Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Shootings Near Thunder's Arena Follow Win Over Lakers

Super Conferences Coming Our Way?


Supermanlogo_medium

 

I took about two weeks off, so it's great to be back. So what did I miss?

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, strange stirrings are being heard in the CFB world when it comes to redrawing conference maps. But unlike soon-to-be redrawn Congressional districts, whose gerrymandered lines are manipulated by state legislatures, there is no such democracy when it comes to athletic conferences. It's more like a cross between Bushwood country club and musical chairs. And you better hope you're not left standing. Rumors are circulating that super-conferences (more than the minimum 12 teams needed for divisional play) might be poised to make a comeback. Mr. College Football, Tony Barnhart, is back in session for the spring, and mentioned as much in a recent post.

Since the SEC decided to expand and utilize a little known NCAA rule about divisional play in 1992, most people were under the impression that football conferences were limited to that number. Not so. As recently as 1996, the WAC had expanded into 16 teams for football before spinning off the Mountain West and even played three CCGs before the split. We SEC'ers can remember back to the old Southern Conference days, which had 23 teams at one time before a faction split to form the SEC. Of course, they didn't play a championship game back then.

But with rumors flying that the Big Ten is considering not only adding one team so that they can play a CCG, but up to a total of sixteen teams, you have to wonder what such a bold move could mean for the rest of CFB. It seems real natural that the Big 10 could absorb most of the Big East Football schools. Barnhart mentions Pitt, UConn, Rutgers and Syracuse as possibilities. Exactly why would they want a healthy chunk of the Big East? Because it would disintegrate the conference not only in football, but in basketball. And who plays basketball in the Big East that might miss that competition? Notre Dame does. And this could be exactly what it takes to finally bring them to the conference supper table and break some bread.

Pretty clever, if that's what they might be up to, because ND is the crown jewel that could cement the Big 10 as the premier conference in the country. With the Irish still needing improvement about playing well with others when it comes to football, the lack of a basketball league for them might prove to be too much. Besides, it's a natural fit. These guys should have been married a long time ago, and if you have to bring a shotgun to the ceremony, then who's to blame?

But then what? We already knew that expansion by the Big 10 and the Pac 10 could set off tremors in the landscape if they selected one and two more teams, respectively--especially if they went poaching from BCS conferences rather than from mid-majors. But to sack most of the Big East would certainly send them the way of the dodo and the dinosaur. And what would we expect the SEC to do? Sit by idly as their drawing power on the national landscape is usurped? Not hardly. Would sixteen be the new twelve, or would it be every conference for itself and add all hands on deck? The remnants of the Big East might look to the ACC to shanghai them, but that would be after the SEC had it's own ideas.

I believe that under such a major Big Ten expansion, the first tier of teams the SEC would go after would be FSU and Miami, the same dynamic duo that eluded us for so long and had all those national championships as a result. They would finally get their chance in the big pond. It doesn't take a genius to see that the SEC would start raiding the ACC first, siphoning off the cream. Besides, the ACC would have to make room somehow for the remnants of the Big East to be folded into it, teams like West Virginia, Louisville, So. Florida and Cincinnati.

The next tier to get offer sheets would be Georgia Tech and Clemson, who actually I would prefer to have over the aforementioned set. It would be nice to finally rope in the breakaway Tech republic once again, and I guess it wouldn't be all that confusing to have three teams in the conference named Tigers. Someone might have to give up the all orange in the stadiums, so I'd volunteer us.

Naturally, that doesn't mean that we'd have to look east for expansion. Texas is the crown jewel of the southwest, and they've shown recently that they would consider just about anything. Of course, we'd have to take their little sister, A&M, because all the animals go on the SEC arc in twos. And Arkansas would be happy to be their red-headed step child on an annual basis once again. But don't think that during all this expansion that we might not lose some teams, too. Vanderbilt might decide that the revamped ACC might be kinder, gentler to them than the new cutthroat SEC, and failure to look west might make Arkansas consider going back to their roots. Attempting to add six teams might easily result in only a net addition of four.

