Started By
Message
re: Would Kansas be a good SEC Fit?
Posted on 5/2/17 at 6:59 am to The Winner
Posted on 5/2/17 at 6:59 am to The Winner
Order of Big 12 teams for SEC fit:
1. Oklahoma
2. WVU
3-10. Doesn't matter
1. Oklahoma
2. WVU
3-10. Doesn't matter
1
Posted on 5/2/17 at 7:01 am to The Winner
When someone with 29 posts who is also new to this board starts talking about a team belonging in the Sec, alarms go off. Nice try though.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 7:05 am to LCTFAN
quote:
Why should the SEC expand??
The SEC should expand if and only if failure to do so would place the current member schools at a competitive disadvantage to schools from other leagues.
quote:
The conference did not need the last 2 expansions
False. The SEC would be at a competitive disadvantage to the Big 10 without the last expansion. Adding a school from Texas was especially helpful.
This post was edited on 5/2/17 at 7:06 am
Posted on 5/2/17 at 7:06 am to VolInBavaria
What do you mean, you people.
Racist
Racist
Posted on 5/2/17 at 7:12 am to The Winner
quote:
hey would immediately help the SEC in Men's Basketball
No, we thought this with Missouri.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 7:31 am to The Winner
Can we only take the basketball team?
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:05 am to The Winner
I am for it as long as AU can move east, and never play a game west of T-town.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:20 am to LCTFAN
quote:
Why should the SEC expand??
The conference did not need the last 2 expansions
I absolutely agree that we should not expand again.
I disagree that we didn't need either of the first two. I think the first expansion was great for the SEC. The SECCG is a great event. I think that both SC and Arkansas fit in well. Arkie got the conference a national championship in basketball, SC got a couple in baseball, and both have made the SECCG. They didn't spread the conference too far geographically, and we still had a good rotation for football once we switched to the one perm and two rotating games for the other division (we played every other team at least twice every five years).
IMO the second expansion has been less worthwhile. It was primarily driven by tv markets. Negatives include cultural fits that are questionable (Mizzou is a fine school, it just doesn't feel like an SEC school, A&M is somewhat better, but still not quite right IMO), we are more spread out geographically, and now we only play some teams twice every twelve years. Our other options is to give up permanent rivals and lose games like UGA-Auburn and Bama-Tenn. I think it was a mistake and that we should have left well enough alone.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:30 am to The Winner
Go through the boards and add up everything that people dislike about Mizzou. Then multiply that by a 5X Entitlement factor, and you have Kansas.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:32 am to tigerbait2010
quote:
I'm indifferent as long as the SEC lands Oklahoma.
OU would never agree to go to the SEC unless we changed our rules on players connected to assault charges
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:41 am to pvilleguru
Same reason they don't want to go to Columbia, mo.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 9:27 am to JCinBAMA
quote:
we thought this with Missouri.
Soon.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 10:26 am to GenesChin
quote:
OU would never agree to go to the SEC unless we changed our rules on players connected to assault charges
Yet LSU is allowed to team vote on assault charges? And Bama allows gun and drug charges?
Gtfo
Posted on 5/2/17 at 10:32 am to theGarnetWay
quote:
How the hell did we go from UNC, NC State, UVA, VT, and Oklahoma to freakin' Kansas?
I don't think UVA or UNC were ever on the table anyway. It's naive of the SEC to think it would just walk in and poach the two most presitigious athletic/academic combinations in the conference.
The SEC's best angle is NC State and Va Tech to get them out of their instate rival's shadow. they could always look at A&M for reference .
People don't like my comment earlier about Kansas, but they're a new a market, solid athletic department (minus football, which we need a punching bag), and will give Mizzou a big rival to go against. they're not my first choice, but I could see why it'd happen
Posted on 5/2/17 at 10:42 am to madmaxvol
quote:
2. WVU
small state of 1.8 million (AR currently smallest SEC state with 3.0 million)
poor state
poor academics
poor future growth
poor job opportunities for future jobs
Posted on 5/2/17 at 10:44 am to The Winner
quote:
Would Kansas be a good SEC Fit?
Is that like a Mizzouri boat ride sail?
Posted on 5/2/17 at 11:14 am to Cheese Grits
Didn't read...not enough TV sets. Football is where the $'s come from.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 11:41 am to The Winner
I would take K. State before I took Kansas. Hell, I would take Troy before I took Kansas.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 12:16 pm to tigerbait2010
quote:
People don't like my comment earlier about Kansas, but they're a new a market
But it's a small market. Kansas has a smaller population than Mississippi.
quote:
solid athletic department (minus football
I know nothing about Kansas other than Basketball is good and football is awful. In what other sports are they "solid"?
quote:
will give Mizzou a big rival to go against.
Well, Missouri doesn't belong in the SEC and I don't want to give then any reason to stay.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 12:42 pm to The Winner
No they would not be a good fit.
However, Lawrence is a pretty cool college town.
However, Lawrence is a pretty cool college town.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News