(02-15-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 02:59 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  You are absolutely correct. The SEC does not need to expand.
BUT the weakest flank of the SEC is to the north (Kentucky and Missouri) because they protrude out of your defined space and into somewhere else.
Culturally there is no where that you can go to support Missouri except to the southwest and then there is only a tiny border with Oklahoma. You won't find anything close to SEC culture in Illinois, Kansas or Iowa.
Kentucky is a different situation. While I think that redundancy is not ideal in realignment today, it does strengthen Kentucky's (the state) strength in the region and helps but helps define and expand the SEC's reach up and down the Ohio River Valley. West Virginia is just an extension of Kentucky on the SEC side of the mountains that has a shared Appalachian culture.
To me Louisville and West Virginia are the two best cultural fits for the SEC, unfortunately for all parties involved, they are not the most profitable.

Mizzou's issue can be resolved by either moving them west or dissolving divisions altogether. From that point it would be up to the Tigers to craft an identity for themselves within the conference. Easier said than done since for so long Mizzou has defined itself mostly in relation to KU.

UK already plays UL annually so the addition would be meaningless. Furthermore, the SEC's roundball improvements along with the Wildcats increasing their commitment to football have been mutually beneficial IMO. While WVU would work in either the SEC or ACC, the fixer-upper phase of CR is past and opening.

But your entire premise is predicated on the idea that Mizzou and/or UK are vulnerable to the allure of other conferences. I don't think anyone in Birmingham is concerned about that. While they would be surely missed, the SEC would simply soldier on as there would be any number of willing replacements.

No, not true.
The premise is that the SEC has a weakness, and is vulnerable to lose market share/support in areas that should be solid.

Missouri and Kentucky are making more money in the SEC than they could anywhere else including the B1G. There is no weakness. Kentucky doesn't have the academic rating to be a Big 10 target and Missouri's only issue is in house management of politically sensitive issues. They bungled it, embarrassed themselves, and it will take some time to get over it. But there is no weakness. All said and done Mizzou's SEC performance is just about what it was in the Big 12 with the exception of the horrible dip in hoops for a few years.

Now if the SEC schools were 32 million in arrears of the top conference in average earnings per school, like the schools of the ACC are, then I'd say there was weakness.

(02-15-2018 04:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 02:59 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  You are absolutely correct. The SEC does not need to expand.
BUT the weakest flank of the SEC is to the north (Kentucky and Missouri) because they protrude out of your defined space and into somewhere else.
Culturally there is no where that you can go to support Missouri except to the southwest and then there is only a tiny border with Oklahoma. You won't find anything close to SEC culture in Illinois, Kansas or Iowa.
Kentucky is a different situation. While I think that redundancy is not ideal in realignment today, it does strengthen Kentucky's (the state) strength in the region and helps but helps define and expand the SEC's reach up and down the Ohio River Valley. West Virginia is just an extension of Kentucky on the SEC side of the mountains that has a shared Appalachian culture.
To me Louisville and West Virginia are the two best cultural fits for the SEC, unfortunately for all parties involved, they are not the most profitable.

Mizzou's issue can be resolved by either moving them west or dissolving divisions altogether. From that point it would be up to the Tigers to craft an identity for themselves within the conference. Easier said than done since for so long Mizzou has defined itself mostly in relation to KU.

UK already plays UL annually so the addition would be meaningless. Furthermore, the SEC's roundball improvements along with the Wildcats increasing their commitment to football have been mutually beneficial IMO. While WVU would work in either the SEC or ACC, the fixer-upper phase of CR is past and opening.

But your entire premise is predicated on the idea that Mizzou and/or UK are vulnerable to the allure of other conferences. I don't think anyone in Birmingham is concerned about that. While they would be surely missed, the SEC would simply soldier on as there would be any number of willing replacements.

No, not true.
The premise is that the SEC has a weakness, and is vulnerable to lose market share/support in areas that should be solid.

