Vanderbilt was a consistent top-25 team from the late 30’s for about 20 years with only a Gator Bowl in the 50’s to show for it.

(05-16-2020 07:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 01:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve wanted to do an extended post on this subject for a while now. Prior to 1960 their was no permanent professional football presence in the South. A few one season long failed attempts, yes, but they were exactly that, failures. Back then, small private schools, as well as academically elite publics who had similar strict admissions standards, could pull a steady draw from the community because they were the biggest show in town.

Interesting idea, but we'd need before-and-after data to know, and some of the schools just do not fit the model. Tulane left the SEC in 1965, before the Saints arrived. Miami boomed during the 1980s, after the Dolphins arrived. SMU was a Big Deal in Dallas despite the Cowboys, it was the cheating scandal that knocked them down. Rice and Vandy were never much in the way of attendance or prominence. Duke and Wake Forest attendance wasn't any better before Carolina Panthers arrived.

Hell ... that's just about everyone you mentioned, LOL. And overall, I wouldn't say college football is any less popular "in the South" than it was before the NFL invaded the territory.

Duke and Rice were pretty good in the 50s. SMU was good in the 40s and 50s and awful in the 60s and 70s until they started cheating big time. Being the first in the SWC to admit Blacks got them an SWC title in 66, but they couldn't do much else. So they had to start openly paying.

(05-15-2020 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  Georgia Tech is a shadow of what they were in 1966 when they left the SEC. They didn't leave the SEC because of the competition like Suwannee and Tulane did.

In what way? Your argument would certainly hold up through the Pepper Rogers era and early ACC membership days. The problem at GT was that since Dodd left rarely have the right AD and the right President both been in the right place at the same time. You need the right President that can rally "The Hill" to get behind the front porch concept and start to structurally fund programs through endowment like they structurally support programs on the academic side. A President that will allow cutting of academic red tape (the calculus requirement, etc) so long as results are still generated in the classroom and ultimately degrees are handed out even to the pros. Then you need an AD who understands the unique aspects of the GT job and where you need to spend to support your programs where other schools might not but also the relatively strong hand GT has to play when it has its collective crap together. Go look up the Homer Rice era at GT and take a look at who he hired, what an incredible success rate he had with hires, and how high those hires achieved despite being decidedly behind almost across the board in facilities because of the cash bleed of not doing well consistently in the era of independence. So far all the evidence suggests that Todd Stansbury is the right man at AD and he has a fabulous track record of success with his hires so far and he has set GTAA fundraising records. So far all the evidence suggests that the brand new President Angel Cabrera (not the golfer) is indeed the right man for the job at President as well. Both are alumni. Both have united the fan base. Things are lined up nicely for another Homer Rice era at GT. GT hasn't done a campus master plan revision since the Olympics. The next master plan is due more or less any time they get around to updating it. That master plan should be very telling because it will outline their united vision in physical form. There's still unfinished business from the existing master plan despite its age -- the parking deck right across from the North Endzone was suppose to have been turned back into a park for tailgating.

(05-15-2020 01:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  GT and U of Miami haven’t been hit quite as hard: 44.6K and 52.8K

I'd denote that's the attendance asking an undersized and underpowered option roster to play a pro spread and ergo produce the second worst GT football team of my lifetime. That team was painful to watch on offense, though the turnaround on pass defense was the stuff of video games though no one noticed.

(05-16-2020 08:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 01:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  GT and U of Miami haven’t been hit quite as hard: 44.6K and 52.8K

I'd denote that's the attendance asking an undersized and underpowered option roster to play a pro spread and ergo produce the second worst GT football team of my lifetime. That team was painful to watch on offense, though the turnaround on pass defense was the stuff of video games though no one noticed.

GT’s attendance went up with a new coach. The problem GT has had is replacing the elite AD they had in Mike Bobinski, who left for Purdue after injecting fans into Bobby Dodd.

