Started By
Message
re: Where do you stand on SEC Realignment?
Posted on 10/19/13 at 12:07 am to DamnStrong1860
Posted on 10/19/13 at 12:07 am to DamnStrong1860
I liked it at 12 teams. The first expansion was necessary for the implementation of the conference title game, a change that has reshaped major college football in the intervening years, but the second expansion didn't really seem necessary. No slight on TAMU intended, I just felt the SEC was good the way it was. And Missouri just doesn't feel like an SEC team. We just didn't need to strike out further west or north for two more teams. I understand the advantages of bringing in a Texas team, but Texas really isn't the "South," let alone the "Southeast." The similarities in culture are superficial; only Yankees and West Coasters would lump Texas and the South together.
For all the grief Arkansas gets, I think they're a good cultural fit. Though -- no slight intended again -- I'm not sure USCe was a better fit than Clemson for the SEC. Clemson was always more football-oriented, and, with only a few exceptions (especially the glory years of the late 80s with Elden Campbell, Dale Davis and, of course, Horace Grant), they've been a very poor fit in the basketball-crazed ACC. That said, I have no complaints about USCe as a cultural fit on their own merits.
The charter members are all exactly where they should be. I wouldn't get rid of a single one of them. Even if I supported expansion, there are very few teams I'd take. Certainly not OU or FSU or the North Carolina schools. Miami would be even worse -- they'd have nothing in common with the rest of the SEC. Louisville is closer to a Yankee/Midwest school. I'd take Clemson, of course, but that's about it. Other than that, I'd consider the SEC perfect the way it was two years ago, both culturally and geographically. We got the best one from Florida, the best one from Georgia, the best one from Kentucky, the only viable choices from Alabama/Louisiana/Arkansas/Tennessee/Mississippi, and I'm content with having USCe even if I'd have preferred Clemson.
In short, we're good enough, we're smart enough, and, doggone it, all the right people hate us.
For all the grief Arkansas gets, I think they're a good cultural fit. Though -- no slight intended again -- I'm not sure USCe was a better fit than Clemson for the SEC. Clemson was always more football-oriented, and, with only a few exceptions (especially the glory years of the late 80s with Elden Campbell, Dale Davis and, of course, Horace Grant), they've been a very poor fit in the basketball-crazed ACC. That said, I have no complaints about USCe as a cultural fit on their own merits.
The charter members are all exactly where they should be. I wouldn't get rid of a single one of them. Even if I supported expansion, there are very few teams I'd take. Certainly not OU or FSU or the North Carolina schools. Miami would be even worse -- they'd have nothing in common with the rest of the SEC. Louisville is closer to a Yankee/Midwest school. I'd take Clemson, of course, but that's about it. Other than that, I'd consider the SEC perfect the way it was two years ago, both culturally and geographically. We got the best one from Florida, the best one from Georgia, the best one from Kentucky, the only viable choices from Alabama/Louisiana/Arkansas/Tennessee/Mississippi, and I'm content with having USCe even if I'd have preferred Clemson.
In short, we're good enough, we're smart enough, and, doggone it, all the right people hate us.
1
Posted on 10/19/13 at 12:27 am to randomways
Honestly, I would be fine with swapping Missouri and Auburn. Let Alabama keep playing Tennessee, and let Auburn get back to playing Florida and Tennessee every year like they used to. Maybe without the updykes playing Auburn every year, fewer trees would have to die. 
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News