Missouri and Kentucky are making more money in the SEC than they could anywhere else including the B1G. There is no weakness. Kentucky doesn't have the academic rating to be a Big 10 target and Missouri's only issue is in house management of politically sensitive issues. They bungled it, embarrassed themselves, and it will take some time to get over it. But there is no weakness. All said and done Mizzou's SEC performance is just about what it was in the Big 12 with the exception of the horrible dip in hoops for a few years.

Now if the SEC schools were 32 million in arrears of the top conference in average earnings per school, like the schools of the ACC are, then I'd say there was weakness.

While it doesn't really matter for athletic purposes, I do think our conference academics could be considered a weakness. That we have to say "KY doesn't have the academic rating to be a Big 10 target" shows that our niche isn't our academic side. If we do wind up with OK/OK State that is one area we will not be growing. It won't matter because we will be making $50 milllion per year.

(02-15-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  No, not true.
The premise is that the SEC has a weakness, and is vulnerable to lose market share/support in areas that should be solid.

If UK is losing market share to UL then I would consider an overall benefit to the state. I haven't seen anything to suggest the the B1G or the B12 have made worrying inroads in the Bluegrass State. But if you have it please share.

I don't think you'd find anyone on this board that would suggest the the SEC would be able to capture strong viewership in Missouri. Those numbers weren't that great when they were in the B12. Being the crossroads of the country means the Tigers would fit OK in multiple conferences, but isn't a GREAT fit anywhere IMO.

(02-15-2018 05:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  No, not true.
The premise is that the SEC has a weakness, and is vulnerable to lose market share/support in areas that should be solid.

If UK is losing market share to UL then I would consider an overall benefit to the state. I haven't seen anything to suggest the the B1G or the B12 have made worrying inroads in the Bluegrass State. But if you have it please share.

I don't think you'd find anyone on this board that would suggest the the SEC would be able to capture strong viewership in Missouri. Those numbers weren't that great when they were in the B12. Being the crossroads of the country means the Tigers would fit OK in multiple conferences, but isn't a GREAT fit anywhere IMO.

And it's a professional sport state with a passing interest in college ball. And on top of that being a true intersection of society and regions it will always be conflicted.

(02-15-2018 05:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  No, not true.
The premise is that the SEC has a weakness, and is vulnerable to lose market share/support in areas that should be solid.

If UK is losing market share to UL then I would consider an overall benefit to the state. I haven't seen anything to suggest the the B1G or the B12 have made worrying inroads in the Bluegrass State. But if you have it please share.

I don't think you'd find anyone on this board that would suggest the the SEC would be able to capture strong viewership in Missouri. Those numbers weren't that great when they were in the B12. Being the crossroads of the country means the Tigers would fit OK in multiple conferences, but isn't a GREAT fit anywhere IMO.

Lance doesn't want Louisville in the ACC. He also doesn't want his league to be in a position to have to take West Virginia.

Therefore the SEC "needs" those schools.

(02-15-2018 05:21 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  While it doesn't really matter for athletic purposes, I do think our conference academics could be considered a weakness. That we have to say "KY doesn't have the academic rating to be a Big 10 target" shows that our niche isn't our academic side. If we do wind up with OK/OK State that is one area we will not be growing. It won't matter because we will be making $50 milllion per year.

That's because despite the fact we are discussing athletic conferences, people willfully image that such associations will magically convey some kind of academic prestige. Going from the B12 to the B1G doesn't mean the engineering grads are more prepared to pass the FE exam or that a school's pre-med students are more likely to pass the MCAT.

Besides its all theater anyway in the B1G as they didn't let academic rankings deter them from letting the 'Huskers in. Same for the PAC and Utah as well as UL in the ACC. It's up to the individuals schools themselves to improve their academics. And as JR likes to point out, undergrad admission standards are down, not up.

(02-15-2018 05:53 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 05:21 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  While it doesn't really matter for athletic purposes, I do think our conference academics could be considered a weakness. That we have to say "KY doesn't have the academic rating to be a Big 10 target" shows that our niche isn't our academic side. If we do wind up with OK/OK State that is one area we will not be growing. It won't matter because we will be making $50 milllion per year.