2019 - 46k
2018 - 43k
2017 - 46k
2016 - 47k
——————- (Bobinski leaves)
2015 - 50k
2014 - 48k
2013 - 49k
——————- (Bobinski enters)
2012 - 43k

The "Cowboys killed SMU" argument rings a little hollow in that SMU was drawing 42,363 a game as late as 1982 and 35,677 in 1986. (pre-death penalty)

(05-16-2020 08:55 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 08:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 01:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  GT and U of Miami haven’t been hit quite as hard: 44.6K and 52.8K

I'd denote that's the attendance asking an undersized and underpowered option roster to play a pro spread and ergo produce the second worst GT football team of my lifetime. That team was painful to watch on offense, though the turnaround on pass defense was the stuff of video games though no one noticed.

GT’s attendance went up with a new coach. The problem GT has had is replacing the elite AD they had in Mike Bobinski, who left for Purdue after injecting fans into Bobby Dodd.

2019 - 46k
2018 - 43k
2017 - 46k
2016 - 47k
——————- (Bobinski leaves)
2015 - 50k
2014 - 48k
2013 - 49k
——————- (Bobinski enters)
2012 - 43k

Wooooooooo weeeeeeee you're barkin' up the wrong tree there. Bobinski is a disaster.

https://www.ajc.com/sports/college/georg...6l6fyJ5XK/

The attendance going up in that span is a reflection of Justin Thomas' proficiency running the option. They won the Orange Bowl in 2014.

(05-16-2020 08:25 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 07:19 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 04:08 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 03:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 03:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  That brings up an interesting side discussion.

What would the SEC be like if Tulane and GT had never left the SEC?

That would have left them at 12, with at the time no room/need for South Carolina and Arkansas. And if they did go to 14 in 2012, would they have picked either of those two instead of Missouri and TAMU?

I’ll bite. Arkansas ends up the Big 12 in 1996 instead of Baylor.

South Carolina gets nervous and gets back into the ACC, which costs BC their slot in 2005.

When the SEC goes to 14 in 2012, Arkansas goes instead of Missouri. The Big 12 replaces Arkansas and Texas A&M with Baylor and TCU.

When the Big 10 also goes to 14 the ACC takes BC, Pitt, and Cuse.

So most everything in the P5 stays the same except:

Missouri (Big 12)
WVU (AAC)
Louisville (AAC)
South Carolina (ACC)

You are one short - South Carolina would be in the spot vacated by Ga Tech. So the ACC would still need one more to get to 14 football schools. It would come down to Louisville vs WVU.

Tulane is up with the Big boys, who gets sent to the minors in their place?

IMO SC ends up in the Big East in the early 90s with former Metro Conference opponents and then probably gets the nod over Missouri in 2012

I think they start as a football only Big East member but during the 04-05 realignment, if not sooner they go to the ACC.

If you’re correct, and they never make it to the ACC then you’re right; SC makes sense in the SEC in 2012, mainly because it allows them to add an East school that’s actually in the East.

But if they do go to the ACC I think they end up in a similar scenario as VT where they used all their political capital to secure the ACC invite and are now bound to their instate rival.

South Carolina wasn't going to rejoin the ACC then, now, or ever. There's entirely too much bad blood.

(05-16-2020 09:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 07:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 01:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve wanted to do an extended post on this subject for a while now. Prior to 1960 their was no permanent professional football presence in the South. A few one season long failed attempts, yes, but they were exactly that, failures. Back then, small private schools, as well as academically elite publics who had similar strict admissions standards, could pull a steady draw from the community because they were the biggest show in town.

Interesting idea, but we'd need before-and-after data to know, and some of the schools just do not fit the model. Tulane left the SEC in 1965, before the Saints arrived. Miami boomed during the 1980s, after the Dolphins arrived. SMU was a Big Deal in Dallas despite the Cowboys, it was the cheating scandal that knocked them down. Rice and Vandy were never much in the way of attendance or prominence. Duke and Wake Forest attendance wasn't any better before Carolina Panthers arrived.

Hell ... that's just about everyone you mentioned, LOL. And overall, I wouldn't say college football is any less popular "in the South" than it was before the NFL invaded the territory.

Rice was consistently ranked from ‘46 to ‘61, with three Cotton Bowls, and a Orange, Sugar, and Bluebonnet Bowl appearance. They also played in a very large stadium (still do).

The Houston Oilers and the AFL started in 1960.

