(02-13-2020 09:40 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:22 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  People mention the Mississippi schools and it’s odd. As previously mentioned, they’re founding schools in the SEC. Ole Miss has won national championships and recently won a Sugar Bowl in football with a 100+ million dollar budget. Sheesh. Get a grip.

Football isn't everything. Athletics isn't everything. Academics, geography, and demographics matter. Well at least to the Big Ten. I'm not sure they do to the SEC. Florida State isn't good enough for the SEC but not one but two schools in Mississippi are? Florida should just join the ACC then. Academically and demographically they're more of an ACC school than an SEC school and they can actually play men's basketball.

And I'm not big on history. Why are Kansas State, Iowa State, and Mississippi State "good enough" but Illinois State not good enough? Because they were back before most of us were born?

(02-14-2020 06:38 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 11:55 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Another +1. But I’m not sure it’s age as much as it is ignorance. History is one of if not the most important factor in college sports. The ones who writeoff history while bringing an arrogance to their put-downs are the ones who leave everyone else cringing. No one wants to be that guy.

No one also wants to be UCF or Cincinnati or UConn who can't get a place in the big boy's table (P5) because all of the seats are taken by schools that don't deserve to be there because of history. At least UConn will get back to the Big East in basketball but is it too late? Their men's program is nowhere near what it was since they won their last national championship. Instead of the old Big East playing Syracuse and Georgetown, they're playing SMU, Houston, and Tulsa and traveling halfway across the Mississippi in the middle of the winter. I wonder why kids don't want to go there anymore. It's even affected their women's team. They haven't won a title since 2016. And Temple is irrelevant in men's basketball. Next year the only "local" AAC team leaves. I live in Philly and see the state of Temple athletics. We lost our baseball and softball teams because we couldn't afford flying our teams to Dallas and Houston. Why shouldn't I be angry at Mississippi State who has everything and only got it because they were in the SEC before I was born? UCF finished the regular season unbeaten twice and didn't even make the CFP. They beat Auburn in the Peach Bowl. Guess who made more $, UCF or Auburn? Better yet, who made more $, UCF or Mississippi State, who UCF would mop the floor with?

(02-14-2020 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:40 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:22 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  People mention the Mississippi schools and it’s odd. As previously mentioned, they’re founding schools in the SEC. Ole Miss has won national championships and recently won a Sugar Bowl in football with a 100+ million dollar budget. Sheesh. Get a grip.

Football isn't everything. Athletics isn't everything. Academics, geography, and demographics matter. Well at least to the Big Ten. I'm not sure they do to the SEC. Florida State isn't good enough for the SEC but not one but two schools in Mississippi are? Florida should just join the ACC then. Academically and demographically they're more of an ACC school than an SEC school and they can actually play men's basketball.

And I'm not big on history. Why are Kansas State, Iowa State, and Mississippi State "good enough" but Illinois State not good enough? Because they were back before most of us were born?

Illinois St. was a teacher's college. It was an Illinois directional with a better name. The 3 you mention are all land grant colleges-originally Kansas A&M, Mississippi A&M-not sure if Iowa St. was an "A&M" or if they were always "State."

(02-14-2020 10:00 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Pac 12 8
-----
North
-----
Oregon
Oregon state
Washington
Washington State

California
-----
California
Southern California
Stanford
UCLA

(02-14-2020 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:40 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:22 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  People mention the Mississippi schools and it’s odd. As previously mentioned, they’re founding schools in the SEC. Ole Miss has won national championships and recently won a Sugar Bowl in football with a 100+ million dollar budget. Sheesh. Get a grip.

Football isn't everything. Athletics isn't everything. Academics, geography, and demographics matter. Well at least to the Big Ten. I'm not sure they do to the SEC. Florida State isn't good enough for the SEC but not one but two schools in Mississippi are? Florida should just join the ACC then. Academically and demographically they're more of an ACC school than an SEC school and they can actually play men's basketball.

And I'm not big on history. Why are Kansas State, Iowa State, and Mississippi State "good enough" but Illinois State not good enough? Because they were back before most of us were born?

Illinois St. was a teacher's college. It was an Illinois directional with a better name. The 3 you mention are all land grant colleges-originally Kansas A&M, Mississippi A&M-not sure if Iowa St. was an "A&M" or if they were always "State."

(02-14-2020 02:02 PM)usffan Wrote:  LOL - I've been called everything from young to ignorant. I can say that I'm old enough to remember the Gator Flop, and I suspect that most people on this board would have to Google it to even know what I'm talking about. I also know easily > 100 UF alumni and fans. Every one of them I've ever talked about the Mississippi schools with has only mentioned how they're largely a laughingstock.

The point of the exercise was to imagine what these conferences would being constrained to the historical ties. If history were the only driver, Tulane, Georgia Tech and even Sewanee would still be in the SEC. I've heard actual athletic department personnel from Big Ten schools question all of the new additions, and also lament having to play Northwestern. To Frank's point, if presidents were to put this back together, they'd obviously look at things other than purely athletics.