That's because despite the fact we are discussing athletic conferences, people willfully image that such associations will magically convey some kind of academic prestige. Going from the B12 to the B1G doesn't mean the engineering grads are more prepared to pass the FE exam are that a school's pre-med students are more likely to pass the MCAT.

Besides its all theater anyway in the B1G as the didn't let academic rankings deter them from letting the 'Huskers in. Same for the PAC and Utah as well as UL in the ACC. It's up to the individuals schools themselves to improve their academics. And as JR likes to point out, undergrad admission standards are down, not up.

Well, being in the SEC hasn't hurt Vanderbilt or Florida. Folks who post should study what counts as research. Auburn has a very strong school of Vet Med. It's not unusual for us to have Cornell graduates on faculty and our cancer research is strong. Yet none of that counts for research as far as AAU and other ratings are concerned because it is for animals and not humans. Yet, the human research centers use our research to augment and inform their own.

The academic rating system has been gamed to favor certain types of schools. That doesn't make those schools any less, or any more valuable to the public, but neither does it mean that work done on genetics for crops, or cancer research for animals is any less valuable to society as a whole.

The majority of folks who chirp about academic ratings are too stupid to be able to tell you what kind of research their school even does, because most of them have nothing but an undergraduate degree in teaching, humanities, business, or something else that wasn't research intense or in preparation for research. They just know they have some kind of badge or award to waive at their buddies who went somewhere else. You can take all of that and 5 bucks and get yourself a latte at Starbucks.

Most of the rankings are designed to assist schools in demanding higher tuition or paying their faculty more. Unless you are Ivy League it probably doesn't mean that much in the long run.

There's nothing wrong with the academics at Kentucky, and neither is there at West Virginia or Mississippi State, but all three were tasked with delivering graduates with skill sets that could facilitate a healthier state economy. That alone is going to allocate funding to disciplines that don't score as highly on the things that would gain them a higher rating for research. Their mission is for the supply of educated labor, not research.

So each school has a mission, and they would fail at that mission if all they worried about is what kind of letters they hang with their name on a wall somewhere. Life is much more complicated than most of academia cares to admit, or wants to engage.

Heck for that matter Georgia can't achieve AAU status easily because the State of Georgia's Medical School is not located on their campus. It's the same deal that cost Nebraska their AAU ranking. And some of our schools can't get there because our disciplines were split from other state schools by our state constitutions, many of which were written during reconstruction and at a time when the North didn't want all disciplines taught at the same schools in the South because it would be too much of an organizing convenience for a bunch of ex rebels. It just so happened that by having those disciplines split made it harder to accumulate the total research dollars that are easily obtained on Northern campuses where all of the disciplines are present.

So the difference between all of these schools isn't as earthshaking as you think. And moreover everywhere except the Big 10 conferences are athletic associations. Most all schools are independent entities when it comes to academia. It sure never hurt Texas to be in a Big 12 with a lower academic rating than the the SEC. And for the record OU's academics would be about at our conference MEAN. Texas is the school that would enhance our academic profile.

You guys are soooooo defensive.

(02-15-2018 08:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  You guys are soooooo defensive.

Defense wins championships.

(02-16-2018 09:44 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 08:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  You guys are soooooo defensive.

Defense wins championships.

No, being defensive promotes revisionist history and chokes off discussion. Then folks either go away or somewhere else.

(02-16-2018 12:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 09:44 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 08:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  You guys are soooooo defensive.

Defense wins championships.

No, being defensive promotes revisionist history and chokes off discussion. Then folks either go away or somewhere else.

The two most defensive boards on this site are the AAC and the ACC in that order so......

When you are numero uno in every statistical category there is no need for defensiveness X.

In realignment all of the advantages are ours. Whether you pick attendance, gross revenue, viewership, region of the country, or recruiting the SEC has it all.

What you call revisionism is simply a world view that isn't Chapel Hill centered. While the ACC is certainly not the most vulnerable conference any longer, you are still dead last in all metrics including revenue. So just because the Big 12 is the most vulnerable due to a long list of issues, the financial disparity will remain a source of contention for the ACC for many years to come.

