Southern Miss Alum Wrote:Herd Swimming, you are right; Kentucky is the class of the SEC when it comes to basketball, and brings in more NCAA Tournament $$$ than most schools do with football. That naturally benefits all of their programs, including football. No doubt, much of their football facilities money came from basketball.

However, this thread isn't about basketball or the effect it has on any other sport. It is about recruiting a high school student to play football for your school. Some will do anything to play in the SEC, including playing for a school that can't get to a bowl at a time that bids are practically gift-wrapped. Others want to win, and Southern Miss (along with Marshall, etc.) offer them that opportunity much more than Kentucky football does.

Oh, and about Hattiesburg being a "shanty town"; name one city that looks decent from the interstate. You have two views of any place from the interstate - either low-income housing or fast-food restaurants and gas stations. Neither of which are good options for judging the quality of a city.

I have no arguement with that.

If you read what I said, I said I can feel your disbelief in losing a recruit to Kentucky, we feel the same disbelief.

I was responding to the claim that Kentucky is a lucky recipient of BCS dollars and does nothing to earn their slot in the SEC. That is all.

HerdSwimming, you were in I-AA... you remember the championship system in place?

What you're saying is that basketball performance should have an effect on which teams got autobids and what seeds were given to what teams. How do you justify that? Think back to those years in the SoCon.... Can you imagine the I-AA committee saying that Marshall didn't deserve a bid to the I-AA bracket because they didn't have a good basketball team, and they took Non-Scholly Georgetown (but with a good basketball team) instead?

Herd Swimming Wrote:I was responding to the claim that Kentucky is a lucky recipient of BCS dollars and does nothing to earn their slot in the SEC. That is all.

I didn't say they didn't do anything to earn their slot in the SEC.... But the fact is, in 1933 the SoCon split and the SEC was formed. Kentucky happened to be in the right place at the right time. The SEC was the schools to the West and South of the Appalachian Mountains. The SEC goes on to be who they are, and the SoCon goes on to be who they are. Blind luck. Are they a great basketball team? Abso-freaking-lutely. But the simple fact is, if the BCS's purpose is to determine the football national champion, basketball prowess should have nothing to do with it.

Herd Swimming Wrote:I love the witty repartee, I really do.

It is sad that you are so out of ammunition, even with your first or second post, that you have to call me names like a child.

You called me "dumbassed" in your second post, while I haven't called you a name at all, so whatever....

agree with the ghost here the BCS has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with basketball unless of course herdnerd you think basketball has bowl games. Stop posting you look rediculously stupid and ignorant. Oh yeah herd idiot on your list of to do's today you might want to add english lessons to the list just a thought. {dumbassed} sweet jesus :rofl: :rofl:

I wasn't aware that the Kentucky basketball program was a component of the Bowl Championship Series. Silly me.

UAB Band Dad Wrote:I wasn't aware that the Kentucky basketball program was a component of the Bowl Championship Series. Silly me.

I think Nerd Sinking is figuring that out by now. :laugh:

Nugget's Ghost Wrote:

UAB Band Dad Wrote:I wasn't aware that the Kentucky basketball program was a component of the Bowl Championship Series.  Silly me.

I think Nerd Sinking is figuring that out by now. :laugh:

Again with the names.

Again with the ignorance of the total picture. The BCS takes the SEC champ. Kentucky is in the SEC.
Kentucky is in the SEC for a reason. And there is none bigger than basketball from a sports standpoint. Aside from the 80 years of relationships with their current conference partners.

Bye now. :rolleyes:

HerdSwimming, Fine, let's try this another way:

When C-USA divides up the money from the BCS (our $1 million), football contracts (not the basketball money, just the football), etc. what if they said that the West will get 10 times what the East gets because (I'm just making up a hypothetical guys, don't shoot me) Tulsa wins the BB tourney.

Now, SMU, Rice, UTEP, Houston, and Tulane will be getting far more money than the rest of us in the East. Why? Because another school that they are affiliated with happened to win in a sport that has nothing to do with football. Is that fair? Does SMU deserve to get more money than Marshall for their football?