On the flip side, the public Houston Cougars had post-Oilers success, largely due to their creative head coach.

Good point about Rice in the old days. Overal though, there seems to be little support for the OPs point.

(05-16-2020 10:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 08:25 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 07:19 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 04:08 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 03:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ll bite. Arkansas ends up the Big 12 in 1996 instead of Baylor.

South Carolina gets nervous and gets back into the ACC, which costs BC their slot in 2005.

When the SEC goes to 14 in 2012, Arkansas goes instead of Missouri. The Big 12 replaces Arkansas and Texas A&M with Baylor and TCU.

When the Big 10 also goes to 14 the ACC takes BC, Pitt, and Cuse.

So most everything in the P5 stays the same except:

Missouri (Big 12)
WVU (AAC)
Louisville (AAC)
South Carolina (ACC)

You are one short - South Carolina would be in the spot vacated by Ga Tech. So the ACC would still need one more to get to 14 football schools. It would come down to Louisville vs WVU.

Tulane is up with the Big boys, who gets sent to the minors in their place?

IMO SC ends up in the Big East in the early 90s with former Metro Conference opponents and then probably gets the nod over Missouri in 2012

I think they start as a football only Big East member but during the 04-05 realignment, if not sooner they go to the ACC.

If you’re correct, and they never make it to the ACC then you’re right; SC makes sense in the SEC in 2012, mainly because it allows them to add an East school that’s actually in the East.

But if they do go to the ACC I think they end up in a similar scenario as VT where they used all their political capital to secure the ACC invite and are now bound to their instate rival.

South Carolina wasn't going to rejoin the ACC then, now, or ever. There's entirely too much bad blood.

Yeah way too much bad blood. I know there was an overture made in the 80s but that ended in a great deal of anger on both sides. One of the UNC posters will swear up and down that there were some super secret meetings in 2010 or so but that appears to be based entirely on some off hand comment Spurrier made about wanting to be in the same conference as Clemson

South Carolina wanted back in during the late 70’s and didn’t accept the offer because they would have lost tournament money for a few years.

Virginia Tech also applied at the same time but were rejected.

(05-16-2020 08:35 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  Georgia Tech is a shadow of what they were in 1966 when they left the SEC. They didn't leave the SEC because of the competition like Suwannee and Tulane did.

In what way? Your argument would certainly hold up through the Pepper Rogers era and early ACC membership days. The problem at GT was that since Dodd left rarely have the right AD and the right President both been in the right place at the same time. You need the right President that can rally "The Hill" to get behind the front porch concept and start to structurally fund programs through endowment like they structurally support programs on the academic side. A President that will allow cutting of academic red tape (the calculus requirement, etc) so long as results are still generated in the classroom and ultimately degrees are handed out even to the pros. Then you need an AD who understands the unique aspects of the GT job and where you need to spend to support your programs where other schools might not but also the relatively strong hand GT has to play when it has its collective crap together. Go look up the Homer Rice era at GT and take a look at who he hired, what an incredible success rate he had with hires, and how high those hires achieved despite being decidedly behind almost across the board in facilities because of the cash bleed of not doing well consistently in the era of independence. So far all the evidence suggests that Todd Stansbury is the right man at AD and he has a fabulous track record of success with his hires so far and he has set GTAA fundraising records. So far all the evidence suggests that the brand new President Angel Cabrera (not the golfer) is indeed the right man for the job at President as well. Both are alumni. Both have united the fan base. Things are lined up nicely for another Homer Rice era at GT. GT hasn't done a campus master plan revision since the Olympics. The next master plan is due more or less any time they get around to updating it. That master plan should be very telling because it will outline their united vision in physical form. There's still unfinished business from the existing master plan despite its age -- the parking deck right across from the North Endzone was suppose to have been turned back into a park for tailgating.

I think you just made my point. Georgia Tech was a strong SEC football school when they left. They are a mediocre ACC football school now. In the 50s, Georgia Tech had 2 SEC titles. Only Ole Miss also had 2. The rest were spread. In the 40s they had 2. Only Georgia had more (3). They still have more titles than 7 of the current SEC members combined. They had more than Florida, Auburn, Georgia and LSU and as many as Tennessee when they left. Only Alabama and Ole Miss had more.