What chokes off discussion is not revisionism. Revisionism just leads to more debate. What chokes off discussion on a message board are facts. Then whiny piss and moaners look for somewhere else to complain.

The biggest issue with the dumbest generation in American history is that they believe vox populi makes them correct and that if enough of them can get together to shout someone else down that somehow that makes them right. The beauty of being right is that frequently you find yourself in the minority position, but if you know how and why you are right it doesn't matter. When the numb-skulls in the press just repeat what they hear instead of doing a little background work we get a B.S. feedback loop, like the black ball garbage.

That's why I post the numbers at the top of the screen every year. No matter how much grousing and group think there is going around the numbers stand on their own.

When I argue with people about the black ball blocking group B.S. it's simply value that defeats the argument. The only way it ever gained traction was publicity by twitter folks and bloggers who could point to the market model. Well that's no longer as viable and even when it was it didn't keep in state schools from pushing for their rivals, rather than blocking them.

I listened to another millennial talking at L.T. today about F.S.U., well Bowden applied to the SEC and pushed us several times starting in '82. Bowden didn't change his mind on the SEC until the last minute. You've got your view of how things went down, and I've got mine. They come from two different vantage points but at least we are dealing with a quantifiable event. F.S.U. chose the ACC. The only thing that is debatable is why and when and were there other interested parties.

So if I'm listening to one of the long list of red hot rocket aces on the main board push their pet theories and I know which part of those theories are just plain wrong, I'll say so, and unapologetically. Being popular doesn't equate to being right either.

So I'm going to drop my politeness for a moment to say the ACC is not just behind on revenue, you are staggeringly behind on revenue. You have the largest market footprint in the U.S. and your viewing numbers even lag those of the PAC. It's not just bad, it is horribly pathetic. The scandals at Louisville, in the recent past at Miami, and the academic fraud issues at North Carolina all make Ole Miss look like choir boys. As far as the measure of academics go you have 5 AAU schools we have 4, but both of our conferences trail the Big 10 and PAC significantly on that metric.

I don't hate the ACC, but saying that you are vulnerable is what incites defensiveness on this board. Yet it is not hating, but rather reason that says that you are what you are. The GOR held you together in 2010-12 and that is not much different than the Big 12. But, having the larger market footprint is what saved in the ACC in 2010-12 because that is what the Big 12 could not overcome. In a world where market footprints aren't as important as actual viewers it won't.

The only thing I defend, and will continue to defend, is what I know to be true. But, in all dealings where money, reputation, and where ego are involved what is publicized and what really happened are two entirely different things. Fear of liability, spin to cover jobs and reputation, or to cover the involvement of money are virtually always present. For conference commissioners, networks, and university presidents and football coaches that is especially true. The revisionism, glosses in story presentation, and the competing angles are all there for those reasons. And they were never so omnipresent as in the recent realignment.

What especially pisses me off around here is when I listen to those born decades after events that I lived through trying to tell me that what happened is different that what I experienced. It happens because of the revisionist history their leftist ******* professors presented to them. In some university libraries now you have to go to the archives to find books written by those who were there, or who actually researched an event in their lifetime with eyewitness accounts, to find a source to get them see just how far off what they were taught truly is. I lived in the archives during my post graduate work and the discrepancies between the fairly non political accounting of events say 70 to 200 years previously were quite different to the attributed motives being taught so that the events of history could be swayed to favor some current agenda.

So sorry buddy, I let you slide on a lot of things and just accept that our world views differ, but saying the folks who post here, me included, are defensive of our conference is just pure projection on your part. We have nothing to defend. The numbers speak for themselves. The very fact that you try to demean us in order to feel better about yours is quite amusing.

(02-16-2018 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 12:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 09:44 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 08:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  You guys are soooooo defensive.

Defense wins championships.

No, being defensive promotes revisionist history and chokes off discussion. Then folks either go away or somewhere else.

The two most defensive boards on this site are the AAC and the ACC in that order so......

When you are numero uno in every statistical category there is no need for defensiveness X.