Or taking it a step further, what if the winning divsion of the Basketball side was automatically declared the winner of the football side. In other words, if Tulsa wins the BB crown, and it comes down to Marshall vs. UTEP for the C-USA football championship, C-USA will declare UTEP the winner without even playing the game. How's that?

SouthGAEagle Wrote:HerdSwimming, Fine, let's try this another way:

When C-USA divides up the money from the BCS (our $1 million), football contracts (not the basketball money, just the football), etc. what if they said that the West will get 10 times what the East gets because (I'm just making up a hypothetical guys, don't shoot me) Tulsa wins the BB tourney.

Now, SMU, Rice, UTEP, Houston, and Tulane will be getting far more money than the rest of us in the East. Why? Because another school that they are affiliated with happened to win in a sport that has nothing to do with football. Is that fair? Does SMU deserve to get more money than Marshall for their football?

That is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

Not that I can even figure out what you're trying to say.

You go from saying that Kentucky shouldn't share in an equal portion of the SEC's BCS funds to saying that a portion of the conference that is successful in basketball should get more BCS money than the football schools, to actually saying that the basketball champ should get a nod in the football title game.

Your elevator doesn't go to the top floor does it?

Kentucky deserves their spot in the SEC. It is an all-sports conference. They share all their revenues equally. The money UK brings in from the NCAA tournament every year, and the money that Florida/Auburn/Tennessee bring in from the BCS berth. It is all shared equally.

Don't know what giving the western division more money than the east has to do with Kentucky sharing SEC revenues evenly, but nice analysis. Really.

Next thing you are going to tell me is that Southern Miss should get an automatic bid to the CUSA basketball title game because they've won the most football titles in conference history.
Oh, wait, we're going to share money equally no matter who earns it. What a concept.

Maybe we should just not pay SMU or Rice any money next year since they didn't go to a bowl game last year. How about UCF. Maybe we should just kick them out of the conference before they even join because they were so bad last year so a team like Troy, who made a bowl game can play in a conference where they can earn some money.

Oh, I know, how about we fire Kansas from the Big XII so that someone from CUSA can play in the Big XII for football and get some BCS money.
Better yet, how about we fire Duke from the ACC, because we all know they don't earn their keep in the ACC and don't deserve to share in any of their BCS revenues.
Ooh, I know, how about we fire Arizona from the Pac-10 while we're at it. Or Stanford.

This is by far the most rediculous thread I've ever participated in. But I don't want to step out to much farther, or the english police might be after me.

What a bunch of maroons.

I'm demonstrating absurdity by being absurd... I don't believe in my examples, but you should, since you think the BCS is a good thing.

In my examples everyone moved up a notch... the teams of Conference USA represent the conferences in Division I-A and the the C-USA head office represents the BCS system. It's a METAPHOR. The teams in the West are the BCS conferences, the teams in the East are the non-BCS conferences.

In real life, and in my two hypotheticals, someone is rewarded for something they didn't do. How hard is that to understand? Why should one group get ANY special treatment? I don't think they should. We're all I-A football teams. Let what happens on the field decide who's the better teams, not what happens on the court, or the diamond, or the history books.

Again with the name calling... funny how upset that makes you, but you can do it to me....

thanks for the snoozefest turdswimming now that everyone in here is bored out of their skull i'm out :wave:

SouthGAEagle Wrote:I'm demonstrating absurdity by being absurd... I don't believe in my examples, but you should, since you think the BCS is a good thing.

In my examples everyone moved up a notch... the teams of Conference USA represent the conferences in Division I-A and the the C-USA head office represents the BCS system. It's a METAPHOR. The teams in the West are the BCS conferences, the teams in the East are the non-BCS conferences.

In real life, and in my two hypotheticals, someone is rewarded for something they didn't do. How hard is that to understand? Why should one group get ANY special treatment? I don't think they should. We're all I-A football teams. Let what happens on the field decide who's the better teams, not what happens on the court, or the diamond, or the history books.

Again with the name calling... funny how upset that makes you, but you can do it to me....

Again, if you had passed third grade reading, you would have seen in my posts, and many posts over many years, where I said I hate the BCS the BCS sucks.

You said Kentucky didn't deserve to be in the SEC. Period. You said Kentucky was living off the welfare of the BCS. Period.
I refuted you.

