primitives discuss college football conference realignment

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=215x189771

Oh my.

Old and In the Way  (1000+ posts)        Tue Nov-01-11 06:36 PM
Original message
 
Why not a national realignment of college football by region?

Seems like a lot of poaching going on these days and teams joining conferences that don't really make sense. Why wouldn't the NCAA just divide the country into 8 equal regions and have the top teams in each region play a BCS type round robin? Maybe smaller schools (Div 2 and 3) would need more sub-regions as there are more schools in these categories, but the basic structure of the conferences would remain the same..

With 8 regions, it would take 3 rounds to figure a championship...wouldn't that make more sense? The intraregional rivalries would be better for all schools...less travel and costs for the teams. Seems like a pretty reasonable approach. What am I missing here?

Actually, the old primitive's not missing a damned thing.

This is ridiculous, the way conferences are becoming.

West Virginia in the Big 12?  Colorado in the Pacfic 12?

Nebraska in the Big 10 sort of makes sense, but it makes more sense for Nebraska to be with its fellow Great Plainsians, the old Big 8 (the Big 12 minus the teams from Texas).

Missouri in the Southeastern Conference sort of makes sense, but again, it makes more sense for Missouri to be among its peers in the old Big 8.

For once, franksolich has to agree with a primitive.

trotsky  (1000+ posts)        Tue Nov-01-11 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
 
1. Bowl games make lots of money.

Playoffs, not so much.

There is your answer.

[BlueStateSaint]

For once, franksolich has to agree with a primitive.

Blind squirrel moment.

[Rebel]

I don't want Mizzou in my beloved SEC. A&M is fine, being in the Southeastern part of Texas (East of I-45), but they need to do something about that no-cheerleaders deal. We believe in cheerleaders in the SEC.

[NHSparky]

These idiots probably think putting Boise State in the Big East is a good idea.

[franksolich]

I don't want Mizzou in my beloved SEC. A&M is fine, being in the Southeastern part of Texas (East of I-45), but they need to do something about that no-cheerleaders deal. We believe in cheerleaders in the SEC.

Well, it makes some sense, Missouri being a southern state, just as with Nebraska sort of being a midwestern state, but as far as I'm concerned, the old Big 8 was the ideal conference.

[Rebel]

Well, it makes some sense, Missouri being a southern state, just as with Nebraska sort of being a midwestern state, but as far as I'm concerned, the old Big 8 was the ideal conference.

Missouri isn't a southern state, Frank.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Mizzou in the Big 10 makes more sense than the SEC.  We have enough hillbillies at the games already.

[USA4ME]

Schools have the right to join whatever conference they want.  I don't want Big Brother, big gov't NCAA deciding for them.

.

[Rebel]

Schools have the right to join whatever conference they want.  I don't want Big Brother, big gov't NCAA deciding for them.

.

I would think the conference and their members have a say in the matter. Just saying.

[USA4ME]

I would think the conference and their members have a say in the matter. Just saying.

Exactly, not the NCAA as this primitive says it should.

.

[GOBUCKS]

Boise should stay in their Mickey Mouse conference, with their Mickey Mouse schedule, until they start playing on a green field like real teams.

It can be green grass, green turf, green dirt, or green asphalt, but real programs do not play on Mickey Mouse blue fields.

Boise is the only team I will not watch on TV. Their field makes them an abomination.

I even watch that despicable Texas Tech (loved watching Iowa State kick their asses Saturday).

[franksolich]

Mizzou in the Big 10 makes more sense than the SEC.

That too, given their affinity--their cultural and commercial connections--with Illinois.

And as I've oftentimes said, I wish Missouri had come with us into the Big 10; relations between Nebraska and Missouri have been contentious and nasty from the start, but on the other hand, there aren't many marriages that last 120 years, and after one's invested so much time and trouble into something, one should stick with it, with the hopes that eventually it'll pay off, reap rewards.

But Missouri's "enough" of a southern state to be an okay--not great, but okay--fit in the Southeastern Conference (better than Texas A & M in my opinion, sorry, Rebel, sir), a situation analogous with that of Nebraska in the Big 10.

But West Virginia in the Big 12, Colorado in the Pacific 12, and Boise State in the big east, no way.  

[Rebel]

Big-We Can't Count doesn't want Mizzou due to academics.

[Odin's Hand]

Texas A&M is about as Southern as you get. Hell, their official bar is named "The Dixie Chicken".

[USA4ME]

Texas A&M is about as Southern as you get. Hell, their official bar is named "The Dixie Chicken".