In realignment all of the advantages are ours. Whether you pick attendance, gross revenue, viewership, region of the country, or recruiting the SEC has it all.

What you call revisionism is simply a world view that isn't Chapel Hill centered. While the ACC is certainly not the most vulnerable conference any longer, you are still dead last in all metrics including revenue. So just because the Big 12 is the most vulnerable due to a long list of issues, the financial disparity will remain a source of contention for the ACC for many years to come.

What chokes off discussion is not revisionism. Revisionism just leads to more debate. What chokes off discussion on a message board are facts. Then whiny piss and moaners look for somewhere else to complain.

The biggest issue with the dumbest generation in American history is that they believe vox populi makes them correct and that if enough of them can get together to shout someone else down that somehow that makes them right. The beauty of being right is that frequently you find yourself in the minority position, but if you know how and why you are right it doesn't matter. When the numb-skulls in the press just repeat what they hear instead of doing a little background work we get a B.S. feedback loop, like the black ball garbage.

That's why I post the numbers at the top of the screen every year. No matter how much grousing and group think there is going around the numbers stand on their own.

When I argue with people about the black ball blocking group B.S. it's simply value that defeats the argument. The only way it ever gained traction was publicity by twitter folks and bloggers who could point to the market model. Well that's no longer as viable and even when it was it didn't keep in state schools from pushing for their rivals, rather than blocking them.

I listened to another millennial talking at L.T. today about F.S.U., well Bowden applied to the SEC and pushed us several times starting in '82. Bowden didn't change his mind on the SEC until the last minute. You've got your view of how thing went down, and I've got mine. They come from two different vantage points but at least we are dealing with a quantifiable event. F.S.U. chose the ACC. The only thing that is debatable is why and when and were there other interested parties.

So if I'm listening to one of the long list of red hot rocket aces on the main board push their pet theories and I know which part of those theories are just plain wrong, I'll say so, and unapologetically. Being popular doesn't equate to being right either.

So I'm going to drop my politeness for a moment to say the ACC is not just behind on revenue, you are staggeringly behind on revenue. You have the largest market footprint in the U.S. and your viewing numbers even lag those of the PAC. It's not just bad, it is horribly pathetic. The scandals at Louisville, in the recent past at Miami, and the academic fraud issues at North Carolina all make Ole Miss look like choir boys. As far as the measure of academics go you have 5 AAU schools we have 4, but both of our conferences trail the Big 10 and PAC significantly on that metric.

I don't hate the ACC, but saying that you are vulnerable is what incites defensiveness on this board. Yet it is not hating, but rather reason that says that you are what you are. The GOR is all that held you together in 2010 and that is not much different than the Big 12. Having the larger market footprint is what saved in the ACC in 2010 outside of the GOR. In a world where market footprints aren't as important of actual viewers it won't.

The only thing I defend, and will continue to defend, is what I know to be true. But, in all dealings where money, reputation, and ego are involved what is publicized and what really happened are two entirely different things. Fear of liability, spin to cover jobs and reputation, or to cover the involvement of money are virtually always present. For conference commissioners, networks, and university presidents and football coaches that is especially true. The revisionism, glosses in story presentation, and the competing angles are all there for those reasons.

What especially pisses me off around here are when I listen to those born decades after events that I lived through are trying to tell me what happened because of the revisionist history their leftist ******* professors presented to them. In some university libraries now you have to go to the archives to find books written by those who were there, or researched an event in their lifetime with eyewitness accounts to find a source to get them see just how far off what they were taught truly is.

So sorry buddy, I let you slide on a lot of things and just accept that our world views differ, but saying the folks who post here, me included are defensive of our conference is just pure projection on your part. We have nothing to defend. The numbers speak for themselves.

Which is why I wonder why. Maybe it's just the SEC SEC SEC mentality.
Football is under attack. The non professional levels are the most vulnerable and if we all can't get things straightened out the goose is going to get slaughtered.

(02-16-2018 02:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 12:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 09:44 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 08:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  You guys are soooooo defensive.