Again, spin it how you want, like it or not, the BCS system is what it is. You will not see a conference pare off the weaker portions of their conference in one sport just to make you happy.

A playoff system would be great. Super.

And the proposed system is already zinging past your head. They are already trying to make the 1-a playoff the top eight teams period.
Good luck ever seeing a CUSA team in the top eight ever again if that happens.
All that will happen is that yappers like Trev Alberts say theres no way that Southern Miss has any business on the field with Big Ten #3 Iowa who is 9-3 and ranked #10 with a week to go while USM is undefeated and ranked #8.
And when the season is over, and USM is 13-0, they'll be ranked #9 and watch eight teams, six of whom have lost a game, one of whom has lost two games, play in the playoffs, and you'll have a completely different reason to go off half cocked and spout off rediculous rants while not seeing the forest for the trees.

Quote:In real life, and in my two hypotheticals, someone is rewarded for something they didn't do.

Um, no. In real life someone shares in the revenues of the conference, whose champion earned the money, while in your hypothetical, the president of Bizarro World plays tennis with a baseball bat and throws water baloons into the stands filled with liquor.

I'm all for a playoff eagle. And we'll get the shaft when they implement one.

We should have a 16 team playoff that includes the champions of every conference in 1-a. That would be 11 champs and five at-larges.
Then when they see that works, they should expand it to 32 teams, giving the 11 champions automatic bids and picking the other 21 teams. It only adds one more game.

Start the college season the week before Labor day and play 11 games, giving each school the opportunity for one weekend off during the season.
Start the playoffs during the first week of December. Play the second week of playoffs the week before finals. Take off the week of finals (I know everyone has different finals, but this could be managed).

Play the Quarterfinals the weekend of Christmas, the Semi-Finals the week of New Years and the FInal the weekend after new years.

Doing a 32 team field gets all the realistically bowl worthy teams a post-season game, and the good teams move on.

Here we go again... Mods, PLEASE do something about about the name calling... the AUP says that personal attacks are forbidden, but HS has on many occasions in this thread attacked my intelligence and all that was done was this thread was moved to Smack Talk.... I thought smack talk was for smack on teams, not smack on individual posters.

Frankly, I passed third grade reading in the first grade. Your reading comprehension is the one that's suspect.

I never said Kentucky didn't deserve to be in the SEC. I never said we need to pare teams off of conferences. Show me where I said that. I'm all for any team being in whatever conference they want to be. But the BCS shouldn't exclude 54 teams so that 65 teams have a shot at the NC. Don't you think that when WVU goes to a recruit's house, they say "If you go to Marshall, you don't have a shot at playing in a BCS bowl."

I said Kentucky got into the conference by blind luck, and you can't refute that. The SEC was formed some 60 years before the BCS was set up. They got in the SEC because of their geographic location. Basketball has kept them in, yes.

My point is that if the BCS's purpose is to award a National Championship, then why are they giving out $86 Million to divide amongst 6 conferences, while the other 5 conferences in I-A divide up $4.9 million. Where's the fairness in that? My problem is with a system that is set up for the purpose of giving millions to these conferences who then hand it out to schools like Kentucky (and yes, every conference has teams like that).

But the fact is, Kentucky doesn't have to do a thing in football and they will get that money. They can send the best team in the nation, or an intramural squad, out to play their games and either way they will still get the same share of the SEC's money. That's what I meant by "welfare."

The system is unfair, and you seem to agree with that, so I don't know why you're jumping all over me.

oh my god you whining pansy a$$ sgeagle. Do something about the name calling are you kidding me? What are you an eleven year old girl or something you have resorted to telling mommy and daddy. :crying: :crying: :crying: :crying: :crying:

Salty Dawg Wrote:oh my god you whining pansy a$$ sgeagle. Do something about the name calling are you kidding me? What are you an eleven year old girl or something you have resorted to telling mommy and daddy. :crying:  :crying:  :crying:  :crying:  :crying:

Salty Dawg, you should at least make an effort to learn how to type, learn how to spell, learn how to use BASIC sentence structure and BASIC grammar before accusing someone of acting like an 11 year old.