And what about the logistics of such a large conference? How would you determine divisional winners of eight teams if every school couldn't play every other one in their division? You certainly couldn't unless you wanted to have a 10-game conference schedule--which could be possible. What fun would it be to never get to play many teams from the other division, though?

Personally, dollars or not, I'd like to keep it in the neighborhood and look only at teams in the southeastern USA. Adding teams out in Texas or from up north might make our conference look a little bit like the modern NATO. But since we haven't even covered what could happen with conferences out west, the dust might settle in an entirely different manner that what we believe. Alas, none of this has happened yet, yet the conferences have to make contingency plans in case it does.  A shift as large as the one that the Big Ten could result in the CFB equivalent of a 21st century land grab with available teams. Could we eventually end up with mega conferences resembling the early earth super-continent of Pangea? With new names of merely South, North, East and West?

Poll
Aside from FSU, Miami, GA Tech and Clemson, who in the eastern region would be your choice to add to a super-SEC conference?
A) North Carolina
817 votes
B) Virginia
47 votes
C) West Virginia
377 votes
D) Virginia Tech
711 votes
E) South Florida
274 votes

2226 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 32 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I voted North Carolina..

I would rather add Troy, Southern Miss, Louisville, and Memphis.
Troy is a “Giant Killer” at times in football, and again in basketball.
Southern Miss would be great addition because of football and baseball.
Louisville and Memphis would be good at football, although they would add a tremendous amount of prestige to the SEC as a basketball conference.
This would keep logistics a painless endeavor, and the cost of travel down as well.
Add the considerable income increase to each of these athletic departments you would see them grow into SEC caliber rather quickly.
I have a question, does anyone know if the divisional play within a conference is limited to just two divisions? If not, all bets are off. A three or four division SEC is a possibility. Imagine the income from divisional playoffs….

Come and join me at http://tigerbloggin.blogspot.com

by KoolBell777 on Apr 13, 2010 6:38 AM CDT reply actions  

Four Divisions

With a “Final Four” in Atlanta every year? Yes. Please.

by SrWiggles on Apr 13, 2010 8:55 AM CDT up reply actions  

Interesting Concept

So I put your four-division theory to work, and came up with this…

First of all, I sent Vandy and Arkansas packing; the ’Dores to the ACC-Big East remnant conference, and the Hogs to the Big 12/Mountain West hybrid.

Anyway, I then added these 6 teams to bring the total to 16: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Memphis, Louisville, MIami, and Florida State.

The SOUTH DIVISION would be LSU, Florida, Florida State, Miami.
The NORTH DIVISION would be Tennessee, Memphis, Louisville, Kentucky. I realize this would be an easy division, but it’s the best I could do.
The WEST DIVISION would be Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State.
The EAST DIVISION would be Georgia, Georgia Tech, Clemson, South Carolina.

Each team would play every team in their division, and 1 permanent opponent from each division. This would total 6 teams. Then each team would rotate 3 more opponents per season — 1 for each division.

For example, Auburn would play Alabama, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State every year. Auburn would also play Georgia from the East every year, Florida State from the South every year, and Louisville from the North every year. Then in Year 1 Auburn could play LSU from the South, Memphis from the North, and Georgia Tech from the East. Then in Year 2 Auburn could play Miami, Tennessee, South Carolina. Then in Year 3 Auburn could play Florida, Kentucky, Clemson. Then it would start over again in Year 4 (return trips from Year 1 series).

I just did this for fun. I definitely think all conferences should have the current SEC system — 12 teams, 2 divisions, 1 permanent non-division opponent, rotate the rest, and hold a championship game.

"We're at AUBURN. I think that says it all. We're going after the best in the country -- no matter when, what, where, how. That's how we're going to do it. We're going to work really hard to try to get that done every year -- including this one." -- Auburn University Head Football Coach Gene Chizik

by AUshorecm on Apr 13, 2010 7:37 PM CDT up reply actions  

I put together a post a few weeks ago looking at Pac-10 expansion targets and the value each potential candidate represents, and compared this to the current value of schools (several vast assumptions were needed given the limitations of publicly available information). In any case, I equated television value to state population, thus assumed a school’s value is directly proportional to its home state’s population. Using population projections, I also projected every school’s value in 2030. Although, the article is designed for a Pac-10 audience, the numbers therewithin are applicable to nearly every conference (though, I believe my data for the Big East is severely flawed).

