re: "The SEC's 6-1-1 Disaster"

quote:

---

I've yet to see a valid reason why you can't move Auburn and Alabama

The current east would burn the SEC offices down if this was seriously considered.

---

OK..There is 1 good reason...

quote:

---

"The SEC's 6-1-1 Disaster"

---

Has this been posted on the SEC Rant?

Would be interdasting to get their reaction...

nevermind...

LINK

quote:

---

The easiest, and probably most politically feasible way to have done that was to move UT to the East and Arky to the West.

---

First off, UT is already in the East and Arky is already in the West. I assume you meant the opposite -- UT to the West and Arky to the East.

Secondly, how do you figure this is "politically feasible"? You think the votes are there?

quote:

---

First off, UT is already in the East and Arky is already in the West. I assume you meant the opposite -- UT to the West and Arky to the East.

Secondly, how do you figure this is "politically feasible"? You think the votes are there?

---

yeah got it backwards. I edited.

Because you have a coalition of four that hold that thing together. you had three that voted against already. You get 5, you don't need to buy off USC-e and Arkansas so that gets you to 7. I'm not sure how many you need, but once you get to 7 with half of the rivalry people locked in, it is a matter of cowbells for 8, sweetening the pot for Vandy as the important private institution for 9 and Ole Miss could probably be bought somehow. I don't think getting there once you split the four traditional rivalries is that difficult. I could be wrong. Plus, if Bama has what it wants, it will make sure everything gets done. That's the conference we live in

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure Arkansas will not go to East. that is too much traveling. MIssouri is only there because of Alabama's bitching.

---

The concern about travel is probably near the bottom of the list of priorities. You already mentioned Mizzou, which is laughable. Now USC's permanent opponent is TAMU. Doesn't seem like travel is a concern for the conference, at least with regard to some of its members.

Umm..what are LSU fans bitching about? We get our game in Florida every other year and we don't have to go to south Carolina, Kentucky, Vandy or mizzou but once every 12 years? Color me fricking heart broken, but we made out like bandits on this.

I like going to South Carolina. I get to play gold at Hilton Head.

But what Bama wants the SEC does. Hell move Bama and Aubie to the east and KY and Mizzou to the west and go 6-2

It is still unclear to me why a bunch of wizened, greedy old men felt the need to tinker with the single most successful college athletic conference in the history of the United States. As if a conference that won six consecutive foootball national championships was in dire need of some reformation. In particular, LSU gained absolutely nothing of benefit from the addition of TAMU and Missouri. LSU already possessed a recruiting beach-head in Texas, unlike many of its SEC brethren. The new conference alignment will merely allow other SEC schools to heighten their visibility in Texas and, conversely, will permit A&M to use SEC affiliation to make further in-roads into Louisiana recruiting (which they had already done to some extent over the last three years).

Not to mention the fact that Missouri and TAMU are full of ugly crackers.

I can not BELIEVE how whiny you guys are...

The BAMA/UT and AU/UGA games MUST remain. College football has given up too much tradition already and it MUST STOP. For instance, we have already lost Nebraska/Oklahoma (which I LOVED watching as a kid), AU/Georgia Tech (which WAS the oldest rivalry in CFB), Texas/Texas A&M... and so on.

AND... just because the Vols havent been that competitve recently doesnt mean that it will stay that way. This rivalry has a TON of history and must be preserved!

I am even for keeping the AU rivalry with UGA. (honestly, this game and the politics surrounding it probably have more weight with the SEC office - since Auburn was already forced to lose playing UF every year when we went to 12 teams)

I guess I shouldnt expect LSU fans to understand, because you guys don't really have a natural rival. Ole Miss? Arky? Tulane? ... now Texas A&M will be forced on you as your 'rival'. ('jus sayin')

Just admit that you dont want to play UF every year and be done with it.

quote:

---

It is still unclear to me why a bunch of wizened, greedy old men felt the need to tinker with the single most successful college athletic conference in the history of the United States. As if a conference that won six consecutive foootball national championships was in dire need of some reformation. In particular, LSU gained absolutely nothing of benefit from the addition of TAMU and Missouri. LSU already possessed a recruiting beach-head in Texas, unlike many of its SEC brethren. The new conference alignment will merely allow other SEC schools to heighten their visibility in Texas and, conversely, will permit A&M to use SEC affiliation to make further in-roads into Louisiana recruiting (which they had already done to some extent over the last three years).

---

Excellent Post. I really think the SEC got caught up in the money grab and was blinded by it's desire to get into Texas. At the end of the day, its all about money but I don't think the extra money is worth all of the headaches expansion has created. At some point, expansion for the sake of $$$ becomes counter productive.

I hate that Bama will only play UGA, UF and other East schools every so often. You LSU guys make extremely valid points that I honestly can't refute. However something has to be said for keeping traditional rivalries in college football intact. Nothing pisses me off more when it comes to college football than schedule makers and conference officials screwing up something that was working perfectly.

The sad thing is that a healthy majority of SEC fans were completely against expansion...but not many in the media echoed that sentiment. People like Finebaum and such just rode the wave to accommodate Slive and gave no perspective as to what problems could arise. They all just kept saying "well, people were mad in 1992 and look how that turned out."