Anyway, this was intended as an exercise to pass the time. Sorry some of you felt it was instead a need to go on ad hominem attacks.

USFFan

(02-14-2020 04:33 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:40 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:22 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  People mention the Mississippi schools and it’s odd. As previously mentioned, they’re founding schools in the SEC. Ole Miss has won national championships and recently won a Sugar Bowl in football with a 100+ million dollar budget. Sheesh. Get a grip.

Football isn't everything. Athletics isn't everything. Academics, geography, and demographics matter. Well at least to the Big Ten. I'm not sure they do to the SEC. Florida State isn't good enough for the SEC but not one but two schools in Mississippi are? Florida should just join the ACC then. Academically and demographically they're more of an ACC school than an SEC school and they can actually play men's basketball.

And I'm not big on history. Why are Kansas State, Iowa State, and Mississippi State "good enough" but Illinois State not good enough? Because they were back before most of us were born?

Illinois St. was a teacher's college. It was an Illinois directional with a better name. The 3 you mention are all land grant colleges-originally Kansas A&M, Mississippi A&M-not sure if Iowa St. was an "A&M" or if they were always "State."

Being a former teaching college is not a dealbreaker.

UCLA was a teacher's college until 1919 (it joined the PCC in 1928). Arizona State was a teacher's college until 1945. Florida State was mostly a teacher's college until 1947.

Also, Illinois State wasn't just a teacher's college. It was the best teacher's college in the country. Still is today. That quality is what has allowed it grow on par with many research institutions over the past 5 years, at a time when most teacher's colleges nationwide have been shrinking.

ISU has 220,000 living alumni, on par with most of the ACC and Big 12.

(02-13-2020 07:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 07:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is nothing wrong with the Mississippi schools in the SEC. Both are usually competitive in all sports, both fan bases travel very well, and we like them. Somebody has to be the middle ground in any conference.

Yes, anytime outsiders talk about reconfiguring the SEC, they always mention Ole Miss and Mississippi State, which they view as lucky "dead weight" schools.

This is a feeling shared by basically nobody in the SEC community. The Mississippi schools are founding members of the SEC, they have been playing all the other core SEC members in football since the 1890s, and fit like a glove geographically and culturally. They are an integral part of the SEC, past and present.

(02-13-2020 06:39 PM)usffan Wrote:  Instead of the people deciding what their dream conference is, imagine instead that somehow all conferences were given the chance to essentially reboot. In this imaginary world, I would have to assume that the first coalitions that would start to re-form would be around the core of the Big Ten (focusing on large midwestern state schools), the SEC (I'm thinking Alabama/Auburn/Florida/Georgia immediately form an alliance), the west coast (USC/UCLA/Cal/Stanford/Oregon/Washington), the southwest (Oklahoma/Texas) and Tobacco Road (UNC/Duke). The question becomes, now freed free to form conferences of the size they wish and without legacy programs, what do you think would become of these conferences?

Personally, I would think the Big Ten lets Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska and Northwestern and becomes a 10 team conference.

The Pac-12 lets Oregon State and Washington State go and also becomes a 10 team conference.

The SEC has a more substantial reorganization, letting the Mississippi schools, Arkansas and Vanderbilt become free agents and makes a play for Clemson and FSU (both of whom I think would jump at the chance), becoming a 12 team conference. The unknown is what becomes of Mizzou and Texas A&M, because...

I think the Big 12 would drastically change, with Nebraska and Arkansas joining up with Texas, Oklahoma, OK State and Kansas. That's 6 teams, and they'd be able to pick up who they actually want. Could they entice Mizzou and TAMU back for that? Not sure.

The question becomes what becomes of the Tobacco Road schools? I think FSU and Clemson would jump in a heartbeat. Who would they pick up? For sure they'd get back together with Maryland. But how else it would play out would be interesting...

USFFan

(02-13-2020 09:40 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:22 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  People mention the Mississippi schools and it’s odd. As previously mentioned, they’re founding schools in the SEC. Ole Miss has won national championships and recently won a Sugar Bowl in football with a 100+ million dollar budget. Sheesh. Get a grip.

Football isn't everything. Athletics isn't everything. Academics, geography, and demographics matter. Well at least to the Big Ten. I'm not sure they do to the SEC. Florida State isn't good enough for the SEC but not one but two schools in Mississippi are? Florida should just join the ACC then. Academically and demographically they're more of an ACC school than an SEC school and they can actually play men's basketball.

And I'm not big on history. Why are Kansas State, Iowa State, and Mississippi State "good enough" but Illinois State not good enough? Because they were back before most of us were borne?

(02-15-2020 05:46 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:40 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:22 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  People mention the Mississippi schools and it’s odd. As previously mentioned, they’re founding schools in the SEC. Ole Miss has won national championships and recently won a Sugar Bowl in football with a 100+ million dollar budget. Sheesh. Get a grip.

