Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Cultural Fits
Author Message
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #101
RE: Cultural Fits
(12-26-2013 07:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(12-26-2013 07:11 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Also, South Carolina was only in the ACC for 15 years or so and that was over 40 years ago. It's been in the SEC for the last 22.

I'd be willing to wager if you polled most South Carolina fans more than 80% would see us as more culturally similar to the SEC than the ACC. If you polled people under the age of 65, it'd be more like 99%

Don't shoot the messenger!

It's a sign you are dead wrong when you find a Clemson fan and a South Carolina fan agreeing on anything other than:

A. Georgia sucks

and

B. UNC blows

and that's why it's windy in SC.
12-26-2013 11:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #102
RE: Cultural Fits
(12-26-2013 11:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(12-26-2013 07:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(12-26-2013 07:11 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Also, South Carolina was only in the ACC for 15 years or so and that was over 40 years ago. It's been in the SEC for the last 22.

I'd be willing to wager if you polled most South Carolina fans more than 80% would see us as more culturally similar to the SEC than the ACC. If you polled people under the age of 65, it'd be more like 99%

Don't shoot the messenger!

It's a sign you are dead wrong when you find a Clemson fan and a South Carolina fan agreeing on anything other than:

A. Georgia sucks

and

B. UNC blows

and that's why it's windy in SC.


Haha seriously

04-cheers
12-26-2013 11:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DexterDevil Offline
DCTID
*

Posts: 5,008
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 218
I Root For: EMU, DCFC
Location: Jackson, Mi
Post: #103
Re: RE: Cultural Fits
(12-26-2013 10:11 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  
(12-26-2013 09:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Hmmm...what to do.

Ignore it. Maybe he won't be so creative next time 03-wink

This is why we need our board to be more active...

Sent from my LG-VM696 using Tapatalk 2
12-26-2013 11:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #104
RE: Cultural Fits
To get this thread back on track, I'd love to hear some outsider perspectives. Do you think South Carolina is a better cultural fit for the SEC or the ACC at this time?

In the same vein:

Texas A&M: SEC or Big 12
Missouri: SEC, Big 12, or Big Ten
Nebraska: Big Ten or Big 12
Arkansas: SEC or Big 12
12-26-2013 11:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 38,392
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 8064
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #105
RE: Cultural Fits
(12-26-2013 11:50 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  To get this thread back on track, I'd love to hear some outsider perspectives. Do you think South Carolina is a better cultural fit for the SEC or the ACC at this time?

In the same vein:

Texas A&M: SEC or Big 12
Missouri: SEC, Big 12, or Big Ten
Nebraska: Big Ten or Big 12
Arkansas: SEC or Big 12

Texas A&M, Arkansas, and South Carolina all fit the SEC just fine. I think Spurrier has cemented the Gamecocks place in the Eastern Division as being a natural. The Hogs were fine and happy until Petrino went slumming on his motorcycle. Missouri is what they are, a state which is half Southern and Half Northern. The Southern half definitely belongs, and the Northern half will find out what they've been missing.

Nebraska as things stand now with the Big 12 belongs in the Big 10. Only Oklahoma remains as a regret.

Other than beef barbecue instead of pork, A&M fits the SEC naturally. But, brisket is danged good too! I see them adding flavor to the SEC and if its Bevo on the spit that's even better.
(This post was last modified: 12-26-2013 11:59 PM by JRsec.)
12-26-2013 11:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #106
RE: Cultural Fits
(12-26-2013 11:50 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  To get this thread back on track, I'd love to hear some outsider perspectives. Do you think South Carolina is a better cultural fit for the SEC or the ACC at this time?

In the same vein:

Texas A&M: SEC or Big 12
Missouri: SEC, Big 12, or Big Ten
Nebraska: Big Ten or Big 12
Arkansas: SEC or Big 12

TAMU - Big XII don't get me wrong, TAMU fits the SEC, but it fits the Big XII ("classic") better.
MIZZOU - B1G
Nebraska - Big XII. I don't think that Nebraska fits the Bug Ten at all, but it thrived in the Big 8 and then the Big 12.
Arkansas - SEC, but Texas, TAMU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Houston in a modified Big 8/SWC (alternate universe Big XII) would be GREAT.
(This post was last modified: 12-27-2013 12:38 AM by nzmorange.)
12-27-2013 12:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #107
RE: Cultural Fits
(12-27-2013 12:35 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(12-26-2013 11:50 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  To get this thread back on track, I'd love to hear some outsider perspectives. Do you think South Carolina is a better cultural fit for the SEC or the ACC at this time?