Defense wins championships.

No, being defensive promotes revisionist history and chokes off discussion. Then folks either go away or somewhere else.

The two most defensive boards on this site are the AAC and the ACC in that order so......

When you are numero uno in every statistical category there is no need for defensiveness X.

In realignment all of the advantages are ours. Whether you pick attendance, gross revenue, viewership, region of the country, or recruiting the SEC has it all.

What you call revisionism is simply a world view that isn't Chapel Hill centered. While the ACC is certainly not the most vulnerable conference any longer, you are still dead last in all metrics including revenue. So just because the Big 12 is the most vulnerable due to a long list of issues, the financial disparity will remain a source of contention for the ACC for many years to come.

What chokes off discussion is not revisionism. Revisionism just leads to more debate. What chokes off discussion on a message board are facts. Then whiny piss and moaners look for somewhere else to complain.

The biggest issue with the dumbest generation in American history is that they believe vox populi makes them correct and that if enough of them can get together to shout someone else down that somehow that makes them right. The beauty of being right is that frequently you find yourself in the minority position, but if you know how and why you are right it doesn't matter. When the numb-skulls in the press just repeat what they hear instead of doing a little background work we get a B.S. feedback loop, like the black ball garbage.

That's why I post the numbers at the top of the screen every year. No matter how much grousing and group think there is going around the numbers stand on their own.

When I argue with people about the black ball blocking group B.S. it's simply value that defeats the argument. The only way it ever gained traction was publicity by twitter folks and bloggers who could point to the market model. Well that's no longer as viable and even when it was it didn't keep in state schools from pushing for their rivals, rather than blocking them.

I listened to another millennial talking at L.T. today about F.S.U., well Bowden applied to the SEC and pushed us several times starting in '82. Bowden didn't change his mind on the SEC until the last minute. You've got your view of how thing went down, and I've got mine. They come from two different vantage points but at least we are dealing with a quantifiable event. F.S.U. chose the ACC. The only thing that is debatable is why and when and were there other interested parties.

So if I'm listening to one of the long list of red hot rocket aces on the main board push their pet theories and I know which part of those theories are just plain wrong, I'll say so, and unapologetically. Being popular doesn't equate to being right either.

So I'm going to drop my politeness for a moment to say the ACC is not just behind on revenue, you are staggeringly behind on revenue. You have the largest market footprint in the U.S. and your viewing numbers even lag those of the PAC. It's not just bad, it is horribly pathetic. The scandals at Louisville, in the recent past at Miami, and the academic fraud issues at North Carolina all make Ole Miss look like choir boys. As far as the measure of academics go you have 5 AAU schools we have 4, but both of our conferences trail the Big 10 and PAC significantly on that metric.

I don't hate the ACC, but saying that you are vulnerable is what incites defensiveness on this board. Yet it is not hating, but rather reason that says that you are what you are. The GOR is all that held you together in 2010 and that is not much different than the Big 12. Having the larger market footprint is what saved in the ACC in 2010 outside of the GOR. In a world where market footprints aren't as important of actual viewers it won't.

The only thing I defend, and will continue to defend, is what I know to be true. But, in all dealings where money, reputation, and ego are involved what is publicized and what really happened are two entirely different things. Fear of liability, spin to cover jobs and reputation, or to cover the involvement of money are virtually always present. For conference commissioners, networks, and university presidents and football coaches that is especially true. The revisionism, glosses in story presentation, and the competing angles are all there for those reasons.

What especially pisses me off around here are when I listen to those born decades after events that I lived through are trying to tell me what happened because of the revisionist history their leftist ******* professors presented to them. In some university libraries now you have to go to the archives to find books written by those who were there, or researched an event in their lifetime with eyewitness accounts to find a source to get them see just how far off what they were taught truly is.

So sorry buddy, I let you slide on a lot of things and just accept that our world views differ, but saying the folks who post here, me included are defensive of our conference is just pure projection on your part. We have nothing to defend. The numbers speak for themselves.