Applied to the SEC, any new school would need to represent a state population (or region) of 4.36 million people or more, to increase the per school profitability of existing SEC schools. The dilemma with SEC expansion references their current television contract. Although incredibly lucrative the deal is set to last a very long time, therefore additional schools would diminish each schools revenues for 10+ years, before the SEC would be able to cash in on the value of the new schools.

Here is a link to my article, I recognize my method has flaws, but although the specifics may not be accurate, I believe the general conclusions are credible.

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2010/3/29/1371535/demographics-and-revenue-a-revue

FYI, my best guess is the Pac-10 doesn’t expand, and they probably ally themselves with the ACC to create a new television network,

by chowder on Apr 13, 2010 7:21 AM CDT reply actions  

For Southern Schools

It’s really not about the money or prestige as much as it is the competition. If you wrapped up the SEC and ACC into one tidy little conference and told them they couldn’t play another BCS OOC game until bowl time, they’d be happy as the proverbial pig in a poke. Really, you can say the same thing about SEC scools. If the conference landscape became a free for all, we’d try to grab all the neighborhood teams with whom we could have the toughest rivalries, Bar none.

Never before in the field of CFB recruiting, has much much been accomplished by so few, in the face of so many...

by War Eagle Atlanta on Apr 14, 2010 1:13 AM CDT up reply actions  

I don't consider West Virginia a Southern state

….see Civil war history to understand why….

Upon moving to AL, I let my wife decide who she would root for. After one day at a new job full of Bama fans, she met me at the door with a hearty cry of "WAR EAGLE"

by SandMountainTiger on Apr 13, 2010 8:28 AM CDT reply actions  

I'm from Kentucky

It makes sense if you don’t think about it too much.

by SrWiggles on Apr 13, 2010 8:55 AM CDT up reply actions  

Good article.
And what about the logistics of such a large conference? How would you determine divisional winners of eight teams if every school couldn’t play every other one in their division?

My suggestion:

The new 16 team SEC would have to add a conference game and drop a non-conference game similar to what the Pac 10 does now. That would give us 9 conference games.

Play all 7 teams from your same division, a permanent interdivisional rival (just like we do now, though if we are adding teams the divisions will be stirred up and therefore your interdivisional rival may change), then one rotating interdivisional game instead of the two we have now.

by LSU Jonno on Apr 13, 2010 8:42 AM CDT reply actions  

I would..

like to see it go to 10 conference games if it ever went that route. 7 divisional games, 1 permanent inter-divisional rival, and 2 rotating inter-divisional opponents. It would allow for more familiarity with the opposing division; instead of those games having a ‘non-conference’ feeling.

What's up Ryan? ARGHHHHHH!!! oops. ~ Patrick Chewing

by Mikeno on Apr 13, 2010 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

Greetings from the left coast.

As a Stanford/Pac10 fan I’ve become obsessed with all things conference expansion for the last few months now. One aspect of the 16-team super-conference idea that interests me is the very thing you focused on, the logistics.

I don’t think 16 teams will work for all current BCS conferences. Maybe for some, but not for others. I am glad to be learning more about how the SEC might deal with this situation.

In the Pac, I think 16 teams has a good chance to work if you split the divisions east-west.
The west would just be the old Pac-8: Washington, WSU, Oregon, OSU, California, Stanford, UCLA, and USC.
The east would be: Arizona, ASU, plus 6 new teams. Say Utah, Colorado, Texas, A&M, Texas Tech, and Baylor. [There is a ton of disagreement on which 6 teams it would actually be, so let’s not get into that now.]
This would work because the Pac must meet two conditions or face a veto from a current member. 1) The Pacific Northwest schools want to keep playing in LA every year. 2) The 4 Cali schools want to play each other every year.