In the same vein:

Texas A&M: SEC or Big 12
Missouri: SEC, Big 12, or Big Ten
Nebraska: Big Ten or Big 12
Arkansas: SEC or Big 12

TAMU - Big XII don't get me wrong, TAMU fits the SEC, but it fits the Big XII ("classic") better.
MIZZOU - B1G
Nebraska - Big XII. I don't think that Nebraska fits the Bug Ten at all, but it thrived in the Big 8 and then the Big 12.
Arkansas - SEC, but Texas, TAMU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Houston in a modified Big 8/SWC (alternate universe Big XII) would be GREAT.
As an outsider, if I were to do just a quick gut-reaction choice for South Carolina, I'd say SEC rather than ACC.

As for the Big 12, if nmzorange's alternate reality Big XII had occurred with Arkansas as an original member, I think that they could have fit in. At this point, they're definitely SEC.

The Big 12 has been described as a "Frankenstein" or a mish-mash of different pieces that never quite fit. I do think there's some truth to that, although I believe it also suffered from having been an early consolidation that didn't have the benefit of information that we know now. For example, it could definitely have helped the solidarity of the conference if a way was found to keep the OU/NU rivalry alive - as it was, putting them in separate divisions allowed that to die on the vine. That was one element of the "North/South us-vs-them" mentality that eventually developed that eroded conference cohesion.

I know some in the aTm camp think they were never a fit, but while the SEC might be a better fit, I don't think the original Big XII was that bad of a fit originally. Yes, Colorado is now down, but if you look at the tail end of the Big 8's history and the first few years of the Big 12's, what you see is a football-oriented conference that had national champions in Colorado, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, and of course Texas also picked up one in 2005.

Had Arkansas also been in the mix then, it would have broadened the footprint slightly and provided another natural rival for OU and MU, while preserving some games against old SWC conference mates as well. There would probably have been some affinity for their old SWC mates, but if they replaced Baylor, for example, they may also have helped reduce the North Vs South dynamic to some extent since they wouldn't be directly involved in intrastate TX politics.

If there was a true cultural misfit in the original Big 12 it probably would have been Colorado, but that's a somewhat unusual place that I don't see as a perfect fit for the PAC 12, either.
12-27-2013 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 38,392
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 8064
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #108
RE: Cultural Fits
(12-27-2013 11:47 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(12-27-2013 12:35 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(12-26-2013 11:50 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  To get this thread back on track, I'd love to hear some outsider perspectives. Do you think South Carolina is a better cultural fit for the SEC or the ACC at this time?

In the same vein:

Texas A&M: SEC or Big 12
Missouri: SEC, Big 12, or Big Ten
Nebraska: Big Ten or Big 12
Arkansas: SEC or Big 12

TAMU - Big XII don't get me wrong, TAMU fits the SEC, but it fits the Big XII ("classic") better.
MIZZOU - B1G
Nebraska - Big XII. I don't think that Nebraska fits the Bug Ten at all, but it thrived in the Big 8 and then the Big 12.
Arkansas - SEC, but Texas, TAMU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Houston in a modified Big 8/SWC (alternate universe Big XII) would be GREAT.
As an outsider, if I were to do just a quick gut-reaction choice for South Carolina, I'd say SEC rather than ACC.

As for the Big 12, if nmzorange's alternate reality Big XII had occurred with Arkansas as an original member, I think that they could have fit in. At this point, they're definitely SEC.

The Big 12 has been described as a "Frankenstein" or a mish-mash of different pieces that never quite fit. I do think there's some truth to that, although I believe it also suffered from having been an early consolidation that didn't have the benefit of information that we know now. For example, it could definitely have helped the solidarity of the conference if a way was found to keep the OU/NU rivalry alive - as it was, putting them in separate divisions allowed that to die on the vine. That was one element of the "North/South us-vs-them" mentality that eventually developed that eroded conference cohesion.

I know some in the aTm camp think they were never a fit, but while the SEC might be a better fit, I don't think the original Big XII was that bad of a fit originally. Yes, Colorado is now down, but if you look at the tail end of the Big 8's history and the first few years of the Big 12's, what you see is a football-oriented conference that had national champions in Colorado, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, and of course Texas also picked up one in 2005.

