Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/22/15 at 1:43 pm to Quidam65
quote:
Florida Atlantic and Florida International aren't diluting anyones talent base
Both schools have 15 players total on NFL rosters...even bottom dwellers can dilute a talent base...especially for one thats owned their particular area for 3 decades.
When you have 85 scholarships per roster every little bit helps.Who knows some of those Fa Atlantic and International guys have been walk ons or been given last minute offers from UM.
I meant to include USF in the original post but I think both them and UCF have both put a dent in the "state of Miami's" talent pool.
Posted on 7/22/15 at 1:48 pm to LanierSpots
quote:
No way we should ever consider Miami. They bring zero.
Nada
It would be really funny watching visiting teams invade the Orange Bowl like Vanderbilt home games
Posted on 7/22/15 at 1:53 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
It simply means they dont have the fanbase
I lived in Miami for 18 years. They have a huge following still to this day. The little success they had last year made everyone emerge from hiding for a few weeks.
This post was edited on 7/22/15 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 7/22/15 at 2:14 pm to WeeWee
I find it a little strange that a conference dominated by flagship state schools would have considered 2 inner-city schools back then.
Posted on 7/22/15 at 2:15 pm to Old Money
quote:
I lived in Miami for 18 years. They have a huge following still to this day. The little success they had last year made everyone emerge from hiding for a few weeks.
All the bandwagon fans crawled out of the cracks?
Posted on 7/22/15 at 2:15 pm to redeye
quote:
dominated by flagship
y'all don't dominate shite
Posted on 7/22/15 at 2:16 pm to redeye
At the time, Tulane and Georgia Tech were in the conference. Although GT is a state school, it's still pretty similar to both of them. Along with Vanderbilt, they really wouldn't have been that out of place
Posted on 7/22/15 at 2:20 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Smaller school than Vandy as well, they dont have the sidewalk fans either
They have some sidewalk fans.
Posted on 7/22/15 at 2:22 pm to Gradual_Stroke
quote:
y'all don't dominate shite
SEC flagship schools:
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Tennessee
LSU
Non-flagship:
Vanderbilt
MSU
Auburn
Am I missing something?
Posted on 7/22/15 at 2:25 pm to PAGator
quote:
At the time, Tulane and Georgia Tech were in the conference. Although GT is a state school, it's still pretty similar to both of them. Along with Vanderbilt, they really wouldn't have been that out of place
.
Yea, you're right. I just think of the SEC, Big Ten and Pac-10 as conferences that used to dominate because most members were flagships. I always considered that a problem with the SWC when we were still a member.
edit: I should have included the Big-8 in there, too.
This post was edited on 7/22/15 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 7/22/15 at 2:54 pm to redeye
The problem with the SWC is that it consisted of as many private schools as state schools
Private
TCU
SMU
Baylor
Rice
Public
Arkansas
Houston (special case)
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
All of them being in the same state with mediocre histories doesn't help either. It gets old watching Arkansas, Texas or Texas A&M win every single year
Private
TCU
SMU
Baylor
Rice
Public
Arkansas
Houston (special case)
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
All of them being in the same state with mediocre histories doesn't help either. It gets old watching Arkansas, Texas or Texas A&M win every single year
This post was edited on 7/22/15 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 7/22/15 at 2:55 pm to Dr RC
I didn't say it would. I said them popping out a 3-5 NC run over a decade would pull in more cash for the SEC, and make up for their crowd issues.
Posted on 7/22/15 at 2:58 pm to AUCE05
How are they going to go on that run when they don't have the talent?
The don't have the talent because they don't have good facilities or an elite coach.
They don't have facilities or an elite coach because they don't have the money for it.
They don't have the money for it, so they would have to suck up SEC money to be competitive.
If they need SEC money to go on a run, then what good are they to the SEC for money making purposes?
They aren't is the answer, you just like the teams that were good when you were little to be good again.
The don't have the talent because they don't have good facilities or an elite coach.
They don't have facilities or an elite coach because they don't have the money for it.
They don't have the money for it, so they would have to suck up SEC money to be competitive.
If they need SEC money to go on a run, then what good are they to the SEC for money making purposes?
They aren't is the answer, you just like the teams that were good when you were little to be good again.
Posted on 7/22/15 at 3:30 pm to WeeWee
Great find. 
Posted on 7/22/15 at 3:40 pm to PAGator
quote:
At the time, Tulane and Georgia Tech were in the conference. Although GT is a state school, it's still pretty similar to both of them. Along with Vanderbilt, they really wouldn't have been that out of place
Tulane started cutting back on athletics in 1951 so they hadn't gone full retard in 1955 but they were headed in that direction. It wasn't until the 60s that they went made the greatest blunder in the history of college athletics and then decided to abandon Tulane Stadium for the Superdome. It is ashame that Tulane made such bad decisions. Prior to 1951 the Battle for the Rag was somewhat competitive. If I counted right before the 1951 de-emphisis of athletics LSU lead the series 23-17. If they had just tore down the upperdeck of the old Tulane stadium and renovated the lowere brick part of the stadium it could have been a nice 40-50K seat stadium. The original brick and concrete part of the stadium was gorgeous.
ETA:
This post was edited on 7/22/15 at 3:47 pm
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News