The Big 10(11) might also go to 16, but it is less clear how those divisions should split. It will depend on who they add, really. And if ND joins, wouldn’t it want to have 2 seemingly contradictory demands? 1) exposure to any new east-coast markets and 2) to be grouped with the Big 10 schools it currently has ongoing rivalries with (Michigan, MSU, Purdue)?
Unless you go to 9 (more likely 10) conference games, you will never really play teams from the other division. Are the Big 10 teams arranged in such a way to make such a deep separation easily. I don’t think they are.

Now, what about the SEC?
You all have something we in the round-robin Pac10 don’t even think about. A permanent interdivisional rival. With 7 divisional games, plus that rival, you would never play anyone else from the other division with just 8 games. With 9 games, it would take you 7 years to cycle through the other division. With 10 games, it would take you 3.5 years. Are you all prepared to be separated from the other half of the conference to such an extent?

Assuming the divisional splits can be made, I would prefer the following change for Div 1A football overall: 13 regular-season games, with 11 conference games and 2 OOC. For a 12-team league that means round-robin play. For a 16-team league, that means 7 divisional and 4 interdivisional. It would only take 2 years to cycle through all teams that way.

If it all sounds to you like too much nonsense, I’m sure most people agree with you. I assume we will see very little actual change. But it is still a lot of fun to think about the logistics of it all.

by RobberBaron on Apr 13, 2010 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions  

Just out of curiosity,

why do Pac 10 fans seem so adamant about not letting BYU into the Pac 10? I realize that BYU is conservative in nature and religously affiliated, but they seem to be perfect from an althetics standpoint. They seem to field a competitive year in a and year out. And they have a national championship under their belt from the mid-80s. They also have a pretty decent academic school from what I have gathered. I would think that for renegotiating their upcoming tv contracts, BYU would be a no brainer. Their fan base would rival just about any team currently in the Pac 10. Not only do they have a high concentration of fans in the state of Utah, but they have a huge fan base all across the western half of the US (kind of like a smaller version of Notre Dame). If I was a Pac 10 fan, I’d much rather have BYU than I would Utah.

It just seems that the Pac 10 is willing to miss out on as close to a surfire tv drawing over something as seemingly petty (at least from the way it appears from my standpoint) as a “prejudice” (for a lack of a better term) against their concervative nature. I just wanted to get some input from a Pac 10 fan on this.

by Bamatab on Apr 13, 2010 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

Honestly, it is all about the church.

I will offer you my best guess at what we actually think of BYU.

There are some reasons you will hear a lot that are mostly BS.

1) They don’t have enough graduate programs. In reality we know they are an excellent school, at least in some ways. Great undergrad, for starters. Several excellent professional programs. If anything, we are covering for the lack of excellence in some of our current members. Oregon State is Tier III. Wazzu isn’t exactly the Harvard of the West. The AZ schools have reputations as party schools. But those of us in the higher-ranked schools tend to give them cover via praise for their graduate programs. We say that good research is being done there (and it really is). So we make a big deal about being a research school conference, for better or worse.

2) They don’t play on Sundays. Well, this would be an inconvenience for non-revenue sports. But we also know this is possible to accommodate. The hardest change would be to our baseball schedules, because we have three-game series on weekends. We know that football in the straw that stirs the drink, but we still care about baseball a little out west.

Those are the BS reasons. Now, the real reasons? It is about religion.

First, let me make a few qualifications. This is not your mindless liberal vs. conservative or red vs. blue thinking. This isn’t just some tribal attempt to hurt the “enemy.” The opposition to BYU’s LDS ties is very specific. And it depends on who you ask:

1) The academics who run the universities. They are opposed to the lack of academic freedom at BYU. And they appear to care about this a LOT. These are people completely immersed in the world of peer-reviewed, cutting edge research. They struggle to get grants all the time and have to really push the envelope in search for new knowledge. So they really look down on the BYU administration for limiting the scope of the research their faculty and grad students can pursue. You don’t have to only look at the opinion of Pac10 schools on this matter, either. BYU was denied a charter for a chapter of Phi Beta Kappa (the honor society) for this very reason.