Had Arkansas also been in the mix then, it would have broadened the footprint slightly and provided another natural rival for OU and MU, while preserving some games against old SWC conference mates as well. There would probably have been some affinity for their old SWC mates, but if they replaced Baylor, for example, they may also have helped reduce the North Vs South dynamic to some extent since they wouldn't be directly involved in intrastate TX politics.

If there was a true cultural misfit in the original Big 12 it probably would have been Colorado, but that's a somewhat unusual place that I don't see as a perfect fit for the PAC 12, either.

Phog, in 1992 Roy Kramer's first attempt for the SEC was to bring in 3 teams from the SWC (Texas, Texas A&M and Arkansas) and one from the Big 8 (Oklahoma). If a move to 16 occurred it was to involve Florida State and either Clemson or South Carolina. Texas and A&M were ready to come when politics stopped the process. Oklahoma was not interested without the other two and Arkansas witnessing a dying SWC and fearing what the configuration of a Big 8 & SWC merger would bring jumped. When Florida State backed out South Carolina was in to bring us to an even 12.

The addition of A&M and Missouri was another play to the West. A&M and Oklahoma were the initial overture. Missouri was an unexpected, but very welcomed addition to keep it even.

But I submit that the long range strategy of the SEC has been for 20 years to expand to the West and consolidate our footprint. When networks discouraged consolidation with the footprint model for expansion the remaining plan for the SEC was expansion Westward. Arkansas, Missouri, and A&M lay out a path to Oklahoma, and possibly Texas. No other conference has the bait for the hook that those three represent. I believe the plan has been to offer Oklahoma and Texas a division of their neighbors and peers and former rivals as the SEC's plan to get to 16. The SEC has 4 (more than any other conference) of the top 10 profitable programs in the nation. Texas and Oklahoma would give them 6. They both are large state schools with a football first mentality with SEC or larger sized stadiums, offering complete athletic programs, with national brand cache. In all of those regards they fit. Both of them are academic pluses.

There are no ACC schools that bring all of these qualities. There are multiple ACC schools that the SEC would desire if they were available, but none of them offer the broad package of qualities that these two offer. I think these two have been our goal for 20 years. If we don't get them we'll wait and see what happens to the East with regards to further Big 10 aggression.

But I say this in response to your post to say that things were in such disarray in 1992 with the SWC that nobody was thinking 10 or 20 years down the road about what would create a stable Big 12 and the very things that had rendered the old SWC unstable (inequity in revenue sharing & politics) became the seeds of discontent within the new Big 12. The harvest of those seeds were the departure of 4 stellar institutions and the wandering eyes of others. Arkansas was wise to jump.
12-27-2013 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,364
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #109
RE: Cultural Fits
Quote:I know some in the aTm camp think they were never a fit, but while the SEC might be a better fit, I don't think the original Big XII was that bad of a fit originally.

Here is the thing about this Phog.

People seem to believe that we fit the Big 12 because UT was in it and we both have "Texas" in our name. But when you stop and think about it even just between the two of us, the cultures couldn't more different.

UT, like Colorado, is a PAC school that is geographically too far East. UT itself is Berkeley lite. UT is even further from the Midwest culture of the Big 8 schools than A&M is with our Southern Culture.

When the SWC was breaking up, if A&M and UT had their ways, UT would have been in the PAC (if not for Stanford) and A&M would have been in the SEC (if not for Bob Bullock blackmailing us into joining the B12 to save BU and TT) .

Its taken nearly 20 years but it looks like it still may happen for both of us.
(This post was last modified: 12-27-2013 12:51 PM by 10thMountain.)
12-27-2013 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,712
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 257
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #110
RE: Cultural Fits
Seems like there is a little bit of confusion as to what Mormon culture is and why BYU doesn't fit culturally in the PAC12. First of all, historically, the Mormon settlement in the West was called Deseret and encompassed Utah, Nevada, most of Arizona, and parts of California, Oregon, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, and New Mexico. There are lots of Mormons and descendents of Mormons throughout the Deseret footprint. As mining finds occured in Deseret, areas were gradually stripped away to join the USA and were populated by miners who were largely Eastern European and Catholic. Anywhere throughout the Deseret footprint, you will find that where there is a mining town, there are relatively few Mormons and where there wasn't mining, there are proportionally greater numbers of Mormons. This is especially true in Utah where the mining activity was in places like Park City, and other areas around SLC, which are still decidedly less Mormon.

