NCAA Conference Realignment

[snoodmonger]

If KU DID go to the SEC with aTm, Duke, and UNC, I really like the potential division we'd be in.

 

 

NORTH DIVISION

KU

 

SOUTH DIVISION

Florida

Georgia

Tennessee

Kentucky

South Carolina

Vanderbilt

Alabama

LSU

Mississippi

Arkansas

Auburn

Mississippi State

UNC

Duke

aTm

[da bears]

And the other question is does the SEC want to lose its distinction of the best football conference? They lose a lot of credibility by adding 4 mediocre to worse schools to the conference.

 

this is true, but in the end they are gonna do whatever they can to keep up with the Jones'

 

our only real bottom feeder in football is Vandy and maybe Kentucky, and they aren't really a given to beat when you play them.

kentuckys really not too terrible anymore. i cant see mizzou being much worse than them if they were in the sec.

[OleMissCub]

ahah. ya, Kansas makes no sense for the SEC

[Butterscup1679666578]

If KU DID go to the SEC with aTm, Duke, and UNC, I really like the potential division we'd be in.

 

 

NORTH DIVISION

KU

 

SOUTH DIVISION

Florida

Georgia

Tennessee

Kentucky

South Carolina

Vanderbilt

Alabama

LSU

Mississippi

Arkansas

Auburn

Mississippi State

UNC

Duke

aTm

 

I don't know why I laughed at this but I did

[da bears]

snood, whats the talk about ku to the pac 10? apparently tigerboard has some chatter about larry scott stopping in kansas city.

[OleMissCub]

sec = confederate state or gtfo

[Guest]

duke and unc are basketball schools and basketball schools are not leaving the acc.

 

So they'd turn down millions of dollars and the chance to play in a better basketball conference because they are basketball schools?

 

the sec sucks at basketball

 

And so would the ACC without Duke and UNC. Adding Duke, UNC, aTm, and Mizzou/Kansas would make it a very good basketball conference. I mean, just for argument's sake, if they added KU then they have maybe 4 of the Top 5 programs historically, and all of them are very strong now. Not to mention good programs like Vandy and aTm, and the team that won back to back titles just a couple years ago.

[snoodmonger]

ahah. ya, Kansas makes no sense for the SEC

 

Culturally, it's not a real fit.

 

And I'm by no means trying to present the state of Kansas as on the progressive vanguard or anything. But it isn't a southern state in any way. Culturally, it's much more western/plains.

 

Missouri is a much better cultural fit. My time in StL convinces me of that. MO culture has a very southern sensibility imo.

[snoodmonger]

sec = confederate state or gtfo

 

that's not really a joke either, is it? I mean, people in the SEC take that pretty seriously, don't they? Or is that just me stereotyping?

[OleMissCub]

ahah. ya, Kansas makes no sense for the SEC

 

Culturally, it's not a real fit.

 

And I'm by no means trying to present the state of Kansas as on the progressive vanguard or anything. But it isn't a southern state in any way. Culturally, it's much more western/plains.

 

Missouri is a much better cultural fit. My time in StL convinces me of that. MO culture has a very southern sensibility imo.

 

you're right. I was only half joking about the former Confederate state thing. Missouri was a border state and is represented by a star on the rebel flag, hah. Same with Kentucky too

[OleMissCub]

sec = confederate state or gtfo

 

that's not really a joke either, is it? I mean, people in the SEC take that pretty seriously, don't they? Or is that just me stereotyping?

 

I don't think most people really care. I just find it amusing from a historical standpoint that the SEC states are exclusively former Confederate states. The only state not represented is Virginia.

[snoodmonger]

And the other question is does the SEC want to lose its distinction of the best football conference? They lose a lot of credibility by adding 4 mediocre to worse schools to the conference.

 

this is true, but in the end they are gonna do whatever they can to keep up with the Jones'

 

our only real bottom feeder in football is Vandy and maybe Kentucky, and they aren't really a given to beat when you play them.

kentuckys really not too terrible anymore. i cant see mizzou being much worse than them if they were in the sec.

 

Missouri would be better than a lot of current SEC schools at football, IMO.

 

So Carolina, Kentucky, Vandy, Auburn, Miss St, Arkansas, Ole Miss.

 

MU, right now, is at least as good as all those teams. Not necessarily historically. But currently.

[TruffleShuffle]

i think virginia tech would make more sense in the sec because they've got a strong football program. miami would be a good choice too.

[Exile on Waveland]

Just out of curiosity, how is everyone here assessing academic prestige?

 

Because I hear a lot about schools like KU not being a fit in the PAC 10 when they're rated above 5 of the existing schools per US News.

 

And I hear a lot about schools like MU being academically too good for the SEC, when 5 of the 12 schools currently in the SEC rank above Mizzou in the current US News rankings, with Tennessee and South Carolina coming in just after them.