Also, don’t make the mistake of thinking this is an intolerance of conservatism. Stanford, after all, produced Condi Rice. The Hoover Institution, housed on campus, is notoriously conservative. While there I worked for a professor whose mission in life appeared to be to destroy all teacher unions. Similarly, liberal posterchild Cal gave the country John Yoo and his torture-sanctioning memos. This is what we mean by academic freedom. Yes, we have largely liberal reputations, but we don’t censor the work of conservative academics at our schools. BYU can’t say that about the researchers who might stray from church teachings.

2) The students. I will only speak about the CA schools in this case. We are still largely upset about Prop 8 in California. The LDS church is widely perceived to have meddled in our internal state politics and we take offense to that (because many of those campaign dollars came from out of state.) Yes, the ban on gay marriage ultimately passed, but the student populations of the 4 Cali schools are much, much more liberal on this issue than the electorate as a whole. In this case, it might be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Yes, we may make more money with BYU, but a lot of our students, especially many who wouldn’t show up for games anyway, are still very mad about the politicking that was directed our way by the church. Considering how many LGBT colleagues we have openly living their lives in CA, and how much we care for them and simply wish them happiness, we very much believe we are on the higher moral ground here. It really is too bad that sports in getting caught in the crossfire.

Ultimately, both of these issues come down to one thing. BYU is a creature of the LDS church and wholly controlled by it. As that control affects academic freedom and encourages political intrusion, we are opposed to BYU’s inclusion.

On a personal level, I think this disapproval of BYU would make them excellent opponents. Talk about instant rivalries with all the CA schools, eh? Just the same, the decision isn’t mine, and I sympathize with the concerns of my fellow Californians.

by RobberBaron on Apr 13, 2010 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

Interesting...

that kind of gives me a little more insight into the rational of the Pac 10 folks’ view of BYU. Thanks for explaining it.

It’s a shame really though. I don’t see how the Pac 10 can gain a bigger tv footprint in the west without BYU unless they could somehow convince Texas to join. Even if they could get Colorado, I just don’t see Utah & Colorado bringing enough interest to the Pac 10 (especially with Colorado’s football program being in the state that it has been over the last decade or more) to garner a bigger (and to make expansion worth while, it would have to be a LOT bigger) tv contract. BYU would get a huge get from a football perspective (fan base, fan support, rivalries with the Cali schools as you mentioned and with Utah if the Pac 10 got them as well).

by Bamatab on Apr 13, 2010 7:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

It really would be fun.

On a lighter note, the Stanford band would have a lot of fun with BYU. I once heard a rumor that we were banned from their campus after some particularly immature behavior. Man, I love college football-related antics.

Also, I like the fact that the Pac blueprint has been rival pairs thus far. We seem prepared to abandon that now for the sake of market coverage. Shame, really, given how much Utah and BYU hate each other.

There are also rumors that we may not expand at all because the consultants determined that we wouldn’t make any extra money with Utah/Colorado. Instead we are exploring changing NCAA rules to allow a CCG with just 10 teams. Frankly, we Pac10 fans think this is beyond stupid. The round-robin does a fine job of determining a champion, is fair, and gives us each 9 conference games to enjoy. Unfortunately, it does not give us the high octane, high stakes season finale of a CCG and it costs us guaranteed extra losses for conference teams. 12-team conferences sometimes have to put up with a rematch in the CCG (ahem, ACC), but a 10-team league with a CCG would have a rematch every single year. I have come to believe that the only way for the Pac to actually make more money is to land Texas and go to 16. I am more than happy at 10, but apparently fan satisfaction out west doesn’t pay the bills.

by RobberBaron on Apr 13, 2010 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure the Pac 10 actually has very many options...