What resulted in the more multicultural areas was a secular version of Mormonism where Mormon people still practice their religion but sort of "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" in that the religion is held separate from things like your political ideology, business dealings, social networks, and educational goals. Mormons in these areas can be anywhere from orthodox, moderate, non-practicing, or never practicing but culturally defined through family heritage. This Mormon culture is centered in Salt Lake City and from the public sphere you might recognize John Huntsman as a pretty good example (fiscally conservative, hard working, socially liberal, science friendly). This is the demographic population in Utah that is actually growing.

The more Othodox faction of Mormonism is centered in Utah County (Provo, home of BYU). In general, religion in this region is the sole orienting factor in a person's life and all other endeavors whether they be business endeavors, education, politics, or a person's social network serve a religious function. BYU is seen as the only acceptable choice in schools and going elsewhere, especially the secular U of U, is equated by some as being apostate. This was historically a larger percentage of the state but is now a minority and is still declining relative to Non-Mormons and secular Mormons. Mitt Romney would be a decent example of this type of Mormon.

As the Orthodox contingent still has a lot of political power in the state, but struggles to maintain it, the cultural bitterness between these two factions has become very palpable. One way in which people in Utah openly express which side of the divide they fall on is through their University affiliation, and although there are outliers on both sides, you can often make a lot of correct assumptions about a person's worldview based on his/her sweatshirt. As we saw in the recent overturning of Utah's gay marriage ban, SLC and the rest of Utah rapidly moved forward with performing the marriages while Utah County and its neighbors fought through multiple attempts at stays before grudgingly complying. This very distinct cultural divide is why a heavily Mormon but secular University of Utah (academic freedom, no intrusion of belief system into science, sociology, or other disciplines) found a place at the PAC table while BYU has not, and will not, barring a very large shift in academic culture.
12-27-2013 12:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #111
RE: Cultural Fits
Another great discussion, guys...which is why this is a great place to visit. 04-cheers

JR & 10th, I admittedly lack the background regarding the '90s era expansion plans of the SEC (or for that matter, much around the Big 12 aside from the original plan to add UT and aTm being expanded to include Baylor and TT). As for the initial intention to add UT, aTM, OU, and Arkansas, that's certainly logical and would have fit. I certainly agree that even with informed foresight, nobody had a crystal ball to see what the future would hold.

10th, my take on the cultural fit of the "mythical Big 12" was largely focused on athletics. My own exposure to TX is somewhat limited. My brother married a Texan whose father is a UT grad, and a dear friend of mine is an aTM grad although she's from this area. My first take on culture is that before anything else, Texas is a whole different culture altogether - so at least in theory, UT and aTm would share that overall Texas culture. Because of that, while it may not be the case, but I'd always seen UT and aTm as being like brothers who would quarrel loudly between themselves but close ranks if an outsider tried to come between them.

I knew that UT has some progressive elements (as does KU, although to a lesser extent), although my brother's Father-in-law (admittedly past 80) is about the farthest thing I can imagine from Berkeley. 04-cheers But when it came to Mid/Southwest-based football-first culture, that was likely the next best fit for aTm with SEC membership not having happened for them at that time. I don't know what the future holds, but as an old Big 8 guy I do occasionally miss "the old band". But time marches on...
12-27-2013 02:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #112
RE: Cultural Fits
(12-27-2013 02:36 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  Another great discussion, guys...which is why this is a great place to visit. 04-cheers

JR & 10th, I admittedly lack the background regarding the '90s era expansion plans of the SEC (or for that matter, much around the Big 12 aside from the original plan to add UT and aTm being expanded to include Baylor and TT). As for the initial intention to add UT, aTM, OU, and Arkansas, that's certainly logical and would have fit. I certainly agree that even with informed foresight, nobody had a crystal ball to see what the future would hold.

10th, my take on the cultural fit of the "mythical Big 12" was largely focused on athletics. My own exposure to TX is somewhat limited. My brother married a Texan whose father is a UT grad, and a dear friend of mine is an aTM grad although she's from this area. My first take on culture is that before anything else, Texas is a whole different culture altogether - so at least in theory, UT and aTm would share that overall Texas culture. Because of that, while it may not be the case, but I'd always seen UT and aTm as being like brothers who would quarrel loudly between themselves but close ranks if an outsider tried to come between them.

