Started By
Message
re: Finebaum: Arky was 3rd Choice for SEC Expansion
Posted on 1/18/16 at 8:16 pm to NYCAuburn
Posted on 1/18/16 at 8:16 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Yet the time was ripe to strike the SWC, which then consisted of seven Texas schools and Arkansas.
I believe it was 8 Texas schools and Arkansas.
Texas A&M
tu
Texas Tech
Houston
SMU
TCU
Rice
Baylor
0
Posted on 1/18/16 at 8:17 pm to Roses of Crimson
quote:
Finebaum: Arky was 3rd Choice for SEC Expansion
I knew we went after FSU with both barrels but just assumed Miami was the other. Texas is a little surprising in that the original plan was to keep the SEC in the "southeast".
I did know Arkie was way down the list. Broyles practically camped out in B'ham trying to get in.
Honestly USCe was not close to a first pick either. Times have changed in the SEC so much. I know Georgia Tech was approached before the Cocks and in 1991 Bobby Cremins as much as said if Tech joined the SEC he'd resign tomorrow. Which he pretty much did anyway.
Much different than today where people would line up to get in. Back in 90 when the talks first started we had more people than you know turn us down. FSU, Tech and Miami being the one's I know of.
This is all a bunch of BS.
1. I believe Arkansas and Texas were approached before FSU and Miami.
2. Miami was approached, so I don't why you had to "assume" anything.
3. I may be wrong, but I don't recall there ever being any talk about Georgia Tech and I'm sure I'm not the only one who would find that surprising, considering past history.
4. This was all done by 1991, when you say Cremins said he'd resign. Arkansas and South Carolina started competing in some sports in 1991.
Posted on 1/18/16 at 8:34 pm to Roses of Crimson
quote:
I knew we went after FSU with both barrels but just assumed Miami was the other. Texas is a little surprising in that the original plan was to keep the SEC in the "southeast".
I did know Arkie was way down the list. Broyles practically camped out in B'ham trying to get in.
Honestly USCe was not close to a first pick either. Times have changed in the SEC so much. I know Georgia Tech was approached before the Cocks and in 1991 Bobby Cremins as much as said if Tech joined the SEC he'd resign tomorrow. Which he pretty much did anyway.
Much different than today where people would line up to get in. Back in 90 when the talks first started we had more people than you know turn us down. FSU, Tech and Miami being the one's I know of.
You just proved you don't know shite.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 7:09 am to FishFearMe
quote:
This entire article is a bunch of horse shite...Finebaum is trolling
I wasn't talkin' 'bout the Finebaum article...
This post was edited on 1/19/16 at 7:12 am
Posted on 1/19/16 at 8:17 am to LSU GrandDad
Arkansas was a pretty nice addition from a geographic standpoint and TAMU, while collectively is an odd fan base, also brought value to the conference.its the eastern division additions that are of dubious value - USCe and Missouri just don't seem like good fits. I don't mean to denigrate either institution; it's just that neither "fit".
Posted on 1/19/16 at 9:10 am to 1801
Schiller must be suffering from the early stages of dementia.
Arkansas, Texas, and A&M all agreed that the SWC was a dead man walking and that they wanted out, but Texas wanted to go to the Pac-10, while A&M and Arkansas wanted the SEC. Arkansas didn't have any political impediments, so A&M and Texas wanted them to make the first move and break the ice, which happened. But, when it came time for Texas and A&M to pull the trigger, Texas got black balled by Stanford in the Pac-10, which meant they weren't going anywhere, and A&M didn't feel like they could make a move if Texas stayed in the SWC (Texas was not going to the SEC under any circumstances--they looked down on the academics). So, when it became apparent that no other SWC team was coming, the SEC was left looking East (they had already made inquiries out that way and might have taken Eastern schools anyway, but it became imperative to add one more when Arkansas took them to 11).
Arkansas, Texas, and A&M all agreed that the SWC was a dead man walking and that they wanted out, but Texas wanted to go to the Pac-10, while A&M and Arkansas wanted the SEC. Arkansas didn't have any political impediments, so A&M and Texas wanted them to make the first move and break the ice, which happened. But, when it came time for Texas and A&M to pull the trigger, Texas got black balled by Stanford in the Pac-10, which meant they weren't going anywhere, and A&M didn't feel like they could make a move if Texas stayed in the SWC (Texas was not going to the SEC under any circumstances--they looked down on the academics). So, when it became apparent that no other SWC team was coming, the SEC was left looking East (they had already made inquiries out that way and might have taken Eastern schools anyway, but it became imperative to add one more when Arkansas took them to 11).
This post was edited on 1/19/16 at 9:18 am
Posted on 1/19/16 at 9:14 am to undecided
quote:
Arky was 3rd choice for SEC Expansion
Probably, but OP oversimplifies it.
The league was looking at adding 4-6 teams back then. There wasn't a set goal to get to 12. Look up old articles about the expansion process in 1990-91, or read Finebaum's own article from 2010.
LINK
Posted on 1/19/16 at 9:18 am to SqueakyWheel
quote:
Arkansas was a pretty nice addition from a geographic standpoint and TAMU, while collectively is an odd fan base, also brought value to the conference.its the eastern division additions that are of dubious value - USCe and Missouri just don't seem like good fits.
I think both Arkansas and South Carolina made sense geographically. Both were more like SEC schools on the outside than probably any others except FSU and maybe Clemson. FSU was a hot commodity in the early 1990s, but Arkansas was a top 15 football team annually late 80s and of course won the natty in basketball 2 years into the SEC.
Both A&M and Missouri have their first classes of kids going through the school right now who will not know anything besides their schools in the SEC.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 9:20 am to undecided
Gotta love Paul stirring the shite pot.
Also despite the shite we give them. Arkansas does fit well in the SEC.
Also despite the shite we give them. Arkansas does fit well in the SEC.
This post was edited on 1/19/16 at 9:21 am
Posted on 1/19/16 at 9:25 am to higgs_boson
quote:
Arkansas does fit well in the SEC.
We used to play Dixie as a secondary fight song until 1969. Arkansas could go either way, but in a lot of ways, was always like an outlier SEC school stuck with Texans. We've played football vs LSU and Ole Miss many more times than several original SEC members have. Large greek system, large percentage of kids from eastern Arkansas Delta. The only argument against Arkansas not fitting is the fact that the campus is in the NW corner of the state. Once you see the natural setting and mountain views from campus, you'll understand why the wise folks back then decided to put it in the Ozarks.
This post was edited on 1/19/16 at 9:26 am
Posted on 1/19/16 at 9:29 am to wmr
quote:
I think both Arkansas and South Carolina made sense geographically. Both were more like SEC schools on the outside than probably any others except FSU and maybe Clemson
agreed. Miami would have sucked Id say in order of the four, in which would have benefited the SEC more, FSU, Clemson, Arky, SC. Although all are very close. it was a great expansion at the time
Posted on 1/19/16 at 2:06 pm to NYCAuburn
Bring back Georgia Tech and Tulane and boot the four interlopers. We'll take Sewannee for the hell of it. We could use some conference wins.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News