when it comes to increasing their tv contracts by expansion. There just aren’t that many schools out west (especially if they stick to the requirement of being a “research” institution) that would generate enough excitement to cause tv networks to dump a truck load of cash on their door step. I don’t think that Baylor or Texas Tech fit the “mold” of what the Pac 10 schools are looking for (if they don’t want BYU because of religious affiliation, then I doubt they would want a Baptist school either). Plus, like you said above, it sounds like the Northwestern teams won’t vote for expansion if they can’t play USC (and to a lesser extent, UCLA) every year. Like you where aluding to, the only real chance for it is to add 16 teams with TX being one of them and dividing the conference into the old Pac 8 teams and the rest. I think that the Pac 10’s only hope is if the Big 10 take a couple of the Big 12 teams (like Mizzou and Nebraska) and thus cause Texas to seriously consider moving. the only problem with that is that the Pac 10 probably can’t wait very long since it’s tv contract is up pretty soon. Maybe they should take a preemptive move and go after Nebraska, Kansas, and maybe Mizzou before the Big 10 do. But I think that those schools will wait and see what the Big 10 does before making a move since joining the Bog 10 is guaranteed more money, and the Pac 10 is still an unknown when it comes to future tv money.

by Bamatab on Apr 13, 2010 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

I agree with you completely

I doubt anyone out here really wants Baylor for Baylor’s sake. Yes, many of the same objections would apply when compared to BYU. However, Baylor just isn’t on our radar for political activism the way the LDS church is. [This is probably grossly unfair. The only explanation I can guess is that Baptists aren’t seen as having a centralized structure the way Mormons do.]

But the real reason for our hypocrisy? We might take Baylor if it will land us Texas. I don’t think anyone as big as Texas is going to demand we also take BYU.

It might be a little hilarious if Texas trolled us and said, “hey, Pac, we’ll join you if you take all 4 BigXII Texas teams plus Utah and BYU.”

That might actually make for a decent division with the AZ schools. The Utah schools and the AZ schools make a logical block. I believe they had a rivalry of sorts in the old WAC. Then there would be a PNW block, a Cali block and a Texas block.

If we can’t stomach the thought of one religious school can you imagine if Texas demanded two? We’d definitely squirm.

by RobberBaron on Apr 13, 2010 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions  

Maybe, maybe not ...
“Stanford, after all, produced Condi Rice”

Some folks, on this end, believe that the Great State of Alabama had a little something to do with producing former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

by xotus on Apr 13, 2010 8:37 PM CDT up reply actions  

This will be my first post on TET

But I’m a member of the LDS church and I thought I should try and respond with a short rebuttal. I’ve had 2 sisters graduate from BYU and a brother-in-law, and if the academic quality is truly in question then you can look at the national rankings for many of their programs, viewable on wikipedia (notable are their business and accounting programs). You can also look read about the ‘academic freedom’ issue, which from my understanding, doesn’t limit discussion but does limit derogatory statements toward the church and their beliefs. And seeing how it is a private institution, seems reasonable and within their prerogative. (My opinion)
When it comes to the question of the other universities in California looking down on BYU for the role of the church in prop. 8, then you were right when you said that the universities truly don’t represent the views of the average citizen of your state. I actually served my full time mission in Riverside Co. and I received almost no negative reaction to the church’s involvement in the campaigns (I am aware, however, that these reactions depend on the region). Also, the insinuation that church members were the only ones to send money from out of state is also sending the wrong message, since money came from out of state on both sides of the issue. It was common knowledge that legislation in Ca would set the standard for the rest of the country.
Honestly when I read words in your post that say ‘creature’ of the LDS church, or ‘encourage political intrusion’, your post reads more like an intolerant rant – directly opposing the moral high ground you claim to be on.
I really don’t think any of the issues that you brought up really hold much water when considering whether or not a school should enter a conference, but if that truly is the feeling of the students at Pac-10 schools, then it more probably represents an uneasiness of a blatantly religious school in their midst.
This is just my opinion, so I’m not trying to make anyone angry, but I felt I should say something to offer a differing perspective.

by AUDL on Apr 13, 2010 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

I meant no offense, AUDL.

Do you ever get really annoyed at that guy who starts statements with, “I don’t mean to sound prejudiced, but…” or, “I don’t mean to insult you, but…?” Well, it appears I’ve cast myself as that guy. And I’ve done it while attempting to speak for many of my fellow west-coasters. Obviously there are millions of people out here who disagree completely with me. At any rate, let me try to smooth things out a bit here.

