re: Will A&M and Mizzou get the treatment that Arky and USCe got

What treatment did we get? Arkansas gets shite on way more than us.

I think we were more readily accepted because:

1. Arkansas was more of a threat upon joining. It took them four years to get to the SEC CG while it took us 18. Arkansas has four division titles we have one. It's not a fun thing to say as a USC fan but it is true.

2. USC was more familiar to SEC fans. From the formation of the SEC to the expansion in 1992 Arkansas played 60 games with SEC opponents while South Carolina played 78. 70% of Arky's opponents were LSU and OM while South Carolina played a broader field. USC was also a Southern Conference Member back in the olden days with the 10 original SEC schools. Arkansas was not.

3. South Carolina was a better cultural fit. South Carolina served as the progenitor for most other Southern states and deeply influenced the development of the region and as such has much in common, culturally and historically speaking, with other SEC states. Arkansas not so much. USC is also geographically closer to other SEC schools than Arkansas.

4. Arkansas brought a great deal of negative attention on itself. Arkansas football has attracted much more attention than South Carolina because of it's radical vicissitudes and recent record of coaching buffoonery.

So I think USC had it easy. We already had a lot in common with other conference schools and we had Arkansas to draw much of the flak so we made a clean entry.

A&M and Mizzou will have it much tougher for reasons that have already been discussed in detail on the rant. Culture, history, geography etc...