Which is why I wonder why. Maybe it's just the SEC SEC SEC mentality.
Football is under attack. The non professional levels are the most vulnerable and if we all can't get things straightened out the goose is going to get slaughtered.

Football isn't going to die in the Southeast for quite sometime. When it happens we'll put our efforts into basketball, or baseball, and it will keep chugging along.

And X the only professional levels that are guaranteed anything moving forward are the medical ones and we all have medical schools and even medical research. As for engineering the SEC does quite well, including little ole Auburn in Aerospace Engineering. And we live in Republic where the demographics are shifting our way so apportionment will as well.

So who appears desperate here is you. Your need for schadenfreude is overwhelming.

Desperate? you're joking right?
From a University perspective, things are peachy. Research dollars are up (we are generally in the #7 -#12 range, around $ 1 Billion), applications for enrollment continue to set new records every year, and the incoming classes continue to become more and more selective.
Athletically we face the same challenges as everyone else. Budget is up to almost $97 million in 2016-17. There are over $100 million in athletic construction projects taking place as we speak, but fortunately we aren't spending anything on severance.
43 National championships, consistent top ten in the Director's cup.....desperate? And all of that is while playing with one hand tied behind our back for the last 7 years while having to fend off some bogus charges from the NCAA and doing it with a lot less money than some of our neighbors to the Southwest and Northwest.
Desperate JR?

(02-16-2018 03:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  Desperate? you're joking right?
From a University perspective, things are peachy. Research dollars are up (we are generally in the #7 -#12 range, around $ 1 Billion), applications for enrollment continue to set new records every year, and the incoming classes continue to become more and more selective.
Athletically we face the same challenges as everyone else. Budget is up to almost $97 million in 2016-17. There are over $100 million in athletic construction projects taking place as we speak, but fortunately we aren't spending anything on severance.
43 National championships, consistent top ten in the Director's cup.....desperate? And all of that is while playing with one hand tied behind our back for the last 7 years while having to fend off some bogus charges from the NCAA and doing it with a lot less money than some of our neighbors to the Southwest and Northwest.
Desperate JR?

Where it counts in sports X is in basketball for Carolina and you have 5 titles. You have oodles of women's soccer titles and women's lacrosse accounts for about 5 or so more. And I might add most of the soccer titles happened prior to the growth of soccer and so were won against a very limited field. In fact it is reminiscent of Old Dominion's women's hoops prior to Title IX getting so many larger schools involved. That's about it. I'm glad your research is doing well because that is North Carolina. It's a fine school but as to being an athletic juggernaut, you aren't. And money sports are what counts.

(02-16-2018 12:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 09:44 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 08:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  You guys are soooooo defensive.

Defense wins championships.

No, being defensive promotes revisionist history and chokes off discussion. Then folks either go away or somewhere else.

You want to have a discussion based on speculation. Which is fine but I expect a little of the conversation to grounded in some form of reality. Your theories regarding Mizzou I felt were worthy of debate, the UK not so much. Of your proposed 'solutions'; one was legit IMO (WVU) while the other was pure fantasy (UL).

That you perceive these response posts as defensive is unfortunate as I and other members of this board freely admit that the SEC is not perfect. That said, all of us are over here because we wish to discuss these and other topics in a rational fashion. Thus your POV is mainly because many felt you weren't engaging in an honest manner.

(02-16-2018 03:47 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 12:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 09:44 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 08:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  You guys are soooooo defensive.

Defense wins championships.

No, being defensive promotes revisionist history and chokes off discussion. Then folks either go away or somewhere else.

You want to have a discussion based on speculation. Which is fine but I expect a little of the conversation to grounded in some form of reality. Your theories regarding Mizzou I felt were worthy of debate, the UK not so much. Of your proposed 'solutions'; one was legit IMO (WVU) while the other was pure fantasy (UL).

That you perceive these response posts as defensive is unfortunate as I and other members of this board freely admit that the SEC is not perfect. That said, all of us are over here because we wish to discuss these and other topics in a rational fashion. Thus your POV is mainly because many felt you weren't engaging in an honest manner.

Pretty much.