I knew that UT has some progressive elements (as does KU, although to a lesser extent), although my brother's Father-in-law (admittedly past 80) is about the farthest thing I can imagine from Berkeley. 04-cheers But when it came to Mid/Southwest-based football-first culture, that was likely the next best fit for aTm with SEC membership not having happened for them at that time. I don't know what the future holds, but as an old Big 8 guy I do occasionally miss "the old band". But time marches on...
The old Big Eight was just fine before expansion, at least as a group who managed to live together. Money does change all though.
12-27-2013 04:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,364
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #113
RE: Cultural Fits
pretty much.

TV and its money was the death of the SWC. It was a great conference but it was quickly falling behind in money compared to the big, region spanning, highly populated conferences like the PAC, B1G and SEC and was on its way to mid-major also-ran status.
12-27-2013 06:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #114
RE: Cultural Fits
(12-27-2013 12:35 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(12-26-2013 11:50 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  To get this thread back on track, I'd love to hear some outsider perspectives. Do you think South Carolina is a better cultural fit for the SEC or the ACC at this time?

In the same vein:

Texas A&M: SEC or Big 12
Missouri: SEC, Big 12, or Big Ten
Nebraska: Big Ten or Big 12
Arkansas: SEC or Big 12

TAMU - Big XII don't get me wrong, TAMU fits the SEC, but it fits the Big XII ("classic") better.
MIZZOU - B1G
Nebraska - Big XII. I don't think that Nebraska fits the Bug Ten at all, but it thrived in the Big 8 and then the Big 12.
Arkansas - SEC, but Texas, TAMU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Houston in a modified Big 8/SWC (alternate universe Big XII) would be GREAT.

If Mizzou fits the Big Ten then so does Nebraska. Nebraska fits the Big Ten much better than it does the Big 12. It's like you silly ACC guys just throw all credibility right out the window when you have something to say about The Big Ten.

Seriously, are you guys scarred for life over the whole realignment situation for the past couple years?
12-27-2013 07:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #115
RE: Cultural Fits
(12-27-2013 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(12-27-2013 12:35 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(12-26-2013 11:50 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  To get this thread back on track, I'd love to hear some outsider perspectives. Do you think South Carolina is a better cultural fit for the SEC or the ACC at this time?

In the same vein:

Texas A&M: SEC or Big 12
Missouri: SEC, Big 12, or Big Ten
Nebraska: Big Ten or Big 12
Arkansas: SEC or Big 12

TAMU - Big XII don't get me wrong, TAMU fits the SEC, but it fits the Big XII ("classic") better.
MIZZOU - B1G
Nebraska - Big XII. I don't think that Nebraska fits the Bug Ten at all, but it thrived in the Big 8 and then the Big 12.
Arkansas - SEC, but Texas, TAMU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Houston in a modified Big 8/SWC (alternate universe Big XII) would be GREAT.

If Mizzou fits the Big Ten then so does Nebraska. Nebraska fits the Big Ten much better than it does the Big 12. It's like you silly ACC guys just throw all credibility right out the window when you have something to say about The Big Ten.

Seriously, are you guys scarred for life over the whole realignment situation for the past couple years?

Actually, I'm pretty happy with realignment. I would miss UMD, but I'm pretty sure they're more than happy to play us OOC. Other than that, we lost WVU, which I'll miss, but that's pretty much it on the football front. Everything else was an upgrade. How about you?
12-27-2013 07:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #116
RE: Cultural Fits
(12-27-2013 07:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(12-27-2013 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(12-27-2013 12:35 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(12-26-2013 11:50 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  To get this thread back on track, I'd love to hear some outsider perspectives. Do you think South Carolina is a better cultural fit for the SEC or the ACC at this time?

In the same vein:

Texas A&M: SEC or Big 12
Missouri: SEC, Big 12, or Big Ten
Nebraska: Big Ten or Big 12
Arkansas: SEC or Big 12

TAMU - Big XII don't get me wrong, TAMU fits the SEC, but it fits the Big XII ("classic") better.
MIZZOU - B1G
Nebraska - Big XII. I don't think that Nebraska fits the Bug Ten at all, but it thrived in the Big 8 and then the Big 12.
Arkansas - SEC, but Texas, TAMU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Houston in a modified Big 8/SWC (alternate universe Big XII) would be GREAT.

If Mizzou fits the Big Ten then so does Nebraska. Nebraska fits the Big Ten much better than it does the Big 12. It's like you silly ACC guys just throw all credibility right out the window when you have something to say about The Big Ten.

Seriously, are you guys scarred for life over the whole realignment situation for the past couple years?

Actually, I'm pretty happy with realignment. I would miss UMD, but I'm pretty sure they're more than happy to play us OOC. Other than that, we lost WVU, which I'll miss, but that's pretty much it on the football front. Everything else was an upgrade. How about you?