Football isn't everything. Athletics isn't everything. Academics, geography, and demographics matter. Well at least to the Big Ten. I'm not sure they do to the SEC. Florida State isn't good enough for the SEC but not one but two schools in Mississippi are? Florida should just join the ACC then. Academically and demographically they're more of an ACC school than an SEC school and they can actually play men's basketball.

And I'm not big on history. Why are Kansas State, Iowa State, and Mississippi State "good enough" but Illinois State not good enough? Because they were back before most of us were borne?

Better question, schmolik: why was the University of Illinois chosen to be both the flagship university for the state of Illinois and the land grant institution for the state of Illinois?? Why wasn't Illinois State made the land grant institution for the state of Illinois???

(02-15-2020 11:09 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Back to the OT... I think a Great Do-Over that could have anticipated the power of individual match-ups rather than conference affiliation would value independent scheduling agreements. It is not so much a Dream Conference as in the other thread but rather an appreciation of each individual school's culture, prowess, and interest in the eyes of true rivals.

Auburn is a great example for this scenario. They are considered a top rival to almost half of the existing SEC schools, and all SEC schools "fit" with them at some level. However, if Auburn were given carte blanche to have a Do-Over and pick 10 schools that they would align with for decades upon decades to come, I believe they would make some tweaks. The key to this idea is that the other party has to want you as a top 10 rival for decades and decades to come, as well. Can you see the potential, profitability, and overall institutional benefit to the following 10 opponents each year for Auburn? These are in alphabetical order so that arguments about priority order are avoided:

Alabama
Clemson
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
Georgia Tech (think about ALL the institutional benefits of this relationship, not just football)
LSU
Mississippi State
Tennessee
Texas A&M

JR and other Auburn folks would be a benefit in such conversations that would surely require some compromises, but this list is a group that I believe would also see Auburn as one of their top 10 most coveted opponents. Would Auburn, despite their incredible revenue right now within the SEC, still be able to strike contracts for coverage, licensing, and ticket sales that would approach their real value and even exceed what they currently make? I think so.

We could continue with examples like this from every school, and it would be a fascinating exercise to see how everyone's perceived and actual top 10's would shake out. Naturally, schools would still have games with other schools, but they would be for those 11th and 12th games where Auburn could still occasionally play Oregon, for example. In the age to come where network and cable coverage will not drive viewer interest but rather brand quality and interest, could this not be the truly Great Do-Over?

(02-15-2020 02:18 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I'll have to find those blackberries next time I am down that way, JR! Just for fun, below would be my 10 selections for the team I follow, Kentucky, applying the same rules I described in the previous post:

Indiana
Louisville
Maryland
Michigan State
North Carolina
Ohio State (this assumes that Ohio State would want to stay regional in their 10 consistent rivals. Like Texas, they could have a powerhouse national schedule if they desired, and we would not make that list.)
Penn State (I believe we would barely make their top 10 just based on lack of quality options for them in their region.)
Tennessee
Virginia Tech
West Virginia

This may surprise some people, but my 11th team as an alternate would be South Carolina. We have built a decent rivalry over the last couple of decades. Georgia would be on our list, but I am not sure that UK would make their top 10 considering the abundance of top notch regional schools for them.

(02-15-2020 02:40 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 02:18 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I'll have to find those blackberries next time I am down that way, JR! Just for fun, below would be my 10 selections for the team I follow, Kentucky, applying the same rules I described in the previous post:

Indiana
Louisville
Maryland
Michigan State
North Carolina
Ohio State (this assumes that Ohio State would want to stay regional in their 10 consistent rivals. Like Texas, they could have a powerhouse national schedule if they desired, and we would not make that list.)
Penn State (I believe we would barely make their top 10 just based on lack of quality options for them in their region.)
Tennessee
Virginia Tech
West Virginia

This may surprise some people, but my 11th team as an alternate would be South Carolina. We have built a decent rivalry over the last couple of decades. Georgia would be on our list, but I am not sure that UK would make their top 10 considering the abundance of top notch regional schools for them.

I think the surprise of this list is it contains one SEC team. If you think like most UK fans, you wonder if Kentucky really thinks of themselves at home in the SEC. Obviously with the money they're getting they'd never leave the SEC for the ACC even though it would be a more obvious fit for them being a basketball school. You have five Big Ten schools on your list, I wonder if the Big Ten would be better for Kentucky (although I'm not sure Kentucky's academics would fit in).

Some of these I'm really surprised to hear. I don't even remember the last time Penn State and Kentucky played, it must have been a bowl game. In terms of SEC basketball, Florida's probably the biggest rival most years and they've been the only other SEC school since 2000 to win it all. Also, what about Duke? I still remember the 1992 game and they play at least every three years in the Champions Classic.