O
Auburn would be the replacement for Penn. Georgia vs Auburn is the Deep South's Oldest Rivalry and the second oldest rivalry in the South. Auburn is the Joker to Georgia's Batman, even more so Georgia Tech is. Georgia Tech and Auburn also share a very long history with each other. I don't see Georgia joining the ACC without Auburn. Can you imagine what the ACC would have been like with Georgia, Auburn, Florida, and Georgia Tech from the get-go??? There would have been a lot of very good football. It would be interesting to see what Alabama would have done with Auburn, it's chief in-state rival, in a superior academic conference. It's possible that 'Bama would have went from being the rich, educated man's team back then to being the poor man's team. Auburn would have been the wealthy, educated man's team. In simpler terms, Alabama would be like Georgia and Auburn would be like Georgia Tech.


Thoughts??

Would 1953 Auburn have preferred to be in a conference with Georgia instead of Alabama? Yes, they have the longest extended rivalry in the Deep South. Auburn's rivalry with Alabama had just been re-established in 1948. It would have definitely given Auburn a separate identity. I'm not sure if they would have chosen Georgia over Alabama as a conference partner. But, the Auburn-Alabama rivalry was and is so hot, Auburn might have just headed east.

That ACC would have become a killer football conference.

Would Alabama have followed them there? Especially under Paul "Bear" Bryant? I doubt it.

(07-26-2020 06:55 PM)johnintx Wrote:  Would Alabama have followed them there? Especially under Paul "Bear" Bryant? I doubt it.

In 1953, Paul Bryant was at Kentucky, then on to Texas A&M.

That chunk of the SEC along with the ACC Southern flank really really fit easily together. The I-85 Division.

(07-26-2020 07:40 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 06:55 PM)johnintx Wrote:  Would Alabama have followed them there? Especially under Paul "Bear" Bryant? I doubt it.

In 1953, Paul Bryant was at Kentucky, then on to Texas A&M.

Yes, he was at both schools before he went back to Alabama. I realize he wasn't at Alabama yet in this scenario. But, the question would have come up eventually: does Alabama follow Auburn to the ACC? Doubtful.

Here's another question: would this speed up an SEC-SWC merger?

Yall do realize, in that era, Alabamas bigger rival was Georgia Tech, right? That's why Alabamas fight song is what it is.

I'm not sure I see Auburn being permitted to leave Alabama, especially if it were going to result in the SEC floundering.

If Auburn, Florida, GT, and UGa joined the ACC in 53m then Duke exits the league in the mid 1960's.

Duke continued in the ACC after 1962 because they had been successful in implementing the 800 SAT rule. An ACC that consisted of UF, UGA, GT, Auburn, SC, NC State, UNC, Duke, WF, UVa, and MD does not pass the 800 SAT rule. Consequently SC never leaves. Duke stays out for decades and is not reconsidered until the B10 starts the expansion follies with PSU. If Duke has maintained it's basketball and Olympic sports, I can see the ACC inviting FSU and Duke to make 12.

The SEC would have been ratteling around with 7 or 8 if Tulane stayed. As soon as the B10 goes for PSU, the SEC breaks up the SWC with a merger with Texas, TAMU, Arkansas, TT, and one other if the SEC had been at 7.

The SEC is at 12, the ACC is at 12. If the Big 10 goes to 12 with Nebraska, the SEC invites OU and Mizzou to go to 14. The ACC invites VT and Pitt to go to 14. The Big 10 invites Syracuse and BC for the tv markets to go to 14.

ACC North - Pitt, VT, UVa, UNC, NCSU, WF, SC
ACC South - Florida, FSU, Clemson, GT, UGA, Duke, Auburn

SEC West - OU, Texas, TT, TAMU, Mizzou, Arkansas, (Baylor or Tulane)
SEC East - LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Bama, TN, Vandy, UK

B10 East - BC, Syracuse, PSU, OSU, Indiana, Purdue, MSU
B10 West - Michigan, NW, Illinois, Wisky, Minn, Iowa, Neb

The following are on the outside looking in - ND, Miami, Kansas, West Va, Rutgers, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Louisville, KSU, OSU, TCU, Houston, SMU, UCF, USF.

Cultures are now a little different than today so the big players could fit as follows:

ND - B10/ACC
Miami - ACC/SEC/B10
Kansas - SEC/B10
West Va - ACC/SEC
Louisville - ACC
Rutgers - B10

The biggest change in the ACC and SEC is that you likely end up with league office of the ACC in Atlanta and league offices of the SEC in Houston - making the ACC a little more southern and the SEC a little more southwestern.

To use overly broad characterizations, the SEC is the unreconstructed South. The ACC is the reconstructed Tidewater/Atlantic and the B10 is the Midwestern Yankees they have always been. (I use this language to explain certain value sets, certain religions, and certain social structures)

(07-27-2020 11:47 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  I'm not sure I see Auburn being permitted to leave Alabama, especially if it were going to result in the SEC floundering.

The SEC will never flounder with Arkansas and TAMU nearby.

(07-26-2020 09:08 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Here's another question: would this speed up an SEC-SWC merger?

Yes.

(07-27-2020 04:03 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 11:47 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  I'm not sure I see Auburn being permitted to leave Alabama, especially if it were going to result in the SEC floundering.

The SEC will never flounder with Arkansas and TAMU nearby.

Why would Arkansas and Texas A&M sign up to join an SEC that at this point is just Alabama, LSU & Tennessee as major programs? Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky, and Vandy were not attractive football members even back then.

