Started By
Message
2
Posted on 8/6/24 at 12:48 pm to cajunbama
But we brought in a couple of whipping boys. Surely we could have lured better quality programs. I guess you also need easy wins for the rest of the conference to feast on ……………
Clem and unc were asked, unc said no Clem said yes, presidents voted on who the next expansion candidate was and simultaneously decided no Clem, fsu atm and Miami were then courted all said no who was left that would be a better candidate than arky and usce? Keep in mind two teams HAD to be added per ncaa rules mandating a conference have 12 teams to play a championship game.
Clem and unc were asked, unc said no Clem said yes, presidents voted on who the next expansion candidate was and simultaneously decided no Clem, fsu atm and Miami were then courted all said no who was left that would be a better candidate than arky and usce? Keep in mind two teams HAD to be added per ncaa rules mandating a conference have 12 teams to play a championship game.
Posted on 8/6/24 at 1:05 pm to Pariah_
quote:
The SEC was a toilet conference up until the late 2000s. SEC hill people conveniently forget this, or started watching collegiate football in 2010.
An objectively false statement but ironically, the more competitive things have gotten in the 21st century, the worst OU has done.
They went from actually winning a championship, to losing championships, to being blown out in championships, to losing BCS bowl games, to being blown out in playoffs
Posted on 8/6/24 at 1:25 pm to cajunbama
Both programs fit the footprint of the SEC.
We also brought a big 3 national championship to the conference only 2 years after joining. I don't think either TAMU or Mizzou have accomplished that.
Also, we have at least won our own division since we joined. Something TAMU can't claim. Hell, OG member Ole Miss has never even made it to Atlanta.
Arkansas was a historically good program and made perfect sense at the time. We also became the first ever team to hold the mighty Texas to negative rushing yards while being members of the SEC. We've also beaten them 5 of the last 7 times we've played them. You've gotta go back over 40 years before they have a winning record against us.
Obviously, due to the evolving landscape of recruiting over the last 20-ish years (among other things), we have unfortunately fallen off in football. We wouldn't get in today. But Frank Broyles was forward thinking and got us in at the best time. Sorry, you're stuck with us... for now.
We also brought a big 3 national championship to the conference only 2 years after joining. I don't think either TAMU or Mizzou have accomplished that.
Also, we have at least won our own division since we joined. Something TAMU can't claim. Hell, OG member Ole Miss has never even made it to Atlanta.
Arkansas was a historically good program and made perfect sense at the time. We also became the first ever team to hold the mighty Texas to negative rushing yards while being members of the SEC. We've also beaten them 5 of the last 7 times we've played them. You've gotta go back over 40 years before they have a winning record against us.
Obviously, due to the evolving landscape of recruiting over the last 20-ish years (among other things), we have unfortunately fallen off in football. We wouldn't get in today. But Frank Broyles was forward thinking and got us in at the best time. Sorry, you're stuck with us... for now.
Posted on 8/6/24 at 1:51 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
Arkansas and USCe are FAR better additions than Missouri
I have a Texas bias, but I like Arkansas being in the SEC. Arkansas, Oklahoma, TX A&M, what more could a Longhorn ask for? This is marquee stuff we're talking about here.
Posted on 8/6/24 at 2:22 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:
Univ of Houston accounting grad throwing the 4200th temper tantrum on here
congrats on the milestone
at least he's not drunk and retarded harassing veterans you
f
a
g
g
o
t
Posted on 8/6/24 at 2:58 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
Arkansas and USCe are FAR better additions than Missouri
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 8/6/24 at 3:20 pm to Mizz-SEC
We like to give all the expansion teams shite for awhile, but honestly, they've all been pretty solid and unique additions to the conference.
Posted on 8/6/24 at 4:28 pm to cajunbama
quote:
cajunbama
This tool is the guy who when he first got here with this name, he automatically had an alter he would log into to praise his posts and revel at him like he was the second coming of posters.
He is the definition of a cringe douche bag.
This post was edited on 8/6/24 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 8/6/24 at 4:32 pm to Pariah_
quote:
The SEC was a toilet conference up until the late 2000s.
The SEC produced national champions in college football in the following years:
1951 Tennessee
1957 Auburn
1958 LSU
1961 Alabama
1964 Alabama
1965 Alabama
1973 Alabama
1978 Alabama
1979 Alabama
1980 Georgia
1992 Alabama
1996 Florida
1998 Tennessee
2003 LSU
And that's just using the Poll Era criteria for crowning a national champion. There are also championships that Tennessee and Georgia claim from the late-30s and early-40s to go along with Alabama's claims from the 20s and 30s.
Posted on 8/6/24 at 4:35 pm to cajunbama
quote:
Why did the SEC bring in bottom feeders in 1992? Not only bottom feeders, but bottom feeders that didn’t even add very many TV viewers.
What a retarded thing to say
quote:
cajunbama
Ah makes sense
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News