. I feel for WVU as it's not really their fault that they don't have a partner. The ACC (which holds Pitt and VPI - their two natural enemies) wants nothing to do with them. Schools added on their own will struggle to fit in when compared to those with a natural peer (or enemy - which can work out just as well >:]).

Are we just talking P5 here? Because each G5 conference has their own concerns when it comes to blending as well....

I think it is an open ended question not specific to the P5.

(05-30-2014 01:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 12:23 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 07:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 07:12 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 02:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  yeah I know. however while i am not a proponent of the type of argument you are making. it may or may not be true, however it is a very minor factor in the thick of things. rivalries & partner schools is ultimately what makes these transitions work.

i have been through missouri, kentucky, & tennessee pretty frequently in the past 2 years and was last there less than a month ago. I have visited the mizz campus as well. so telling me that I was making ridiculous assumptions that i shouldn't be making because I haven't traveled there is what annoyed me more than anything in this discussion.

Who is the Syracuse rival in the ACC John? It takes effort to make new things work, and the Aggies and Tigers are doing just that. Nothing is ever perfect. You have to do a bit more than travel a few days to understand the people. I was raised in Missouri and spent part of my adult life there until joining the military. I have lived in Mississippi for 26 years now, so I think I can speak as to cultures between the two. I respect your opinion, just differ with you on this issue. Just like Missouri, Syracuse will have to put a lot of effort into becoming a member of the ACC. That is what Missouri and A&M are doing right now. I think the overwhelming number of SEC folks would agree that they have put the effort into belonging in their new home. Best wishes.

syracuse & BC are technically each others #1 rival. wether or not they truly are is debatable but one thing that is not debatable is that they are the closest each school has to one. so bringing them together with the ACC move was a pretty big deal.

syracuse also has a nice traveling partner coming along with us in pitt (like cu/utah). while we may be pitts 3rd most important rivalry (at best) pitt has been our most consistent scheduling partner in both FB & BB and we have more games played with them than gtown in BB and BC and any other BE member in football.

on top of that theres our old conference mates in vtech & miami (39 combined games played). maryland & cuse have some history (35 games played) but we all know that that is a mute point now. but we still have more history with louisville than any sec team & mizz do. plus i would say that even if you took pitt/bc away you could of found a nice duke-cuse mid season matchup even in football as they have a lot of cultural similarities, or louisville & cuse.

so as you can see cuse is in a very nice position to "join" the acc. with other conference moves a new team will be lucky to have 1 semi-decent matchup to exploit to help ease the transition, syracuse was lucky enough to have 2 terrific ones plus 3-4 other decent ones to take advantage of.

i am not saying that mizz will not fit in with the SEC nor will it be hard for them to do so. All I am saying is that it is gonna be harder for mizz than texas a&m. not saying your culture point is wrong, just saying that it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

All of rivalries you point out for Syracuse is a real stretch, but we can agree to disagree. Missouri has played Ole Miss a few times and that was good for both schools. Personally I like the Cuse much more as an ACC member. The B1G had a chance to take them, just like Missouri, but that ship has sailed. The B1G probably already regrets it...

sorry but how the hell are they a stretch????? are you just trying to troll me or are you seriously saying that joining a conference that consists of SU's two biggest rivalries and 3 more former BE schools "is a real stretch"

So John... How am I trolling on my own SEC Board? Last time I looked my school was an SEC member. Maybe you should spend more time with your ACC friends.... my bad. "Rivals".

(05-30-2014 09:51 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 12:23 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 07:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 07:12 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Who is the Syracuse rival in the ACC John? It takes effort to make new things work, and the Aggies and Tigers are doing just that. Nothing is ever perfect. You have to do a bit more than travel a few days to understand the people. I was raised in Missouri and spent part of my adult life there until joining the military. I have lived in Mississippi for 26 years now, so I think I can speak as to cultures between the two. I respect your opinion, just differ with you on this issue. Just like Missouri, Syracuse will have to put a lot of effort into becoming a member of the ACC. That is what Missouri and A&M are doing right now. I think the overwhelming number of SEC folks would agree that they have put the effort into belonging in their new home. Best wishes.