Arkansas could just as well stick with Texas and A&M and eventually join the Big 12. A lot of Arkansas has more in common with Oklahoma than it does with the Southeast. I could see Arkansas-OU and Arkansas-OSU becoming big games...in fact, OSU is the closest P5 member to UArk. Not to mention Missouri, Kansas, and Kansas State all being reasonably nearby.

If anything, the SWC would have been in position to either steal the major programs from the SEC or form a new conference that included the best of the SWC + SEC, leaving behind some of the SWC privates, Vandy, and such.

Auburn and Georgia Tech's rivalry was older than Auburn and Georgia's rivalry by 2 years until 1978.

But Georgia, Florida and Auburn would not have joined the ACC in 1953 and neither would have Tech. the split from the old Southern Conference was over playing in the bowls and the schools that would found the ACC didn't see the need for bowls and mostly preferred football and were connected by a different rail line than the football first schools of the SEC.

Tech should have stayed with the SEC and Florida State should have joined the SEC in 1992. Both were still football first schools. Clemson made their bed with the original split. Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest Maryland, Clemson, and South Carolina should have merged the Big East with Penn State leading the way. If that happens there's a great chance that Kentucky does the same.

Boston College, Connecticut, Miami, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, Duke, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

There's an 18 team conference that is solid in football and the premier basketball conference in the nation.

The SEC's expansion then makes a great deal of sense:

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Mississippi State, Tennessee

Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech.

That becomes the premier football conference in the nation and notice how compact the two divisions are.

Then the Big 10 expands with Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Vanderbilt

The PAC stays relatively the same minus Colorado.

Honestly I don’t see Auburn jumping ship with the other 3. I think they stay in the SEC and play Georgia OOC.

That 12th spot in the ACC sits vacant until the 1990s when FSU joins.

What if UF, UGA, and GT (and Auburn?) stick with the SoCon in 1932-33 instead of leaving with the other SEC schools? Then they'd be primed to break off with the ACC schools later on.

Would the SEC have entertained adding the SC schools in 1953? Those 2 and Maryland were who wanted bowls and who were being punished in 1952 for daring to accept invites in 1951 without the blessing of Tobacco Road and their small time minions (those schools who got left behind).

Maryland could have shifted their scheduling northward where the Eastern independents were in plentiful supply.

(07-27-2020 09:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Would the SEC have entertained adding the SC schools in 1953? Those 2 and Maryland were who wanted bowls and who were being punished in 1952 for daring to accept invites in 1951 without the blessing of Tobacco Road and their small time minions (those schools who got left behind).

Maryland could have shifted their scheduling northward where the Eastern independents were in plentiful supply.

The two Carolina schools had a chance to leave when the SEC was formed. Maryland was an outlier in the days of trains. Clemson scheduled Auburn and Georgia regularly. I think they have over 60 games with Auburn historically and I know they enjoyed playing Georgia. If Clemson had an inclination they never displayed it until ~90-91 and then they were much more tepid than the other schools the SEC spoke with. I don't think South Carolina was interested until after they left the ACC and then not at first.

(07-27-2020 03:56 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If Auburn, Florida, GT, and UGa joined the ACC in 53m then Duke exits the league in the mid 1960's.

Duke continued in the ACC after 1962 because they had been successful in implementing the 800 SAT rule. An ACC that consisted of UF, UGA, GT, Auburn, SC, NC State, UNC, Duke, WF, UVa, and MD does not pass the 800 SAT rule. Consequently SC never leaves. Duke stays out for decades and is not reconsidered until the B10 starts the expansion follies with PSU. If Duke has maintained it's basketball and Olympic sports, I can see the ACC inviting FSU and Duke to make 12.

The SEC would have been ratteling around with 7 or 8 if Tulane stayed. As soon as the B10 goes for PSU, the SEC breaks up the SWC with a merger with Texas, TAMU, Arkansas, TT, and one other if the SEC had been at 7.

The SEC is at 12, the ACC is at 12. If the Big 10 goes to 12 with Nebraska, the SEC invites OU and Mizzou to go to 14. The ACC invites VT and Pitt to go to 14. The Big 10 invites Syracuse and BC for the tv markets to go to 14.

ACC North - Pitt, VT, UVa, UNC, NCSU, WF, SC
ACC South - Florida, FSU, Clemson, GT, UGA, Duke, Auburn

SEC West - OU, Texas, TT, TAMU, Mizzou, Arkansas, (Baylor or Tulane)
SEC East - LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Bama, TN, Vandy, UK

B10 East - BC, Syracuse, PSU, OSU, Indiana, Purdue, MSU
B10 West - Michigan, NW, Illinois, Wisky, Minn, Iowa, Neb

The following are on the outside looking in - ND, Miami, Kansas, West Va, Rutgers, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Louisville, KSU, OSU, TCU, Houston, SMU, UCF, USF.

Cultures are now a little different than today so the big players could fit as follows:

ND - B10/ACC
Miami - ACC/SEC/B10
Kansas - SEC/B10
West Va - ACC/SEC
Louisville - ACC
Rutgers - B10

The biggest change in the ACC and SEC is that you likely end up with league office of the ACC in Atlanta and league offices of the SEC in Houston - making the ACC a little more southern and the SEC a little more southwestern.

To use overly broad characterizations, the SEC is the unreconstructed South. The ACC is the reconstructed Tidewater/Atlantic and the B10 is the Midwestern Yankees they have always been. (I use this language to explain certain value sets, certain religions, and certain social structures)

Duke was good in football from 1953-1962, if adding the schools noted above improved the conference then perhaps Duke wins an MNC under Coach Murray and never gets so wedded to 800 SAT rule. I do like the counter factual scenario of Duke leaving in ‘62 and eventually joining the Big East or, shudder, the Metro.