As we exit this last round of conference movement, it has not been uncommon to read opinions in many places where an athletic program is identified by a previous conference (or non-conference independent) association from a lot of people.
There have been programs who have changed conferences more than three times within the last 50 years. One has to do some research to find out what conference affiliation a particular program had 50 years ago. In this age, where everything seems to go faster and faster, I find it peculiar that there are people who identify a school as a Conference Y school when it is in Conference X. Perhaps these people are older and have trouble adjusting to new realities. Perhaps they're traditionalists and don't like all this movement in college sports to begin with.
So my question to you would be: is there a time limit that you stop identifying a school by its past association?
Good responses will be welcome.
To disavow past associations is just as disingenuous as to think that your school is magically transformed by new ones. The past cannot be separated from the present anymore for a school than for a life. We are the sum total of all of our experiences and understanding each phase of our life helps to inform the track of our future. Schools that were once part of a smaller conference or lower tier can no more forget their past than the schools of the SEC and ACC can forget that they were once part of the Southern Conference.
You should never be ashamed of your roots and should fully embrace and integrate your past with your present. That is reality. We may live in the age of revisionism but the lies that such sells should be fully exposed and expunged.
This is a problem in the big ten, which has a long history, especially when various webpages hold a poll for best of of all time whatever.
For example, ESPN recently had a poll for best head coach ever in Big Ten history, and the 2 finalist ended up being Joe Paterno and Tom Osborne.
This just seemed silly. Tom Osborne was a Big 8 coach, and never coached a single game inside the big ten conference. Joe Paterno got most of his victories and his 2 national championships as an independent.
Everyone knows the 2 finalists should have been Bo and Woody. They represent real big ten history,
(07-06-2014 05:24 PM)goofus Wrote: [ -> ]This is a problem in the big ten, which has a long history, especially when various webpages hold a poll for best of of all time whatever.
For example, ESPN recently had a poll for best head coach ever in Big Ten history, and the 2 finalist ended up being Joe Paterno and Tom Osborne.
This just seemed silly. Tom Osborne was a Big 8 coach, and never coached a single game inside the big ten conference. Joe Paterno got most of his victories and his 2 national championships as an independent.
Everyone knows the 2 finalists should have been Bo and Woody. They represent real big ten history,
While I agree including Osborne in the poll is stupid, Paterno is not. He did coach in the league for 20 years and posted 162 wins during his time in the BIG, regardless of what the NCAA says. I do agree that Bo and Woody should be the top 2.
(07-06-2014 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Schools that were once part of a smaller conference or lower tier can no more forget their past than the schools of the SEC and ACC can forget that they were once part of the Southern Conference.
I would bet that 95% of all ACC and SEC alumni and fans have no clue that their schools were ever in the Southern Conference.
(07-06-2014 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2014 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Schools that were once part of a smaller conference or lower tier can no more forget their past than the schools of the SEC and ACC can forget that they were once part of the Southern Conference.
I would bet that 95% of all ACC and SEC alumni and fans have no clue that their schools were ever in the Southern Conference.
I would say you are probably correct. In talking with younger Syracuse fans, I'm not sure how many realize we were part of the eastern independents before the creation of the Big East.
I remember seeing Nebraska games against non B10 opponents from the 70s on the BTN and thinking WTF????
when a conference adds a school they also inherit that particular schools history apparently.
Quote:I would bet that 95% of all ACC and SEC alumni and fans have no clue that their schools were ever in the Southern Conference.
True, but you cant really hold that against fans when their teams left the SoCon nearly a hundred years ago.
(07-06-2014 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2014 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Schools that were once part of a smaller conference or lower tier can no more forget their past than the schools of the SEC and ACC can forget that they were once part of the Southern Conference.
I would bet that 95% of all ACC and SEC alumni and fans have no clue that their schools were ever in the Southern Conference.
Just like everywhere else in our country it is only those under 40 who don't know. "Son, fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life." Who knew Dean Wermer would be such a prophet!
(07-06-2014 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2014 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Schools that were once part of a smaller conference or lower tier can no more forget their past than the schools of the SEC and ACC can forget that they were once part of the Southern Conference.
I would bet that 95% of all ACC and SEC alumni and fans have no clue that their schools were ever in the Southern Conference.
This fall, it will have been 83 years since the founding schools of the SEC took the field as members of the Southern Conference. Only two of my grandparents would have been old enough to know Alabama football pre-SEC.