(05-16-2020 09:02 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  The "Cowboys killed SMU" argument rings a little hollow in that SMU was drawing 42,363 a game as late as 1982 and 35,677 in 1986. (pre-death penalty)

SMU was #2 in the nation in 1982, the only unbeaten. That was a big jump from what was typical. And it was in a 65,000 seat stadium. So yes, the Cowboys killed SMU.

(05-17-2020 06:38 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 10:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 08:25 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 07:19 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 04:08 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  You are one short - South Carolina would be in the spot vacated by Ga Tech. So the ACC would still need one more to get to 14 football schools. It would come down to Louisville vs WVU.

Tulane is up with the Big boys, who gets sent to the minors in their place?

IMO SC ends up in the Big East in the early 90s with former Metro Conference opponents and then probably gets the nod over Missouri in 2012

I think they start as a football only Big East member but during the 04-05 realignment, if not sooner they go to the ACC.

If you’re correct, and they never make it to the ACC then you’re right; SC makes sense in the SEC in 2012, mainly because it allows them to add an East school that’s actually in the East.

But if they do go to the ACC I think they end up in a similar scenario as VT where they used all their political capital to secure the ACC invite and are now bound to their instate rival.

South Carolina wasn't going to rejoin the ACC then, now, or ever. There's entirely too much bad blood.

Yeah way too much bad blood. I know there was an overture made in the 80s but that ended in a great deal of anger on both sides. One of the UNC posters will swear up and down that there were some super secret meetings in 2010 or so but that appears to be based entirely on some off hand comment Spurrier made about wanting to be in the same conference as Clemson

Pastides and Hyman were seen several times at the Grandover complex in 2010.

(05-17-2020 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 08:35 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-15-2020 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  Georgia Tech is a shadow of what they were in 1966 when they left the SEC. They didn't leave the SEC because of the competition like Suwannee and Tulane did.

In what way? Your argument would certainly hold up through the Pepper Rogers era and early ACC membership days. The problem at GT was that since Dodd left rarely have the right AD and the right President both been in the right place at the same time. You need the right President that can rally "The Hill" to get behind the front porch concept and start to structurally fund programs through endowment like they structurally support programs on the academic side. A President that will allow cutting of academic red tape (the calculus requirement, etc) so long as results are still generated in the classroom and ultimately degrees are handed out even to the pros. Then you need an AD who understands the unique aspects of the GT job and where you need to spend to support your programs where other schools might not but also the relatively strong hand GT has to play when it has its collective crap together. Go look up the Homer Rice era at GT and take a look at who he hired, what an incredible success rate he had with hires, and how high those hires achieved despite being decidedly behind almost across the board in facilities because of the cash bleed of not doing well consistently in the era of independence. So far all the evidence suggests that Todd Stansbury is the right man at AD and he has a fabulous track record of success with his hires so far and he has set GTAA fundraising records. So far all the evidence suggests that the brand new President Angel Cabrera (not the golfer) is indeed the right man for the job at President as well. Both are alumni. Both have united the fan base. Things are lined up nicely for another Homer Rice era at GT. GT hasn't done a campus master plan revision since the Olympics. The next master plan is due more or less any time they get around to updating it. That master plan should be very telling because it will outline their united vision in physical form. There's still unfinished business from the existing master plan despite its age -- the parking deck right across from the North Endzone was suppose to have been turned back into a park for tailgating.

I think you just made my point. Georgia Tech was a strong SEC football school when they left. They are a mediocre ACC football school now. In the 50s, Georgia Tech had 2 SEC titles. Only Ole Miss also had 2. The rest were spread. In the 40s they had 2. Only Georgia had more (3). They still have more titles than 7 of the current SEC members combined. They had more than Florida, Auburn, Georgia and LSU and as many as Tennessee when they left. Only Alabama and Ole Miss had more.

And I'm saying that applies to the 70s/80s but not today. They won a the NC in 1990. That's more NC and one more recently than UGA. Bobby Ross and George O'Leary still happened under Homer Rice. Looking forward to see what happens under the current leadership.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using CSNbbs mobile app