I will jump straight to the part that seems to annoy you the most, my use of the words “creature” and “intrusion.” Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the University was founded and continues to be under the purview of the church. I meant to use the word in a descriptive sense. Much like a municipal government is a creature of the state government, the University is a creature of the church. I didn’t mean that it is some kind of hideous beast. But I did mean to use the term to mean that the church has more than a little influence over the school. And intrusion is a loaded term; you are right about that. But so is “lobbying” and “gerrymandering.” It is commonplace to use loaded language when political activity isn’t to one’s liking.

Now, about that political activity. You are right that donations for both sides came in from out of state. But the Yes on 8 people got money from more easily identifiable sources. It is easier to wrap one’s annoyance around a centrally encouraged message (say, by a church) than it is to do that for a bunch of people on an LGBT/humanist/whatever mailing list. Why? Because those other groups don’t have universities associated with their names. Also, don’t forget that if you hear more whining being directed at conservative funding sources by us lefties, the reason is quite simple: we lost. It is simple selection bias. I’m not saying that the whining is right or cool, but simply that it is a human reaction to feel angry.

You opened with a defense of the quality of the programs at BYU. Good! I mentioned that many of us in Pac10 country think BYU offers both an excellent undergrad education as well as strong professional programs (the business and accounting programs you mentioned.) More specifically, I mentioned this as I was saying that Pac10 objections to BYU’s academic credentials have a heavy dose of BS in them. But if you want yet more praise I will offer this: BYU is probably the best place to learn a foreign language short of living abroad.

As for the academic freedom stuff, it appears that is one area where we are just not going to agree. I really don’t think that an institution being private makes a difference when we are talking about the social norms that academics think about. It is not my norm. It is academia’s norm. After all, Stanford is a private school, as in USC.

Finally, my entire statement on BYU was an attempt to explain the collective opinion of many Pac10 fans, as I stated at the outset. Some parts I agree with and others I don’t. I agree with you that these issues should not definitively keep BYU out, as I think they will make excellent rivals. But don’t read my statement about student opinion as some veiled and hidden form of uneasiness with a religious school. It is not merely an implicit uneasiness with the school being religious. It is an explicit uneasiness. You don’t have to deduce anything. I am confirming that the bias is real, for the reasons I talked about. It actually begs the question, why would BYU ever want to join us? I’m not convinced that it does.

I hope you enjoyed your stay in Riverside. I personally call the Inland Empire home, so I hope that we were able to show you some gracious hospitality. We aren’t the South, so our manners are not really what we are known for. Peace.

by RobberBaron on Apr 14, 2010 3:37 AM CDT up reply actions  

I absolutely loved Riverside.

I stayed in a few cities, Murrieta/Temecula, Twentynine Palms, Jurupa, Moreno Valley, and Corona. I found that almost everyone was very kind, and I really enjoyed the weather (except for maybe the heat in 29).
I also do appreciate hearing a representation of the feelings of students at the mentioned universities. I imagine their sentiments are shared more by the people in NorCal, or coastal cities, and I never got to travel there.
I think BYU isn’t necessarily itching to join any other conference, but just the lack of their name in conversations makes them feel more snubbed. They’ve fielded some impressive teams, especially considering the amount (or lack) of all-star talent they bring in. I’ve always admired the Mountain West coaching for doing way, way more with what seems like less at first.
I hope to visit the IE sometime soon, it really is a great place.

by AUDL on Apr 14, 2010 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions  

I would go all Texas

Texas, Texas A&M, Houston & SMU…locking down some of the largest tv markets…Houston & DFW.

by bamasux on Apr 13, 2010 9:28 AM CDT reply actions  

Along..

the eastern seaboard my first choices would be VTech and North Carolina.

What's up Ryan? ARGHHHHHH!!! oops. ~ Patrick Chewing

by Mikeno on Apr 13, 2010 12:26 PM CDT reply actions  

Think about

what UNC would bring to the conference for basketball!!

Never before in the field of CFB recruiting, has much much been accomplished by so few, in the face of so many...

by War Eagle Atlanta on Apr 13, 2010 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think that the most ideal get would be TX, TX A&M, OK, OK ST.

