Started By
Message
1
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:22 pm to ReelTiger1
A&M would have been SEC-bound 25 years ago had state politics not gotten in the way, so comparing them with Mizzou is not apt.
This post was edited on 11/10/17 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:23 pm to Open Dore Policy
but know i roll for the "woulda thunk"
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:26 pm to CarolinaGamecock99
I am confused by all the Mizzou hate on here. Granted, the last couple years have not been great for us, but Mizzou is really quite similar to the vast majority of the schools in the SEC.
Is it really that you hate Mizzou, or just that you hate the idea of conference expansion in general? I can understand the latter, but not the former. So if any of you want to teleport back to the early 90s and stop Texas from joining and ruining the Big 8, I think we could all be happy with that.
In the meanwhile, we will keep cashing those fat SEC checks.
Is it really that you hate Mizzou, or just that you hate the idea of conference expansion in general? I can understand the latter, but not the former. So if any of you want to teleport back to the early 90s and stop Texas from joining and ruining the Big 8, I think we could all be happy with that.
In the meanwhile, we will keep cashing those fat SEC checks.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:26 pm to cramps
quote:
A&M would have been SEC-bound 25 years ago had state politics gotten in the way, so comparing them with Mizzou is not apt.
Wrong....
And its called the SEC (South Eastern Conference) geographically named. Hence all the teams are located in the South East.
MIZZ and TAM are not in the south east.
TAM got mad at Ole MOMMY TEXAS U and pouted, so they could get a new conference and frick it up.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:27 pm to BreakawayZou83
quote:
I am confused by all the Mizzou hate on here.
FWIW I dont hate you. I just don't think it's a fit
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:30 pm to ReelTiger1
So mad. You should probably read my previous post again and do some research and then understand that A&M left a conference it never belonged in to go where it should have been when the SWC split. I'll stop with the history lesson since you seem to reject facts despite them staring you in the face.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:36 pm to cramps
quote:
So mad
Yep, your retarded. You need to read my post again. I know about the history of SWC, the titty baby problems TAM had about Network funding and TEXAS U, so they complained and bitched their way into the SEC.
BUT my point was pretty simple and just a little ribbing.
TAM and MIZZ are not from the South East, and the SEC likes the idea of all the teams are from the SEC
And MIZZ and TAM have fricked up the conference since they have joined. Only TAM fans don't realize it.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:38 pm to ReelTiger1
quote:
so they could get a new conference and frick it up
Feel free to explain this part since you seem to be in the minority. I understand folks not wanting the expansion, but i wanna know how adding A&M hurt the conference.
Good luck.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:40 pm to MistaMike9
Yeah, let's
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:40 pm to hogNsinceReagan
quote:
You should make a thread about how ya'll played Bama tight.
Talk about ripping out a guys heart and showing it to him
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:40 pm to Pavoloco83
Kinda like Kentucky is a great fit for the Big Ten?
Posted on 11/10/17 at 2:21 pm to siliconvalleytiger
Arkansas and South Carolina were second choices. The latest, an attempt for expanded footprint was an awful idea for college football. Now we have long road trips, kickoff classics and playoffs. It too much on fans.
This post was edited on 11/10/17 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 11/10/17 at 2:24 pm to siliconvalleytiger
Missouri.
Arkansas has a solid basketball history.
Arkansas has a solid basketball history.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 3:00 pm to nc14
quote:
Arkansas and South Carolina were second choices.
Actually, in 1990, Arkansas, Texas, TAMU and FSU all had invitations to join the league. There were no divisions set up, those came a year or so later, after Arkansas and Carolina joined. There are old news articles about all of this.
Arkansas joined the SEC, expecting Texas and Texas A&M would follow. They didn't. There was no such animal as a "Big 12" until 1994, and they didn't start competition as a league until 1996.
There really weren't any "second choices". Kramer picked a handful of schools he thought made sense for expansion, and offered. The SEC could have gone as high as 16 back then, if you read the news articles from the time.
This post was edited on 11/10/17 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 11/10/17 at 3:08 pm to Numberwang
Here's a good, short article from August 1990 for people too young to remember a time before SEC-W and SEC-E, who think only in terms of east/west divisions and 12 teams.
LA Times - Arkansas joins the SEC
LA Times - Arkansas joins the SEC
Posted on 11/10/17 at 4:08 pm to hogNsinceReagan
This thread more than achieved it's purpose
Posted on 11/10/17 at 4:13 pm to siliconvalleytiger
A&M was the best inclusion by far for every other team. More $ because of TV markets, all teams are recruiting better in Texas except them. Easy place to win on the road an exception in the SEC.
Their gay fans are a bit annoying but irrelevant.
Their gay fans are a bit annoying but irrelevant.
Posted on 11/10/17 at 4:17 pm to siliconvalleytiger
Both. Arkansas needs to play the Texas teams and Missouri needs to play the Kansas teams/Nebraska/Colorado
Posted on 11/10/17 at 4:29 pm to ARKTraveler
quote:
Kinda like Kentucky is a great fit for the Big Ten?
Bitch, know your founding members of the SEC.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News