syracuse & BC are technically each others #1 rival. wether or not they truly are is debatable but one thing that is not debatable is that they are the closest each school has to one. so bringing them together with the ACC move was a pretty big deal.

syracuse also has a nice traveling partner coming along with us in pitt (like cu/utah). while we may be pitts 3rd most important rivalry (at best) pitt has been our most consistent scheduling partner in both FB & BB and we have more games played with them than gtown in BB and BC and any other BE member in football.

on top of that theres our old conference mates in vtech & miami (39 combined games played). maryland & cuse have some history (35 games played) but we all know that that is a mute point now. but we still have more history with louisville than any sec team & mizz do. plus i would say that even if you took pitt/bc away you could of found a nice duke-cuse mid season matchup even in football as they have a lot of cultural similarities, or louisville & cuse.

so as you can see cuse is in a very nice position to "join" the acc. with other conference moves a new team will be lucky to have 1 semi-decent matchup to exploit to help ease the transition, syracuse was lucky enough to have 2 terrific ones plus 3-4 other decent ones to take advantage of.

i am not saying that mizz will not fit in with the SEC nor will it be hard for them to do so. All I am saying is that it is gonna be harder for mizz than texas a&m. not saying your culture point is wrong, just saying that it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

All of rivalries you point out for Syracuse is a real stretch, but we can agree to disagree. Missouri has played Ole Miss a few times and that was good for both schools. Personally I like the Cuse much more as an ACC member. The B1G had a chance to take them, just like Missouri, but that ship has sailed. The B1G probably already regrets it...

sorry but how the hell are they a stretch????? are you just trying to troll me or are you seriously saying that joining a conference that consists of SU's two biggest rivalries and 3 more former BE schools "is a real stretch"

So John... How am I trolling on my own SEC Board? Last time I looked my school was an SEC member. Maybe you should spend more time with your ACC friends.... my bad. "Rivals".

if you are gonna play the "its my board STFU" routine fine. Your right to do so but I will lose a ton of respect for any poster who does that.

just because you are an SEC fan does not mean that I should ignore your blatant lie that syracuse-pitt & syracuse-BC are "real stretch rivalries."

(05-30-2014 09:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 09:51 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  [quote='USAFMEDIC' pid='10792996' dateline='1401470582']
[quote='john01992' pid='10788186' dateline='1401325032']

syracuse & BC are technically each others #1 rival. wether or not they truly are is debatable but one thing that is not debatable is that they are the closest each school has to one. so bringing them together with the ACC move was a pretty big deal.

syracuse also has a nice traveling partner coming along with us in pitt (like cu/utah). while we may be pitts 3rd most important rivalry (at best) pitt has been our most consistent scheduling partner in both FB & BB and we have more games played with them than gtown in BB and BC and any other BE member in football.

on top of that theres our old conference mates in vtech & miami (39 combined games played). maryland & cuse have some history (35 games played) but we all know that that is a mute point now. but we still have more history with louisville than any sec team & mizz do. plus i would say that even if you took pitt/bc away you could of found a nice duke-cuse mid season matchup even in football as they have a lot of cultural similarities, or louisville & cuse.

so as you can see cuse is in a very nice position to "join" the acc. with other conference moves a new team will be lucky to have 1 semi-decent matchup to exploit to help ease the transition, syracuse was lucky enough to have 2 terrific ones plus 3-4 other decent ones to take advantage of.

i am not saying that mizz will not fit in with the SEC nor will it be hard for them to do so. All I am saying is that it is gonna be harder for mizz than texas a&m. not saying your culture point is wrong, just saying that it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

All of rivalries you point out for Syracuse is a real stretch, but we can agree to disagree. Missouri has played Ole Miss a few times and that was good for both schools. Personally I like the Cuse much more as an ACC member. The B1G had a chance to take them, just like Missouri, but that ship has sailed. The B1G probably already regrets it...

sorry but how the hell are they a stretch????? are you just trying to troll me or are you seriously saying that joining a conference that consists of SU's two biggest rivalries and 3 more former BE schools "is a real stretch"

"if you are gonna play the "its my board STFU" routine fine. Your right to do so but I will lose a ton of respect for any poster who does that."

John...you called me the troll. A troll is a person who crosses over to other folks boards and attempts to start a fight. You have been great at that from the beginning.