I agree, TAMU is a welcome addition to the SEC.  Mizzou is a little weird.  I would have prefered a Georgia Tech, Florida State, or a Clemson.  But, whatever happens is what happens.

.

[franksolich]

Texas A&M is about as Southern as you get. Hell, their official bar is named "The Dixie Chicken".

Well now, I've never been in Texas, never seen Texas A & M itself, so I don't know.

But what I do know is this: Texas A & M has come up here to play Nebraska many times in my life, and their fans never struck me as southern, but rather as boisterous and confident.....midwesterners from the spinal column of America.

[Rebel]

Well now, I've never been in Texas, never seen Texas A & M itself, so I don't know.

But what I do know is this: Texas A & M has come up here to play Nebraska many times in my life, and their fans never struck me as southern, but rather as boisterous and confident.....midwesterners from the spinal column of America.

I-45 divides Texas into Southeastern and Southwestern. ...at least that's what I've been told by numerous Texans. College Station is as SE as you can get in Texas, other than the University of Houston...which will never become an SEC member. Mizzou sided with the Yankees. F them. 

[Rebel]

I agree, TAMU is a welcome addition to the SEC.  Mizzou is a little weird.  I would have prefered a Georgia Tech, Florida State, or a Clemson.  But, whatever happens is what happens.

.

Florida State, fine. Clemson and the GT nerds? Hell to the naw. I'd rather have a North Carolina than any of'em. It's a flagship university in the South and gets us into the NC market.

[franksolich]

I-45 divides Texas into Southeastern and Southwestern. ...at least that's what I've been told by numerous Texans. College Station is as SE as you can get in Texas, other than the University of Houston...which will never become an SEC member. Mizzou sided with the Yankees. F them. 

Well, where I get confused on this Texas A & M thing is that I don't ever recall any Texas A & M fans coming up here in automobiles with any Confederate regalia--the Dixie flag--and so never formed even the vaguest notion they considered themselves southerners.

Texas A & M fans are certainly nothing like fans of Alabama and Clemson.  Not even close.

And if one's proud of their Dixie heritage, Nebraska's about the "safest" place to assert it, to show it off, to boast about it.  We weren't even around in those days, and here, the American War Between the States is about as remote and far away as the War of Roses 1460-1485.  We know it was an important event, but that's about it; there's no emotion attached to it.

So if any Texas A & M fans wished to show off their Dixieness, here was the place to do it.  But I never saw such a thing.  Again, they struck me as being very much like people from North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, not like people from the South.

As for Missouri, I'm confused by an earlier comment of yours, sir, where you said the Big 10 didn't want Missouri because of "academics," which I take to mean Missouri is, uh, somewhat deficient in that department.  

That's not the impression we ever got here; the impression Missourians always gave us was their academic and intellectual eliteness, their superiority to us.  I never looked into it, but just based on that, I always figured Missouri was a top-notch academic institution.

As for the War Between the States, while Missouri was "officially" part of the north, its sentiments were wholly southern, and I guess more Missourians served in the Confederate forces than in the northern forces.

[thundley4]

OT a bit, but I saw two Nebraska plates today while out and about, both were on 4WD pickups . It's rare to see one Nebraska plate but two in one day is odd.

[franksolich]

OT a bit, but I saw two Nebraska plates today while out and about, both were on 4WD pickups. It's rare to see one Nebraska plate but two in one day is odd.

That doesn't surprise me, what they were.

This relates back to the thread in the automotive forum--which might, or might not, be headed to the "Fight Club"--about whether it's safer to driving a high-riding, or a low-riding, vehicle.

I think on the matter most of my fellow Nebraskans are abysmally impractical in their liking for high-riding vehicles.

Conditions vary from state to state, from conditions to conditions (such as having to deal with other traffic, or having to deal with no traffic at all), but specifically for Nebraska, it makes no sense.

[Rebel]

Well, where I get confused on this Texas A & M thing is that I don't ever recall any Texas A & M fans coming up here in automobiles with any Confederate regalia--the Dixie flag--and so never formed even the vaguest notion they considered themselves southerners.

Texas A & M fans are certainly nothing like fans of Alabama and Clemson.  Not even close.

And if one's proud of their Dixie heritage, Nebraska's about the "safest" place to assert it, to show it off, to boast about it.  We weren't even around in those days, and here, the American War Between the States is about as remote and far away as the War of Roses 1460-1485.  We know it was an important event, but that's about it; there's no emotion attached to it.

So if any Texas A & M fans wished to show off their Dixieness, here was the place to do it.  But I never saw such a thing.  Again, they struck me as being very much like people from North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, not like people from the South.

