South Carolina men's soccer joins Sun Belt conference
South Carolina men's soccer team is joining the Sun Belt Conference. The Gamecocks had competed in Conference USA since 2005.
South Carolina men's soccer joins Sun Belt conference
- Thread starter Wes Mitchell
- Start date
In the grand scheme this realignment is a step up. But I get it, SUN BELT sounds so so.... sigh second rate
They wouldn't be moved. They've known the situation for years - same as with men's soccer. This is where the ACC and SEC diverge.
The Sun Belt is ascending while Conference USA is not. I just wish that every sport in which we compete had an SEC Championship for which to compete.
I think SEC bylaws require a minimum of 8 members sponsoring a sport in order for the league to sponsor a championship in it. If you, King, or someone else knows better, please correct me.
Think that's right. SEC schools not fielding soccer teams are missing the boat in a sport that is popular world-wide and, more importantly, is played by American youth in organized recreation leagues from ages 4 and up.
All current (and future) SEC members sponsor women's soccer, i.e., they all field soccer teams. Only two members - USC & Kentucky - also sponsor men's soccer.
If we didn't sponsor football, we could probably sponsor several more men's sports, e.g., gymnastics, lacrosse, volleyball, wrestling, etc. Just sayin'.......
Not knocking Title IX (kind of a shame that it took legislation to force too many schools to do the right thing), but schools have to pick and choose and balance out what they can and cannot do given various constraints.
Last edited:
The increasing irrelevance of Conference USA dictated a change.
I may have to go watch "'Cock Soccer" live when USC plays at Georgia State.
For both genders. And men's volleyball. Travel would be brutal since nobody in the southeast sponsors D-1 Men's volleyball. Probably the same with gymnastics.
Should have started a women's gymnastics program instead of beach volleyball.
You're probably right on your first point.
And I enjoy watching beach volleyball (for more than one reason
) but you're right on that point as well.
No doubt re: the visual appeal.You're probably right on your first point.
And I enjoy watching beach volleyball (for more than one reason
Per equal treatment, however, men should have to wear similarly-styled uniforms.
Only two SEC schools play men’s soccer. You have to have at least 6 for a league. Thus we had to seek an outside league
Okay, it's 6, not 8 schools sponsoring a sport for the SEC to conduct a championship in it. Thanks for the update.
Technically, I suppose USC men's soccer could compete as an independent, i.e., we didn't have to seek an outside league, but it works out better for scheduling and other matters to do so.
There's actually more of this type of associate membership happening across the country in the so-called "minor" sports than we typically see, when only a few schools in major or mid-major conferences sponsor a sport.
Last edited:
This touches on a sore point with me. I still feel the ACC should have had the cojones to tell Notre Dame that if they join the ACC, they will be competing in all sports in which the ACC sponsors championships, including football. This compromise of the Irish playing 5 game vs the ACC each season is BS IMO.
When Miami was in the Big East, they competed as an independent in baseball (they are located nowhere near any BE members of the time, and travel would have been tough).
Boston College and Notre Dame sponsor D-I ice hockey (at least for men, and probably for women as well). Their attachment to other leagues is akin to men's Cock Soccer.
And an example on on the flip side - the SEC sponsors women's gymnastics, yet USC does not sponsor the sport. Okay.
Takeaway is that if USC sponsors a sport and the SEC sponsors a championship in that sport (meaning that enough members sponsor a team in that sport), we compete for the championship.