I am excited to see how Rutgers can take full advantage of Big Ten Membership. I absolutely think it is going to turn that school's program into a national program. I think Maryland playing Universities that are similar to it in stature will be good for slowly drawing more interest. Yeah there were some good schools to play in the ACC but overall I just don't think Maryland fit very well.

I know Ferentz likes to recruit in Maryland so playing there will certainly be helpful.

All in all the Big Ten got three more Universities that fit the Big Ten mold and the ACC got three more Universities that further shape the ACC mold to being one more aligned with private universities and public universities that resemble private universities more so than they do a public.

Our Brands are better defined by all of this. I like it. I just don't get why some ACC folks have to continue to show signs of being scarred by all of this. I am not necessarily saying you are, as you say, you are fine with it all.
12-27-2013 08:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #117
RE: Cultural Fits
Personally, I would like to see 8 regional conferences of 8 teams each and an 8 team playoff where each team sends their best team. However until that happens, I'll just be happy with what we have.
12-27-2013 09:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SeaBlue Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,195
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Michigan
Location: Indy
Post: #118
RE: Cultural Fits
(12-27-2013 08:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I am excited to see how Rutgers can take full advantage of Big Ten Membership. I absolutely think it is going to turn that school's program into a national program.

What do you think about their coach? He doesn't seem to winning any popularity contests over there. Should they go out and get a big name for big dollars, or slowly build?
12-27-2013 10:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #119
RE: Cultural Fits
(12-27-2013 10:05 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  
(12-27-2013 08:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I am excited to see how Rutgers can take full advantage of Big Ten Membership. I absolutely think it is going to turn that school's program into a national program.

What do you think about their coach? He doesn't seem to winning any popularity contests over there. Should they go out and get a big name for big dollars, or slowly build?

I think they will start over in that regard.

It shall be interesting in the relatively near future to see what Rutgers can do with their basketball program. Since they seem to be getting more serious about athletics, they are in just as big of a hotbed for recruiting basketball players as they are for football players.
12-27-2013 10:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,444
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 798
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #120
RE: Cultural Fits
(12-27-2013 08:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(12-27-2013 07:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(12-27-2013 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(12-27-2013 12:35 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(12-26-2013 11:50 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  To get this thread back on track, I'd love to hear some outsider perspectives. Do you think South Carolina is a better cultural fit for the SEC or the ACC at this time?

In the same vein:

Texas A&M: SEC or Big 12
Missouri: SEC, Big 12, or Big Ten
Nebraska: Big Ten or Big 12
Arkansas: SEC or Big 12

TAMU - Big XII don't get me wrong, TAMU fits the SEC, but it fits the Big XII ("classic") better.
MIZZOU - B1G
Nebraska - Big XII. I don't think that Nebraska fits the Bug Ten at all, but it thrived in the Big 8 and then the Big 12.
Arkansas - SEC, but Texas, TAMU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Houston in a modified Big 8/SWC (alternate universe Big XII) would be GREAT.

If Mizzou fits the Big Ten then so does Nebraska. Nebraska fits the Big Ten much better than it does the Big 12. It's like you silly ACC guys just throw all credibility right out the window when you have something to say about The Big Ten.

Seriously, are you guys scarred for life over the whole realignment situation for the past couple years?

Actually, I'm pretty happy with realignment. I would miss UMD, but I'm pretty sure they're more than happy to play us OOC. Other than that, we lost WVU, which I'll miss, but that's pretty much it on the football front. Everything else was an upgrade. How about you?

I am excited to see how Rutgers can take full advantage of Big Ten Membership. I absolutely think it is going to turn that school's program into a national program. I think Maryland playing Universities that are similar to it in stature will be good for slowly drawing more interest. Yeah there were some good schools to play in the ACC but overall I just don't think Maryland fit very well.

I know Ferentz likes to recruit in Maryland so playing there will certainly be helpful.

All in all the Big Ten got three more Universities that fit the Big Ten mold and the ACC got three more Universities that further shape the ACC mold to being one more aligned with private universities and public universities that resemble private universities more so than they do a public.

Our Brands are better defined by all of this. I like it. I just don't get why some ACC folks have to continue to show signs of being scarred by all of this. I am not necessarily saying you are, as you say, you are fine with it all.

Not scared or scarred. The ACC is elite. One or two more moves and we will have it right.
12-27-2013 10:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.