Even with the realignment, Alabama's conference football schedule did not change much throughout the 1930s. Replace then-SEC members Sewanee, Tulane, and Georgia Tech with Auburn, Arkansas, and LSU, and Alabama basically plays the same schedule it did 80 years ago, aside from the longer season.
The opposite is also true at what point do former power conference members, who are now G5, start being members of the G5?
(07-06-2014 06:46 PM)CurveItAround Wrote: [ -> ]The opposite is also true at what point do former power conference members, who are now G5, start being members of the G5?
Apparently instantaneously. Houston and SMU are always referred to as "CUSA" schools---as if they have always been CUSA schools and were never anything more than a CUSA school. It would be just as accurate to refer to them as former SWC schools--especially considering the CUSA they joined no longer exists (lol...their current conference is more like the original CUSA than the current CUSA).
How many current G5 schools were once in an AQ conference? Should be fairly easy to list the schools.
(07-06-2014 06:05 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2014 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2014 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Schools that were once part of a smaller conference or lower tier can no more forget their past than the schools of the SEC and ACC can forget that they were once part of the Southern Conference.
I would bet that 95% of all ACC and SEC alumni and fans have no clue that their schools were ever in the Southern Conference.
Just like everywhere else in our country it is only those under 40 who don't know. "Son, fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life." Who knew Dean Wermer would be such a prophet!
I loved that movie!!
(07-06-2014 07:05 PM)CurveItAround Wrote: [ -> ]How many current G5 schools were once in an AQ conference? Should be fairly easy to list the schools.
I think you're talking about a different system. Unless I'm wrong, I don't remember the Southwest Conference being around during the BCS era. It was all bowl tie-ins. I could be wrong though...
(07-06-2014 07:55 PM)texasorange Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2014 07:05 PM)CurveItAround Wrote: [ -> ]How many current G5 schools were once in an AQ conference? Should be fairly easy to list the schools.
I think you're talking about a different system. Unless I'm wrong, I don't remember the Southwest Conference being around during the BCS era. It was all bowl tie-ins. I could be wrong though...
The SWC was a member of the bowl coalition and bowl alliance (the predecessor to the BCS)
(07-06-2014 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]To disavow past associations is just as disingenuous as to think that your school is magically transformed by new ones. The past cannot be separated from the present anymore for a school than for a life. We are the sum total of all of our experiences and understanding each phase of our life helps to inform the track of our future. Schools that were once part of a smaller conference or lower tier can no more forget their past than the schools of the SEC and ACC can forget that they were once part of the Southern Conference.
You should never be ashamed of your roots and should fully embrace and integrate your past with your present. That is reality. We may live in the age of revisionism but the lies that such sells should be fully exposed and expunged.
The issue of Houston and SMU and their past association with the SWC raises an interesting point. I guess it depends on how a school is perceived by those aren't alums or fans of the program. A program like Nebraska may have more leeway in the public eye than a program like SMU because of perceptions.
I wasn't arguing for revisionism in my OP but I was trying to get to how the subjective opinion on a program's historical associations has lasted so long. My theory is that people's perceptions of a program are shaped by the sports the program chose to concentrate on. Is Pitt a Big East school, an independent school or an ACC school? All three were/are true for Pitt at one time. However, there doesn't seem to be much acknowledgment of Pitt as a member of the ACC today. Maybe that changes with the passage of time. It is just that college sports fans are very particular with past conference association.
Thanks for the reply, by the way.
(07-06-2014 08:01 PM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2014 07:55 PM)texasorange Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2014 07:05 PM)CurveItAround Wrote: [ -> ]How many current G5 schools were once in an AQ conference? Should be fairly easy to list the schools.
I think you're talking about a different system. Unless I'm wrong, I don't remember the Southwest Conference being around during the BCS era. It was all bowl tie-ins. I could be wrong though...
The SWC was a member of the bowl coalition and bowl alliance (the predecessor to the BCS)
Right, the bowl tie-ins.
So many schools have been in the Southern Conference that if you name almost any notable school south of the Mason Dixon line, you've got a shot at getting it right.
(07-06-2014 07:05 PM)CurveItAround Wrote: [ -> ]How many current G5 schools were once in an AQ conference? Should be fairly easy to list the schools.
No guarantees but I
believe this list is complete...
Rice (SWC)
Houston (SWC)
SMU (SWC)
Tulane (SEC)
Temple (BE)
Cincinnati (BE)
South Florida (BE)
UConn (BE)
Eight schools in total; 7 currently in the American and 1 currently in C-USA…