Leave the SEC?
- Thread starter 08Tiger
- Start date
Nope. Money is too good which helps other sports. Going to an "easier" conference would not help because kids want to play in the SEC so if USC left they would not be getting the same caliber of athletes. USC will never be a "big dog" in football in the SEC because there are too many schools with more resources that USC will ever have, but the other sports have shown they can compete very well in this league historically. Football drives the bus for everything else, and while I don't like the idea of getting our butts kicked most years by the league, it's still worth it.
Yes, if you are a masochistic football fan, this is the place for you.
I didn't feel like starting a new thread on this, but it at least tangentially relates to what we've been discussing here. It projects the impact of current expansion on teams' chances of making the CFP. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/56...ge-football-realignment-teams-benefit-impact/
Ranked just above Vandy, and then there is this quote
"Save for that one three-year peak under Steve Spurrier from 2011-13, the Gamecocks have rarely lived in the top half of the SEC. Now they’re losing the SEC East. It will become even more difficult to maintain relevance."
Before everyone starts dismissing Mandell as a hack, keep in mind this is the national perception of the program. Agree, disagree, or neutral, it is what it is.
I wouldn't leave the SEC now because it's the only conference that is not suffering. Many are folding or will be soon. The school is finally willing to spend big money to compete and I believe the football team could reach prominence soon. We excel in WBB, baseball just got a major upgrade, basketball is improving rapidly and we have the real Ted Lasso coaching football. We've finally beaten Kentucky and the Aggies... and Wiliams-Brice is an intimidating venue for visitors. Facilities are excellent across the board. We can compete in the SEC. It's where we belong. And academically, we've been kicking *** in the SEC for 10 years.
Plus, no one was ever going to push out the team that resides in the best SEC city.
Well, back in 1964-65, Tulane asked for "football relief", which was was not forthcoming. I guess New Orleans wasn't the best SEC city, or is Baton Rouge close enough that it doesn't matter?
.
People either love or hate New Orleans. Nashville isn't as polarizing.Well, back in 1964-65, Tulane asked for "football relief", which was was not forthcoming. I guess New Orleans wasn't the best SEC city, or is Baton Rouge close enough that it doesn't matter?
Your team is already in that wussy easy to win ACC conference so do you want to go from a high school type of league to more of a junior high or pre wee league? That’s the next step down from ACC!!
I don't see where the B1G is suffering. I don't think their expansion strategy is as good as they think it is. But money talks.
I'm just a fan, so I just like seeing Clemson win. I don't want to leave the ACC. We have a chance to compete for a conference championship and, now with 12 teams, potentially a playoff berth every year. It's a lot of fun to watch.
That was kind of the line of thinking of my original question. You call it the "wussy easy to win ACC" but would you enjoy Gamecock football more if you were in a "wussy easy to win" conference and winning more consistently? Or would you rather be .500 give or take every year but be able to beat your chest about how good the conference is? Or are other sports more important and you just like the boost that the SEC money gives them, like a few others mentioned?
Sounds like justification for being rebuffed by the SEC and B1G and left with the BIG12 as the best option.
I have no clue what the status is for any of that. I just wish it would go away.
Does anyone wonder if the SEC and B1G continue to exapnd will they cull teams that contribute less to football in a few years?
I see that as a distinct possibility, actually more of a certainty than a possibility
We would most likely be mediocre, no matter which conference were in...SEC, ACC, Sunbelt, etc...
Contraction is a very plausible scenario.
On the one hand, conferences need the USCs and Vanderbilts of the world, because someone's gotta take the losses. Every conference has doormats. So we do serve a role.
On the other hand, revenue is king. All decisions are being made to increase revenue. If you're Alabama, when you look at contribution to the conference, does it make sense that Mississippi State, Vandy and USC get an equal share of money?
That's why for some to advocate a 7-10 year chance for Beamer is ridiculous. We can't take such a chance on an unproven coach. He is not Steve Spurrier with a track record of proven success. We will know in the next 2 seasons. Might know after this coming season.
If contraction came up, I don't think there's anything we could do to change anyone's mind, short of winning a national title. We have a 30+ year history of being largely a mid-to-lower tier team in the conference. Can't undo that in a few years.
I agree we'll know about Beamer after this season. But even if we booted him after this year, our history tells us we'll be in more or less the same position in 4-5 years.
The dye has probably already been cast. The decisions to follow up Spurrier with a proven failure (Muschamp) and a first time Head Coach (Beamer) were not wise. If we had replaced Spurrier with a proven winner, who knows what history would look like?
I suspect that when all the smoke clears, there will be 2-32-school conferences, centered around the SEC and BIG. In that scenario, we should be safe.
Last edited:
No I don't. I do my very best not to worry about things that may never happen. I have to ask my wife not to do that probably on a monthly basis and I like to think I practice what I preach.
I just have this feeling that contraction won't happen. It's based basically on the notion stated above, that conferences need someone to take the losses.
If the top 10 teams in the country were all in one conference, then the 10th beat team could be 0-9 or 1-8 in conference and be missing bowl games. Even as the 10th best team in the country.
If the top 10 teams in the country were all in one conference, then the 10th beat team could be 0-9 or 1-8 in conference and be missing bowl games. Even as the 10th best team in the country.
Have thought about that occasionally. Ga Tech would be raking in the money and recruiting would improve. Same for Tulane.
I think leaving was more grievous for Tech. They had a fine football heritage and Atlanta was the capital of the conference in those days. And Man, look at the conference schools situated short interstate rides from them! They were at the epicenter.
The only thing that I hate is conference expansion. We have been in the SEC long enough, that I will miss playing GA Florida and UT this year. Have many friends that are Dawgs and Gators
Get unlimited access today.