As for Missouri, I'm confused by an earlier comment of yours, sir, where you said the Big 10 didn't want Missouri because of "academics," which I take to mean Missouri is, uh, somewhat deficient in that department.  

That's not the impression we ever got here; the impression Missourians always gave us was their academic and intellectual eliteness, their superiority to us.  I never looked into it, but just based on that, I always figured Missouri was a top-notch academic institution.

As for the War Between the States, while Missouri was "officially" part of the north, its sentiments were wholly southern, and I guess more Missourians served in the Confederate forces than in the northern forces.

you do realize Texas was part of the confederacy, right?

[franksolich]

you do realize Texas was part of the confederacy, right?

Yes, of course.

But that still doesn't make them "southerners" in character; I still consider them more as "midwesterners."

Lyndon Johnson for example was hardly a southern Senator in the same sense as the courtly gentlemen from the South, Richard Russell, Strom Thurmond, Ernest Hollings, Harry Byrd, John Stennis, John Sparkman, James Eastland, John McClellan, John Bankhead, even the goofy Estes Kefauver; even the opportunist J. William Fulbright had those Southern manners and styles in him.

Those gentlemen had a certain grace and elegance about themselves that Johnson didn't, and Johnson was typical of the people and state he represented.

It goes back, again, to our conflicting but amicable disagreement about whether or not Missouri is a southern state.

[Rebel]

Yes, of course.

But that still doesn't make them "southerners" in character; I still consider them more as "midwesterners."

Lyndon Johnson for example was hardly a southern Senator in the same sense as the courtly gentlemen from the South, Richard Russell, Strom Thurmond, Ernest Hollings, Harry Byrd, John Stennis, John Sparkman, James Eastland, John McClellan, John Bankhead, even the goofy Estes Kefauver; even the opportunist J. William Fulbright had those Southern manners and styles in him.

Those gentlemen had a certain grace and elegance about themselves that Johnson didn't, and Johnson was typical of the people and state he represented.

It goes back, again, to our conflicting but amicable disagreement about whether or not Missouri is a southern state.

LBJ was from the middle of Texas. Austin also isn't considered "southeastern". Houston, College Station, etc., even Dallas I consider southeastern. Pull up Google Earth with the roads view on and look at I-45. Everything to the east is what I've been told by many Texans to be Southeastern, one who's a diehard A&M fan who begged for entry into the SEC. San Antonio, Ft. Worth, Austin, El Paso, etc., are all Southwestern. A lot of it probably has to do with landscape as well. Dallas does not look like El Paso or San Antonio.

[franksolich]

LBJ was from the middle of Texas. Austin also isn't considered "southeastern". Houston, College Station, etc., even Dallas I consider southeastern. Pull up Google Earth with the roads view on and look at I-45. Everything to the east is what I've been told by many Texans to be Southeastern, one who's a diehard A&M fan who begged for entry into the SEC. San Antonio, Ft. Worth, Austin, El Paso, etc., are all Southwestern. A lot of it probably has to do with landscape as well. Dallas does not look like El Paso or San Antonio.

I'm however not disputing that Texas has certain elements of the South in it; it's my understanding that what's called "East Texas" is very much like the South (our idea of "East Texas" however seems at variance), almost indistinguishable from Mississippi or Alabama.  And "East Texas"--both your boundaries and mine, different as they seem--is a pretty big chunk of Texas.

And then out west, like beginning with San Angelo, it's utterly Southwestern.

Texas, like Missouri, is a pretty hybrid sort of state.

But generally, basically, essentially, it usually makes sense to associate Texas with that broad swath of land cutting through the heart of America, north to south (what I call the "backbone" or "spinal column" of America)--in the terrain, in the "style" and "manners" of the people, although admittedly Texans do seem to be more loud and bragging than their fellows directly north of them......and they certainly don't have the courtly manners and grace and elegance of their neighbors to the east of them; not a bit of that.

Texas A & M's location was news to me when you mentioned it the other day; I knew "College Station," but assumed it was a suburb of Dallas or something (as everything seems to be, excepting for Houston and El Paso).  I had no idea it was in "East Texas," and as mentioned, whenever fans of Texas A & M have been up here playing football, they've never displayed manners or hints about a Southern heritage; they've in fact looked and acted very much like their brothers straight north of them, clear on up to Manitoba, although again, somewhat, uh, louder and more brash.

I wish Thor were here to give his expert insight about what Texas is "more of" (since it's not wholly one thing or another thing).