Lance is a good troll, but he's not fooling anyone if he's going to portray himself as an intellectually honest debater.

(02-16-2018 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  Desperate? you're joking right?
From a University perspective, things are peachy. Research dollars are up (we are generally in the #7 -#12 range, around $ 1 Billion), applications for enrollment continue to set new records every year, and the incoming classes continue to become more and more selective.
Athletically we face the same challenges as everyone else. Budget is up to almost $97 million in 2016-17. There are over $100 million in athletic construction projects taking place as we speak, but fortunately we aren't spending anything on severance.
43 National championships, consistent top ten in the Director's cup.....desperate? And all of that is while playing with one hand tied behind our back for the last 7 years while having to fend off some bogus charges from the NCAA and doing it with a lot less money than some of our neighbors to the Southwest and Northwest.
Desperate JR?

Where it counts in sports X is in basketball for Carolina and you have 5 titles. You have oodles of women's soccer titles and women's lacrosse accounts for about 5 or so more. And I might add most of the soccer titles happened prior to the growth of soccer and so were won against a very limited field. In fact it is reminiscent of Old Dominion's women's hoops prior to Title IX getting so many larger schools involved. That's about it. I'm glad your research is doing well because that is North Carolina. It's a fine school but as to being an athletic juggernaut, you aren't. And money sports are what counts.

6 men's basketball titles, JR, six.

(02-16-2018 08:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  Desperate? you're joking right?
From a University perspective, things are peachy. Research dollars are up (we are generally in the #7 -#12 range, around $ 1 Billion), applications for enrollment continue to set new records every year, and the incoming classes continue to become more and more selective.
Athletically we face the same challenges as everyone else. Budget is up to almost $97 million in 2016-17. There are over $100 million in athletic construction projects taking place as we speak, but fortunately we aren't spending anything on severance.
43 National championships, consistent top ten in the Director's cup.....desperate? And all of that is while playing with one hand tied behind our back for the last 7 years while having to fend off some bogus charges from the NCAA and doing it with a lot less money than some of our neighbors to the Southwest and Northwest.
Desperate JR?

Where it counts in sports X is in basketball for Carolina and you have 5 titles. You have oodles of women's soccer titles and women's lacrosse accounts for about 5 or so more. And I might add most of the soccer titles happened prior to the growth of soccer and so were won against a very limited field. In fact it is reminiscent of Old Dominion's women's hoops prior to Title IX getting so many larger schools involved. That's about it. I'm glad your research is doing well because that is North Carolina. It's a fine school but as to being an athletic juggernaut, you aren't. And money sports are what counts.

6 men's basketball titles, JR, six.

And how many of them are untainted?

(02-16-2018 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 08:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  Desperate? you're joking right?
From a University perspective, things are peachy. Research dollars are up (we are generally in the #7 -#12 range, around $ 1 Billion), applications for enrollment continue to set new records every year, and the incoming classes continue to become more and more selective.
Athletically we face the same challenges as everyone else. Budget is up to almost $97 million in 2016-17. There are over $100 million in athletic construction projects taking place as we speak, but fortunately we aren't spending anything on severance.
43 National championships, consistent top ten in the Director's cup.....desperate? And all of that is while playing with one hand tied behind our back for the last 7 years while having to fend off some bogus charges from the NCAA and doing it with a lot less money than some of our neighbors to the Southwest and Northwest.
Desperate JR?

Where it counts in sports X is in basketball for Carolina and you have 5 titles. You have oodles of women's soccer titles and women's lacrosse accounts for about 5 or so more. And I might add most of the soccer titles happened prior to the growth of soccer and so were won against a very limited field. In fact it is reminiscent of Old Dominion's women's hoops prior to Title IX getting so many larger schools involved. That's about it. I'm glad your research is doing well because that is North Carolina. It's a fine school but as to being an athletic juggernaut, you aren't. And money sports are what counts.

6 men's basketball titles, JR, six.

And how many of them are untainted?

Well the folks at Kansas still can't believe we beat them fair and square in '57 when they had Wilt Chamberlain. (Triple overtime).