 

Are we dismissing those rankings because they're a joke? If so, what's the basis for evaluating?

 

 

btw, here are the USNWR rankings by conference:

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2009/03/03/college-rankings-by-athletic-conference.html

 

I'm not really answering your question.

 

However, to say the Pac 10 is an academically strong conference isn't the entire story. It rivals South Africa for inequality from best/richest to worst/poorest. At the top, it's possibly to probably the strongest power conference academically. From top to bottom, it completely lacks depth. It has four outstanding universities (Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC), one very good (Washington), four decent/average (Arizona, Washington State, Oregon, Arizona State) and one poor (Oregon State).

 

I see absolutely no reason Kansas wouldn't fit academically, especially when the conference is considering Texas freakin' Tech (and Okie State for that matter).

 

What's so bad about Oregon State?

 

According to USNWR, they're a tier 3 institution.

 

Not sure where Exile is getting his breakdown but I've always gotten the impression ASU and WSU were just as poor as OSU. And similarly, I thought UW was up there with the 4 California schools. Again, just an impression from talking to people. No actual statistical backing for it.

 

The key to the Pac-10 is the quality of the research at the college (but you know they'll take a school if the money is there).

 

I really wanted to put Arizona State and Wazzou down with Oregon State, but I figured as soon as I did someone would point to the rankings and say I was a biased Big 10 fan. So I don't disagree there. On the other hand, Washington is really good, but I do think the four California schools have some separation.

[Andy]

Just chiming in that there's no way in hell that the Big Ten would split into divisions in basketball. The Big East did it and it was stupid and they un-did it. They'd keep the basketball as is.

[Exile on Waveland]

duke and unc are basketball schools and basketball schools are not leaving the acc.

 

So they'd turn down millions of dollars and the chance to play in a better basketball conference because they are basketball schools?

 

the sec sucks at basketball

 

And so would the ACC without Duke and UNC. Adding Duke, UNC, aTm, and Mizzou/Kansas would make it a very good basketball conference. I mean, just for argument's sake, if they added KU then they have maybe 4 of the Top 5 programs historically, and all of them are very strong now. Not to mention good programs like Vandy and aTm, and the team that won back to back titles just a couple years ago.

 

Huh?

[TruffleShuffle]

i've been really busy and not totally in touch with the situation, but i understand that aTm could be headed for the SEC. why wouldn't the SEC also go after texas? the longhorns would be a really good fit with the conference in terms of football and baseball.

[Guest]

Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, North Carolina, that's pretty much a Mt. Rushmore of college hoops programs.

[OleMissCub]

 

Missouri would be better than a lot of current SEC schools at football, IMO.

 

So Carolina, Kentucky, Vandy, Auburn, Miss St, Arkansas, Ole Miss.

 

MU, right now, is at least as good as all those teams. Not necessarily historically. But currently.

 

I think Mizzou could hang fine for the most part. I wouldn't consider them a bottom feeder at all.

[Exile on Waveland]

Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, North Carolina, that's pretty much a Mt. Rushmore of college hoops programs.

 

Oh, OK. I was confused -- I thought you meant the ACC adding just Kansas. If the SEC added Kansas, Duke, North Carolina then an argument could definitely be made they have four of the top five.

[Jon]

i've been really busy and not totally in touch with the situation, but i understand that aTm could be headed for the SEC. why wouldn't the SEC also go after texas? the longhorns would be a really good fit with the conference in terms of football and baseball.

Texas would want no part of the academic situation in the SEC.

[OleMissCub]

Is anyone actually even talking about Kansas to SEC? That just doesn't make sense imo

[TruffleShuffle]

i've been really busy and not totally in touch with the situation, but i understand that aTm could be headed for the SEC. why wouldn't the SEC also go after texas? the longhorns would be a really good fit with the conference in terms of football and baseball.

Texas would want no part of the academic situation in the SEC.

 

fair point.

 

but then why would duke (especially) and unc join the sec? those are good academic schools too.

[Guest]

i've been really busy and not totally in touch with the situation, but i understand that aTm could be headed for the SEC. why wouldn't the SEC also go after texas? the longhorns would be a really good fit with the conference in terms of football and baseball.

Texas would want no part of the academic situation in the SEC.

 

fair point.

 

but then why would duke (especially) and unc join the sec? those are good academic schools too.

 

Because Texas can go to whatever conference they want and get paid. UNC and Duke can't.

[OleMissCub]

why does it matter what football conference you are in as far as Academia is concerned? Would anyone actually go "well I don't want to go to Duke because they are in the same football conference as Arkansas." Is there some kind of financial incentive to being in a "smart" football conference that I'm missing? Why is this an issue