The divisions would line up like this:

(West) OK, Ok St, Tex, Tex A&M, Ark, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St
(East) Bama, Auburn, Vandy, Tenn, KY, UGA, FLA, USCe

This way you can keep all of the major rivalries intact and you can get some good new rivalries started with LSU vs TX & TX A&M, Arky with OK, OK ST, TX, & TX A&M.

With that said, from what all of the TX alums have said that I’ve talked to, I doubt they would join to SEC due to academics. I think the best bet to get TX is the Pac 10, and that is only if the Big 10 & Pac 10 raids the Big 12 and gets Neb, Mizzou, Col, and Mizzou/Kansas. But I would love to see both TX and OK join the SEC.

by Bamatab on Apr 13, 2010 12:34 PM CDT reply actions  

expansion

Florida and Georgia would be more likely to join the ACC than any ACC team would be to join the SEC.

The SEC only has 3 schools ranked above 88: (Vandy, UF, and UGA).

The ACC has 10 schools ranked above 88.

It’s only a matter of time until UF and UGA get tired of the academic inferiority of the rest of the SEC and move on to a more prestigious conference. Once they leave, the SEC’s hefty TV contract will be cut in half.

ps They’ll probably take USC with them.

by Prince Clairvoyance on Apr 13, 2010 3:40 PM CDT reply actions  

What you talkin bout PC?

If you think UGA/Florida would EVER leave for the ACC, you have most defiantly lost all reasoning.

by DarthTiger on Apr 14, 2010 12:30 AM CDT up reply actions  

For clarification, Clairvoyance

that is this magic 88 number of which you speak? Certainly it’s not a football graduation rates?

Never before in the field of CFB recruiting, has much much been accomplished by so few, in the face of so many...

by War Eagle Atlanta on Apr 14, 2010 1:06 AM CDT up reply actions  

dixie land dominance

jezz

we have all these cherry pickers out there,

how bout juss some common sense ?

without destroying our neighbors ?

most of the sec teams come in pairs, so lets pair em up !

1.memphis & arkansas
2.florida & south florida
3.louisville & kentucky
4.tulane @ lsu

now we can stay in the south, and do little damage to our freinds in the acc & BIG 12, getting some good solid rivalry,s with some exciting competition !

memphis being the crossroads of the south and the southwest, with tennessee and vandy, mississippi and miss-state and arkansas coming into graceland to play, id have to think bout movin there to see this kind of competition ! the tigers would essentially the western tennessee and the eastern arkansas and the northern mississippi team !
tulane you get the superdome, the fun of marti gras, the ambiance of the french quarter, new orleans the party capitol of the south ! and seein they already own a few sec titles bring em back into the fold !
louisville always good competition and some real good southern home cookin,
south florida solid up and coming programs in one of the biggest freshest media markets in the south !
everything im readin suggest that the sec is not to keen on movin to far west into texas and oklahoma as to move there base of power away from florida and alabama !
yahooheee !

by cherokeedan on Apr 27, 2010 5:13 AM CDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Auburn's Oldest and Most Read Independent Blog

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Tom_of_the_jungle_small
BIG CATS
_vc00396_small
Whose fanbase is more redneck? A research project
Sir_fidget_knight_of_the_roundtable_small
Coach Chizik on the SEC Coaches Teleconference
Sir_fidget_knight_of_the_roundtable_small
Auburn Hires New Basketball Coach
_vc00396_small
1000 Bammers will be returning vanity plates
Auburn_plane_small
Interesting Proposal for New SEC Format
_vc00396_small
Toomers Trees Show Signs of New Growth
Sir_fidget_knight_of_the_roundtable_small
NOLA Bound!
281860_252578001438827_240819579281336_913644_6795186_a_small
When it rains it pours if your last name is Tuberville

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Headshot_small Jay Coulter

Gg455b_small War Eagle Atlanta

Acid_reign_small Acid Reign

Img_8384-3_small aubtigerman

Koolbell_and_tootie_in_auburn_small KoolBell777